4 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2023
    1. i think the most dangerous thing about ai is not 00:47:11 super smart ai it's uh stupid ai it's artificial intelligence that is good enough to be put in charge of certain processes in our societies but not good enough to not make really 00:47:25 bad mistakes
      • for: quote - Thomas Homer-Dixon, quote - danger of AI, AI progress trap

      • quote: danger of AI

        • I think the most dangerous thing about AI is not super smart AI, it's stupid AI that is good enough to be put in charge of certain processes but not good enough to not make really bad mistakes
      • author: Thomas Homer-Dixon
      • date: 2021
  2. Jul 2023
  3. Sep 2018
    1. However, courts might go further and address the concern that, even where government regulation of cognitive enhancement drugs is rooted in legitimate safety concerns, this should not—by itself—give the government authority to restrict individuals’ mental freedom or “cognitive liberty” far more than is necessary to address those safety concerns. Perhaps, for example, government has imposed a complete ban where something less restrictive will satisfy the safety concerns it is worried about. For example, the state might instead institute a “gatekeeper” system in which a doctor must assess and discuss risks for a particular individual before drugs are prescribed or require a mandatory course on side effects before use of cognitive enhancement drugs.

      I believe that this solution to the paragraph directly above it, directly contradicts itself. If the Government bans the use of a drug not because it can make someone happier/better, but because it can have potentially negative or harmful side affects, then this solution is impossible. If the government deems some as potentially harmful then in more cases than not it most probably is. In this way no government could rationally come to this solution rather than the one above it. It would be obscure for a Government to allow a person who is educated about the dangers of a product to choose to use it. In the Government's and the medical professional's eyes this person would not be in their 'right mind'.. How then, could they ever allow someone who they do not deem 'in their right mind' to use a potentially hazardous drug?

  4. Sep 2013
    1. I mean to say, does he really know anything of what is good and evil, base or honourable, just or unjust in them; or has he only a way with the ignorant of persuading them that he not knowing is to be esteemed to know more about these things than some one else who knows?

      Dangers of persuasive rhetoric