undefined | Better HN

0 pointsprox3y ago0 comments

It’s simply that it’s a kids/teen level argument. “But they did it too!”

Not a lot of thought went into it, is what it usually tells me.

0 comments

The argument wasn't "Doing something bad is fine because others are", it's "You're trying to stop a bad thing happening by stopping some people upstream from doing something that's perfectly fine. That's going to be ineffective."

But you're right about me not putting a lot of thought. I didn't think this would need more arguing than that.

I still believe that tech is fundamentally neutral, and as such so is its development. Even if a developer intends to give it bad use, the use and development are separate questions.

lovemenot3y ago

There are others - not you - who will justify their own actions thusly: the technology existed, its better that the good guys (me - of course) should use it before the bad guys do.

In the space between both equivocations (yours and the other guy's), lies the potential for moral abuse.

JohnFen3y ago

That's an even more faulty argument, though, because almost everyone considers themselves one of "the good guys".

proxOP3y ago

Indeed, I think terming yourself in good vs bad as an we vs them terminology makes several biases go undiscovered that if you truly go for objectivity despite your sense of moral leaning is telling you.

jacooper3y ago

What even is a good guy use for Deep fakes besides some memes that get old fast?

Buffout3y ago

This "kid level" argument fooled even Albert Einstein, Roosevelt, and many others. into developing atomic bomb. "If we don't build it Nazis will"

Using it was achieved by different kid level argument "It will prevent even more death and suffering"

proxOP3y ago

The difference is that a lot more thought went into it. Not only that, the presidents domain of expertise and distinction/authority is about these issues. You way down your options, you navigate a complex issue with many factors involved. To prevent more death and suffering was indeed what was one of the most contributing factors of Roosevelts decisions (also to use it, as a direct assault on Japan would have cost a factor more in lives and suffering for both Japan the US)

The difference is of course a well thought out weighing of options, to feel into the issue and make your choice. Taking my immediate surroundings, a lot of people don’t engage in that level of philosophy. Knee jerk reactions are still very common in our species.

JohnFen3y ago

Absolutely correct. But that fact doesn't make these arguments acceptable.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jolmg3y ago

But you're right about me not putting a lot of thought. I didn't think this would need more arguing than that.

I still believe that tech is fundamentally neutral, and as such so is its development. Even if a developer intends to give it bad use, the use and development are separate questions.

lovemenot3y ago

There are others - not you - who will justify their own actions thusly: the technology existed, its better that the good guys (me - of course) should use it before the bad guys do.

In the space between both equivocations (yours and the other guy's), lies the potential for moral abuse.

JohnFen3y ago

That's an even more faulty argument, though, because almost everyone considers themselves one of "the good guys".

proxOP3y ago

jacooper3y ago

What even is a good guy use for Deep fakes besides some memes that get old fast?

Buffout3y ago

This "kid level" argument fooled even Albert Einstein, Roosevelt, and many others. into developing atomic bomb. "If we don't build it Nazis will"

Using it was achieved by different kid level argument "It will prevent even more death and suffering"

proxOP3y ago

JohnFen3y ago

Absolutely correct. But that fact doesn't make these arguments acceptable.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse