undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbrookst3y ago0 comments

Straw man. Nobody would say that.

Is the jury still out on whether software does more good than harm?

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

oblio3y ago· 2 in thread

Some categories, for sure.

We have no idea about the impact of AI.

It's almost like the EU is regulating stuff that's really scary.

brookstOP3y ago

Absolutely. The EU's regulatory posture is to prohibit things that could cause harm in the future. It's very consumer-first, risk-avoidant, and a fair way to do things.

For someone who's more willing to accept risk and who prefers regulating bad outcomes rather than just scary things that could possibly have bad outcomes but which nobody can predict, it looks over-protective. But I fully support the EU's right to take a wait-and-see approach and gradually accept AI if it goes well for the rest of the world.

Europe hasn't been at the forefront of any tech or cultural change for centuries, and seems to be getting along just fine.

oblio3y ago

> Europe hasn't been at the forefront of any tech or cultural change for centuries, and seems to be getting along just fine.

"Centuries" is mega hyperbole when you look at physics, chemistry, etc, etc up until at least 1930.

chii3y ago

it depends on what people attribute as harm.

I think the only harm an AI can do is the kind that come from errors (human or otherwise). Such as the boeing 737 Max, where people misuse software.

The type of 'harm' that some people attribute to AI such as loss of economic utility, to me, is not harm. And legislating that away is dangerous.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse