Sure, you can have technology that an be used in detrimental ways. Doesnt be we have to accept and allow its use in detrimental ways. We can say "this technology can be used for these reasons, but not those reasons"

We do this with everything else. You can own a gun for hunting and defense, but not armed robbery and murder. You can own a car for transport, but not to drive through a crowded parade over dozens of people. You can own a computer for work and entertainment, but not to facilitate computer fraud and abuse. And you should be able to own and use AI for its many productivity gains, but not to facilitate computer fraud and abuse, defamation, blackmail, copywrite and trademark infringment, etc.

Just because a technology has benefits, doesnt mean we have to give the negative aspects of that technology a free pass.

Are you assuming everyone will agree with you on your list of "things that are worth it"? Especially when you get to atomic bombs?

But hell, add some more on. Let's try to paint the obviously bad things!

Would you rather have TVs that spy on you, or go to Blockbuster?

Would you rather have identity theft and people losing their life savings to online scams, or go to the DMV somewhat more frequently to renew your drivers license and the bank more frequently to approve new payment relationships with online services?

Would you rather have mass government surveillance and AI-assisted identification of "dangerous" people, or do your own google searches and sketch your own images?

We can say no to things. We've said no, as a society, to many things in the past century. Don't be fooled by wealthy people who want you to forget that because they want to make even MORE money.

You gotta do better than compare an apple and orange to "steelman".

The risk of free speech and data centers are not comparable.

Aviation too is far more damaging to our environment than ships.

More ships and trains, less aviation is a possible trade off. A simple aviation or sailing argument lacks investigation of all possible tradeoffs for familiarity and personal preference; flying is faster.

Altman needs to accept the trade off we don't need OpenAI. That exists due to financial engineering not technical reasons. All AI work be done actually openly at america.gov

You say steel. I dunno. If it is it is inferior brittle steel.

  > Wooden sailing ships or commercial aviation?

It should be noted that aviation is in fact an industry that started off as quickly as AI, but the regulating bodies decided very early in the industry's history that safety is paramount to technological progress. That is why airliner crashes are big news: they are rare events. Progress was deliberately stalled until the technology could be made safe - and today flight is safer than even transport with wheels on the ground or a hull in the ocean.

I think that aviation is the perfect model for how to reign in a dangerous desired technological development.

That is not steelman. That is obvious bullshit.

> To steelman this position

For the love of god, stop with this shit. Either support it or don't, this isn't the medieval catholic church and you don't need some special fucking blessing to make an argument.