It's a bad and pointless idea, but the top replies to that Tweet are also stupid and unhinged.
Chemists and biologists stop lines of research at times when they present unreasonable risks. Why should this be any different?
Why is caution about building a demonstrably dangerous technology vile?
The "superintelligence will kill us all" shtick is definitely ridiculous, but it's not the only angle worth considering. From a zoomed-out perspective, there are lots of pragmatic reasons to diversify the economy away from AI development.
Totally agreed--but that's not what she's saying though (?)
I probably would have voted for her if I was in her district (and still would), but she's saying some dumb shit TBH. She's saying we should somehow legally force certain companies in a specific industry to cease R&D and that we should ban something amorphous that hasn't been developed/invented yet.
Her tweet is some Trump supporter style thinking. It's silly.
I would love to see the Dems take this mandate and do something productive with it, not be caricatures in their own right.
It's not silly, it's business as usual. Notice how quickly the "top of the Democratic agenda" switched away from the bait of legitimate issues... "on day 1", no less. Of course, bailing out the AI bros is what this is really about.
> that we should ban something amorphous that hasn't been developed/invented yet.
Amorphous legislation is the covert way to unchecked power, all practitioners have mastered it to perfection after the Patriot Act.
This is one random Congresswoman's tweet, it's not the official Democratic agenda for the next Congress. Fuck off.