I do... but there are good reasons to not want to. If you read the linked spec you can learn for yourself
https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-m...
64 karma · joined October 26, 2016
https://httpwg.org/http-extensions/draft-ietf-httpbis-safe-m...
You can visit sites that aren't blacklisted on the company's network which makes it easier to social engineer you. You have less control over what stupid things your employees can do.
You're right, this wouldn't be any more dangerous than being on a coffee shop's wifi but you already don't care about network security if that's how you're working.
And then there's the problem with allowing unrestricted, unmonitored Internet access with regards to auditing and establishing a timeline of events if you ever need to do so.
"Other countries have made AI a major national project. The United States has not yet, as a nation, systematically explored its full scope, studied its implications, or begun the process of ultimate learning. This should be given a high national priority, above all, from the point of view of relating AI to humanistic traditions."
Which seems to me a disappointing end to the article. An appeal for a national effort to manage AI.
"Other countries have major AI projects" but what exactly should the US model itself after?
"The United States has not yet systematically explored it's scope" but US publishes the second most research papers on AI (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/data-bites/which-countr...) which I think in general is a bad metric but if you're looking at the output that a system produces, it's the best metric you're going to get.
Looking at the private sector, the AI makeup of the leading AI/Robotics ETF $BOTZ (https://www.globalxfunds.com/funds/botz/) is comprised of mostly American companies. Similarly, look at the sheer number of ML/AI startups in SV.
So I fail to see where the crisis is. If American universities are among the leaders in AI research and American companies are among the leaders in the AI economy, why is there such a tone of urgency in this article? Kissinger's argument leads me to believe that he's advocating for a blanket "AI" initiative but he doesn't have a clear idea of what he wants this initiative to do. Without a clear direction for how he wants the US to be "relating AI to humanistic traditions", whatever he's proposing here is just the marriage of shallow musings about the consequences of AI and some kind of blind belief in federal government initiative.
Also I don't think it's hard to see how this thought would come about (not saying I'm advocating it). But there are plenty of ideas that would help society in general (lower college tuition) that many Americans are against whether rationally or irrationally.
If you fail to see how the American public would have a negative reaction to some kind of redistribution of wealth I think you should think about the average American's reaction to the idea of a socialist politician.