How do you "backpedal" scientific research? Do you retract your publications, confuse the public and pay off the contributing researchers to keep silent?https://twitter.com/j2blather/status/1125434175924912128 …
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
backpedal on the PLAN or the RATE of release, not the actual releases that are already out the gate
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MorlockP
So how does that work? You do research on anthrax, and to see if the public is ready for that you first release parts of the research until you can see the first little outbreaks and decide that you should slow down the rate of publications?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
maybe yes? if you have a design for a big bomb, and you release some plans for a plant that makes precursor chemical X, and people misuse that, then that's (a) a good sign to stop (b) not as bad as releasing the whole thing
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP
The nature of existential risk is that it exposes us to harm from which we cannot recover. I find that most people are so uncomfortable to consider the implications that they treat existential risks like normal risks that may just kill a few thousand people.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
Yep. I'm not arguing in defense of their position; I'm merely trying to devil's advocate it and see how it might be construed to be correct (steelmanning it). Perhaps early papers are tests that do not poses existential risks, but can act as canaries ?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The idea here seems to be that the risk is not the research result itself, but the irresponsible public, and you contain the risk by regularly testing the public's responsibility? There might be a flaw in this approach...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.