The precautionary principle is already too conservative. You don't need to level up to a *speculative* precautionary principle.
Conversation
Replying to
We’re not yet ready for Asimov’s Laws, but should be thinking ahead.
2
Replying to
. You don't see bridge builders demanding separate huge government funding for bridge-collapse risk studies. It's part of building
Replying to
Well. There sure is a lot of government funding around other aspects of infrastructure design, like traffic fatalities, ...
2
Replying to
Yes, and all that stuff was put in AFTER there was functioning road/bridge infrastructure
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
We have more than 3,000(?) years of bridge building experience. Agency and liability balanced risk for RR, utilities, other tech.
1
Replying to
Yeah, and we'll get the experience of managing AI risk by building AIs. It's not time, it's experience.
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
there needs to be more conversations about this with other domain experts. Ex: drugs, what do legal experts have to say?
Replying to
I participated in one of those actually, sort of. An Auditor General report into gov management of road bridges
1
Replying to
we kind of concluded though, there was nothing worth worrying about in the first place...
1
Replying to
nuclear energy is a better example, demonstrating that maybe some oversight and forethought is not such a bad thing...




