Oh, absolutely, although you'd have to consider what happens to the tech and the people who developed it: it may be better to have the out-of-control genie at least nominally under your control than not.
I'd find a company being able to do many of those things to be kinda scary/bad. If the technology can actually stand on its own and pass rigorous independent testing, law and opinion will follow.
The only reason you need to influence these things artificially, is if something isn't all there under the hood.
Sure, you can regulate and probably should. It’s important that genuine technology is brought to market.
But I posit that it doesn’t really matter. Technology will ultimately prevail. I’m not sure I would call it a dystopia but rather the next step in the evolution of life.
I think it's always a mistake to hope that a business is going to not exploit innovation for their own gain at the expense of society. If we don't want this technology to have huge effects on society, governments will need to regulate it. I doubt that's feasible, but it's more feasible than hoping that Silicon Valley (or any other business) is going to just hold themselves back from releasing world-shaking tech that will make them trillionaires.
Agreed, I'm not saying we can currently assume they are responsible, but in some hypothetical future where reforms have been made and they can be trusted, I think it would be fine to use. I don't think we should use current bad actors to decide that a technology is completely off limits in the future.
As long as it's voluntary, it's fine. We should keep educating people about the risks as long as we don't curtail what people can do with the technology voluntarily.
Though take the examples - nuclear weapons or biotech - as you say both have huge potential for harm.
However both are regulated and relatively inaccessible to the average person.
While training models like ChatGPT is still relatively inaccessible for the average person, using them is potentially not.
One of the features of software is the almost zero cost of copying - making proliferation much more of an issue than for nukes or custom made viruses tech [1]
ChatGPT is over-hyped of course, but I think the genie and bottle issue is more real here than for military tech or biotech.
Having said all that I do think the solution is largely around applying existing laws to these new tools.
[1] Ok if they escape, then can self replicate....
You can develop whatever you want, just don't subject people to arbitrary binding decisions without appeal. The default attitude is one of skepticism, skepticism towards technology that could potentially affect human lives in very nasty ways. If you want your technology adopted instead of banned, it might be a good idea to listen to the people who will ultimately have to deal with the consequences of such technology. Otherwise, why should society adopt a technology that they cannot understand, that possibly no one understands or can explain or will explain? How can society trust you as the creator of such technology when it's a black box?
I think you're right, but just to play Devil's advocate: Isn't it sometimes more practically and politically feasible to kill off the technology that enables the thing rather than to regulate the thing?
This tech is risky. It could be dangerous, if used without any control.
It should be keep in English culture. And its close friend allies.
In my opinion, in our society, full of threats, it is not a good idea to make it open-source. (Not an expert on the topic).
That could allow adversaries parties, to obtain it. Parties that otherwise, would be unable to do so, by themselves.
In my opinion, it should be keep under control of the most able, and responsible organizations. Supervised by government. Because who else could supervise it?. Regulation of this tech, is a very important topic. That should be tackled by the best organizations, university and responsible researchers.
I would prefer a Star-Wars type of society. Where humans still do human activities.
I for one, do not want to see this technology locked behind a chosen few corporations, whom have already long since lost my trust and respect.
I can almost 100% guarantee, with regulation, you'll see all the same loss of jobs and whatnot, but only the chosen few who are licensed will hold the technology. I'm old enough to have seen the interplay of corporations, the government, and regulatory capture, and see what that's done to the pocketbook of the middle class.
There's no putting this genie back in the bottle. No way no how, don't even try.
Concentration of power is the real issue here. This tech can either work for all of us, or just the above-the-law class.
Making such tech illegal, as you seem to be sort-of advocating for, would just lead to more concentration of power.
So from my perspective, the people working on this openly are doing an incredible service by making it more equally available and equitable.
Finally, think of the real potential of this tech - it isn't just a bomb. It can be a teacher's aide on a global scale; a great leveler; an explosion in creative capability something like the Cambrian Explosion.
reply