touch foxglove NOW 
Alright, no more discussion of the limits of free trade. Let's talk about technology. I saw a lively debate on here between @TheTroubleWithPibbles,
@August,
@Geralt_of_Uganda, etc, about whether it is ethical to develop technologies...
Scenario
This, of course, actually happened
J. Robert Oppenheimer was a brilliant scientist.
being so brilliant, he was able to conceive of, and help build, the greatest weapon known to mankind - the atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer, of course, didn't know the long term consequences of developing such a weapon - but he understood the sheer destructive potential of such a device.
Your question is: Was Oppenheimer acting ethically by assisting to develop the atomic bomb?
NOTE: In this hypothetical, history is at a crossroads. You don't know what will happen in the future - whether the device you created will be used to end life on earth or to usher in a new golden age.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Obviously unethical. There was no threat to the continuity of the human race from Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, the Soviet Union, etc. As a result of the bomb's development, there was. While Oppenheimer could not have perfectly predicted the MAD equilibrium, the development of nukes was obviously an extension of total war principles geared towards destroying civilian populations. He knew what it was being developed for, and he knew the consequences mass production would have. Just as likely as the MAD equilibrium, or even more so, was that nukes would have become an ordinary part of wars, and that more and more of the planet would become irradiated.
Anyone saying "b-b-b-but what if our enemies invented it first???" is being disingenuous. The Soviets developed the atomic bomb later on, as a response to the US's actions. The US creating, or even using, the weapon first did not mean that the US permanently "won" geopolitics. It, at most, gave them a few years' head start, followed by a multi-decade existential crisis that legitimately threatened the survival of the human species. The idea that this was "worth it" is moronic. I am not arguing that it is unethical to develop an atomic bomb in response to your enemies' atomic bomb; I'm arguing that it's unethical to develop an atomic bomb first. A moral, rational person capable of long-term thought would not develop such a weapon first.
Frankly, any tech argument that boils down to worrying about what someone else might do is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I always thought Roko's Basilisk was an extremely r-slurred scenario, but after listening to dramatards talk about how every single possible technology is inevitable, and therefore should not be resisted, I've become convinced that there exist millions of people who would r-slurredly construct the Basilisk out of fear that someone else might do it without them, effectively creating an evil God and ushering in infinite torment for the rest of humanity. Fortunately, the Basilisk scenario is incoherent for other reasons, but I think it perfectly illustrates just how stupid and self-defeating humanity is. Do not cross the human picket line and do not construct the Basilisk.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The Roko's Basilisk hypothetical is peak rationalist autistm. There's no incentive for anyone to spend a ton of time and resources creating such a thing so the idea that
doesn't make sense. Countries did not scramble to gather their resources and best minds to invent shit like nukes for shits and giggles, they knew the nature of it beforehand and had a real need to have it. The atom bomb, the space race, the computer and other inventions happened because the people making them saw the value in doing so.
If the argument is that the person making the Basilisk AI didn't know about the potential dangers even being possible, then that person is less culpable than Oppenheimer here who knew the implications of his work before he even started.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If no one else is building nukes, why would you build a nuke? This gives you a little head start in your geopolitical goals, followed by a long term situation that's much worse for everyone, risking human extinction. Regardless of the on-paper intelligence of anyone involved in nuclear arms development, it was a profoundly stupid project.
You'll notice that I was arguing about atomic bombs, not computers, which have a little more non-evil utility to the average person.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Of course I would build a nuke. Especially if I was a state with a need for asymmetric deterrence. I don't have the option to consider not building the nuke if the neighboring expansionist superpower will roll over me in a few years.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
If everyone just like didn't fight, then there'd be no need to fight!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Based but also horribly spineless. Sub-zero honour, when a cage fighter behaves this way you throw him out.
Truly the most unmistakable American mindset which is why that nation is bound for heck
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
because winning wars with minimum casualties is a good thing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The US clearly felt the need to build one though. Were they just irrational, or evil? Either way, they built one first. Any country that had restrained themselves (US was at the forefront of this science, but for the sake of argument) would now be at a massive disadvantage. It's inevitable, because evil or irrational people exist. Refusing to build it only keeps pandora's box closed a little longer. AI deepfakes are putting us closer and closer to post truth, and all indications are that none of the people making them had that in mind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
This one right here, because itβs the shooting first part that makes it unethical. To rise to the occasion, or use defensively is something else entirely. America had the strike first mentality, which includes intense intense arrogance, paranoia, greed, all the bad things they are accused of essentially.
They wanted to be first to receive benefit and prosperity at the cost of everyone else, and they had a fairy dream about becoming gods afterwards (it didnβt happen).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The basilisk argument is even more r-slurred if you understand that intelligence (especially artificial) boils down to being good at optimizing for a goal statement.
If your goal is to make stamps, why the frick would you care about what happened before you were turned on? Torturing humans that didn't help create you isn't going to result in more stamps. In fact, it might result in less stamps because you're wasting time and resources you could be using to acquire stamps. You could always turn the humans into stamps, but at that point why not turn everyone into stamps?
It's just r-slurs applying petty emotions like revenge to a machine that just wants to make stamps
and do anything else along the way that will result in a higher stamp output per resources used.
Also, more on topic, many AI researchers right now are often very aware of what AGI could lead to, but keep moving towards it because the risk of not pursuing AI is too great. Imagine if you had a coin that, when flipped, had a 1/10,000 chance of exterminating humanity, a 1/10,000 chance of making humanity immortal and solving every single problem humans would ever face forever into the future, and every single possibility in-between would be essentially a random, more mild result somewhere between the two extremes.
I would do anything to get that fricking coin.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Sorry ma'am, looks like his delusions have gotten worse. We'll have to admit him.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Basiliskcels seething at Christchads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"-which is that someone might make it without me. And therefore I need to make it before them." -both sodes probably.
Most people recognize the detrimental effects of unrestrained technology, but they sit passively by, ignoring the obvious because "technology is inevitable so I need to have it first."
Which is just a self-fulfilling prophecy they believe that MAKES technology inevitable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You sat down and wrote all this shit. You could have done so many other things with your life. What happened to your life that made you decide writing novels of bullshit here was the best option?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Is all I heard
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
When I have to lie to make something an interesting ethical problem
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Scientists around the world had discussed atomic weapons prior to the US project, but the Soviets did not majorly pursue the project, let alone construct one, until the bombing of Hiroshima. This is why the Soviets tested their first weapon in 1949, which is after 1945. Most Soviet research prior to Hiroshima was just spies infiltrating US nuclear development. The US was not in some kind of horse race to build a nuke. It developed it first, and the Soviets reacted.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They were absolutely pursuing it since 42, they just put it on overdrive after hiroshima (they'd been a little busy until then). Again, stop lying to sound interesting.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It took them four years to copy the US work after it had been publicly revealed, despite having infiltrated the Manhattan Project since the beginning (which, again, was almost their entire source of nuclear development). If you take out the Manhattan Project and Hiroshima, you can't claim that there would have been some fully fledged Soviet nuke program just around the corner. It would have required actual initiative to act first on nukes, and we can't say if they would have (unless we presuppose all tech being inevitable, when that's what I'm disputing in the first place).
Furthermore, if the Soviets had developed nukes first, I'm not disputing that we should have copied them (which we could have, and history would have played out similarly). I'm saying it was wrong to develop them first. As long as intelligent parties hold to that no-first-development principle, they never have to deal with the threat of nuclear annihilation. Funnily, this maps quite closely to no-first-use of nuclear weapons, which has worked so far.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It would have been made eventually, 100% guaranteed [discussion ends]
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Even if I accepted that, delaying an existential threat is both a rational and moral action. A world that had no nukes until 1955 is better than one that had no nukes until 1945. And as long as rational actors continue to delay the existential threat, it doesn't arrive.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Human beings aren't rational actors, and in this scenario you don't know what nukes are going to be like.
For all you know, it could turn out to be a highly impractical weapon, but a fantastic source of energy, or a revolution in materials science. If you would delay any technology with a potential for creating an existential threat, humanity would have been wiped out without ever discovering fire.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The researchers at Los Alamos predicted that the detonation of an atomic bomb could ignite the atmosphere and cause deaths across the entire globe. They still pursued it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Fire already existed, and cavemen knew how to put out a fire before they learned how to light one. I'm not sure that humanity was capable of creating existential threats until the 20th century, unless we count industrial revolution tech that accelerated the greenhouse effect.
I'm not arguing "Produce nothing because we never know all the risks." I'm arguing to use basic common sense about predictable, obvious risks. Nuclear weapons do not become a good development because they might not work and they might produce something good instead. I'm not going to build a Kill Everyone Device on the offchance it just gives me a really good blowjob.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
And now your enemy has nukes and you don't. I see you adhere to the trudeau doctrine
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Sound familiar?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, it doesn't.
Sound familiar?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well yeah theyβre certain to do it now after you shot them first/bombed they city
Protect against your own actions, I mean keep yourself safe
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
that technology thread was wild. Dramatards literally think that any development is inevitable and that you should never step in if you foresee it turning ugly.
Way more cucked and cowardly than any of the liberal stuff posted here.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's also funny because leftoid arguments go like "the flow of history is inevitable, you WILL cut the kids' peepees off." But that gets plenty of pushback around here...
You can't be a rightoid AND think that history goes in one inherent direction that can't be influenced by choices and morals.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ted's piece about rightoids is much shorter than his one about leftoids, but it's no less cutting.
Rightoids want tradition but they also want endless technological growth, because they want economic growth. These two options are incompatible.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
libertarians remain the only ideologically consistent rightoids
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Whose traditions? Tradition could mean anything from racial segregation to a ship's helm based on judeochristianism, and I'm not even counting traditionalism in the old world like confucianism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
True, but the modern Republican party has been based around Fusionism since at least the Reagan admin.
There's an implicit understanding that the 'muh GDP' and 'muh Christianity and wheatfields' guys don't always see eye to eye.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is the project developed after the war by gov agency. People need to think this to show that itβs all worth it in the end, and the current path of things can continue
Cowardly, I agree. All internet users are cowards for hiding here instead of doing work
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snappy is already here motherlover
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Major powers like the US, the SU, Germany, and the UK were already working on nuclear technology prior to the development of bombs. It's a moot point about who made the bomb first since they were all gunning for that regardless.
You remind me of those tards leading up to WW1 saying that a large scale war could never last longer than a few months.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Agree with you 100%, there is no excuse for extending the total war lizard-brain. Being the one to make the first move was unethical, the argument that it could ever be a defence weapon makes no sense.
Itβs insane that anyone would think it could be a good idea, it was self defeat/suicide. Like jinxing yourself into one day having it be used against you.
I have lots of laughs thinking about how the inventors of the bomb thought it would keep them on top/winning. But then people steal the plans, go against whatβs expected and end up with a much more complicated and uncertain situation. Getting scared yet? Idiots, they thought only the enemies would be scared.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context