those wars would be pretty pointless as well, because every single individual on earth has immediate access to the best and most intelligent fighting techniques, but also to the most intelligent techniques to protect themselves.
Knowledge is not everything. Looking e.g. at Ukraine today, it’s the “ammo” they need, not knowledge.
Even if we assume almost magical futuristic knowledge that would change the war profoundly, still one side would have more resources, or better coordination to deploy it first, so rather than a perfect balance, it would be a huge multiplier to already existing imbalance. (What kind of imbalance would be relevant, that depends on the specific knowledge.)
that’s why I’m advocating for slowly decensoring LLMs, because that’s the only way how we can sensibly handle this.
Slowness is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Unless you know how you should do it, doing it more slowly would probably just mean arriving to the same end result, only later.
we need to improve the socioeconomic factors that lead to people wanting to commit crime in the first place
The problem is, the hypothesis of “socioeconomic factors cause crime” is… not really debunked, but rather, woefully inadequate to explain actual crime. Some crime is done by otherwise reasonable people doing something desperate in difficult circumstances. But that is a small fraction.
Most crime is done by antisocial people, drug addicts, people with low impulse control, etc. The kind of people who, even if they won $1M in a lottery today, would probably soon return to crime anyway. Because it is exciting, makes them feel powerful, or just feels like a good idea at the moment. A typical criminal in the first world is not the “I will steal a piece of bread because I am starving” kind, but the “I will hurt you because I enjoy doing it” kind.
But it seems that you are aware of it, and I don’t understand what is your proposed solution, other than “something must be done”.
Knowledge is not everything. Looking e.g. at Ukraine today, it’s the “ammo” they need, not knowledge.
Even if we assume almost magical futuristic knowledge that would change the war profoundly, still one side would have more resources, or better coordination to deploy it first, so rather than a perfect balance, it would be a huge multiplier to already existing imbalance. (What kind of imbalance would be relevant, that depends on the specific knowledge.)
Slowness is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Unless you know how you should do it, doing it more slowly would probably just mean arriving to the same end result, only later.
The problem is, the hypothesis of “socioeconomic factors cause crime” is… not really debunked, but rather, woefully inadequate to explain actual crime. Some crime is done by otherwise reasonable people doing something desperate in difficult circumstances. But that is a small fraction.
Most crime is done by antisocial people, drug addicts, people with low impulse control, etc. The kind of people who, even if they won $1M in a lottery today, would probably soon return to crime anyway. Because it is exciting, makes them feel powerful, or just feels like a good idea at the moment. A typical criminal in the first world is not the “I will steal a piece of bread because I am starving” kind, but the “I will hurt you because I enjoy doing it” kind.
But it seems that you are aware of it, and I don’t understand what is your proposed solution, other than “something must be done”.