There's literally no way to break down that idea without turning it into some kind of negation of rights.

There's literally no way to break down that idea without turning it into some kind of negation of rights. For you to ever be 'free' from others doing [thing Z], everyone (you, them, everyone else) would have to be precluded from doing anything that might lead to [thing Z] - and suddenly no one can do [thing A], [thing B], [thing C]... Not only that, but now all it takes is for someone to make a shaky argument for some action potentially leading to [thing Z], and suddenly you or anyone else can be accused of committing that action in pursuit of committing [thing Z], and/or get locked up because of it. I'm as averse to getting blown up as the next guy, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing a loosely-defined slippery slope when I see one. It'd be nice to see a world in which it's very rare/difficult for anyone to do certain things - but let's not pretend we can create a world completely 'free' of anything without sacrificing most of our inalienable rights.

Posted by zedadex on Jun 5, 2015, 12:57 AM

Tags

• reliability (Other)

Related issues

• This is my biggest problem with agents, they constantly defensively code for cases that have no chance of happening and in most cases a p...
• I wish there was something like LEAN for biology.
• The issue is really the extreme difficulty of programming them, especially for anything sequential (rather than combinatorial).
• I probably could have beared with it if it was only limited to programming, but it showing up in creative fields has made me feel all sor...
• I hate that I'm in deep enough to know what you mean.
• The biggest problem with “AI” is that big corps are shoving it down our throats.