I like the way the UN Charter comes into force for a specific nation whether or not it is ratified by a specific nation. It is a good model for a WMD sensor network Treaty, if enforced. The subsequent Convenants didn't rank baskets of rights and the USSR used the "maintain civil order" Right to justify crushing other rights. There is learning of how rights are nested and related, in a way that optimizes either a lack of tyrants and WMDs, and high quality of life, or that breeds a maximum #/quality of solution providers. In this regard, the ANglo-Saxon Law is better than France's Civil Law. What is overlooked now by elite Defense thinktanks, is that you can surveil for WMDs, bringing communications technology to other human infrastructures and to humans. But you'd want to watch AI and bioterror/accident more closely than nukes, and more closely than the first years of a Paul Martin age of consent. There should be some wiggle room. Laws should change as our knowledge of a utopia advances....there will need to be an FDA/Patent-Office level of bureaucracy for certain AI software types, for certain hardware types (it might be necessary to keep computing noisy enough to be able to surveil), for certain bio and chemical faculties, for certain missile types....much of the 20th century technology has been capped well by the USA and USSR.
...We were better soldiers because life and human capital were more valuable in Canada. Europe was locked into a balance-of-power system until the gatling gun et al. UK less so. It is the same reason the IR never happen in labour plentiful Chinese river deltas. Though ideology might matter too as Confucius was inferior to the Greeks. Canada could not simply let soldiers die innefficiently, else would lose to Natives or the USA. In contrast, in Europe it was bad for people to think for themselves else might not fight. There are important ramifications here about checks on power and efficiency of gvmt. The European scholars that left did just fine in Scotland. For sensoring WMDs and tyrannies, this will help to identify what a tyranny is. It is easy enough to rank gvmts using technologies of the 20th century when it comes to freedom from tyranny. It is hard to quantify this ranking; does our CBC and associate respect for gvmt make us 1.1x or 1.4x better than the USA's overmarkets? But it should be possible to equate the risk of a tyranny with the WMD risk of a historic gvmt, and work from there. Hopefully Mind's Eye can take it from there. Need to quantify what checks and balances, define tyranny and bad WMDs, need to enable compliance (should be easy if you start off only looking for the worst things), and need to know the best way to keep command and control. It will be tougher to quantify all this if considering 21st century future technologies. For example, we might get room temperature superconductors. They could facilitate AI. They could also make fMRIs cheap enough for most middle class and wealthier people to use them. The latter would enable a science of better gvmt. We might want to surveil AI R+D first, then invent the superconductors under controlled conditions, then build fMRIs to max mental health of powerful people. There are certain AI algorithms that may be okay, and some that are WMDs, and should be illegal.
2 comments:
I like the way the UN Charter comes into force for a specific nation whether or not it is ratified by a specific nation. It is a good model for a WMD sensor network Treaty, if enforced.
The subsequent Convenants didn't rank baskets of rights and the USSR used the "maintain civil order" Right to justify crushing other rights.
There is learning of how rights are nested and related, in a way that optimizes either a lack of tyrants and WMDs, and high quality of life, or that breeds a maximum #/quality of solution providers. In this regard, the ANglo-Saxon Law is better than France's Civil Law.
What is overlooked now by elite Defense thinktanks, is that you can surveil for WMDs, bringing communications technology to other human infrastructures and to humans.
But you'd want to watch AI and bioterror/accident more closely than nukes, and more closely than the first years of a Paul Martin age of consent. There should be some wiggle room.
Laws should change as our knowledge of a utopia advances....there will need to be an FDA/Patent-Office level of bureaucracy for certain AI software types, for certain hardware types (it might be necessary to keep computing noisy enough to be able to surveil), for certain bio and chemical faculties, for certain missile types....much of the 20th century technology has been capped well by the USA and USSR.
...We were better soldiers because life and human capital were more valuable in Canada. Europe was locked into a balance-of-power system until the gatling gun et al. UK less so. It is the same reason the IR never happen in labour plentiful Chinese river deltas. Though ideology might matter too as Confucius was inferior to the Greeks.
Canada could not simply let soldiers die innefficiently, else would lose to Natives or the USA. In contrast, in Europe it was bad for people to think for themselves else might not fight. There are important ramifications here about checks on power and efficiency of gvmt. The European scholars that left did just fine in Scotland.
For sensoring WMDs and tyrannies, this will help to identify what a tyranny is. It is easy enough to rank gvmts using technologies of the 20th century when it comes to freedom from tyranny. It is hard to quantify this ranking; does our CBC and associate respect for gvmt make us 1.1x or 1.4x better than the USA's overmarkets? But it should be possible to equate the risk of a tyranny with the WMD risk of a historic gvmt, and work from there. Hopefully Mind's Eye can take it from there. Need to quantify what checks and balances, define tyranny and bad WMDs, need to enable compliance (should be easy if you start off only looking for the worst things), and need to know the best way to keep command and control. It will be tougher to quantify all this if considering 21st century future technologies.
For example, we might get room temperature superconductors. They could facilitate AI. They could also make fMRIs cheap enough for most middle class and wealthier people to use them. The latter would enable a science of better gvmt. We might want to surveil AI R+D first, then invent the superconductors under controlled conditions, then build fMRIs to max mental health of powerful people. There are certain AI algorithms that may be okay, and some that are WMDs, and should be illegal.
Post a Comment