>>127684779
>not an argument
Of course if you isolate this tiny snippet of my post, you remove the context that makes it an argument, turning it into a statement lol.
The rest of the post where I explain why IS the argument.
>does *every* country?
Tge problem here is that the more nukes you have, the worse the problem becomes because nukes are physical objects (and we don't have Star Trek replicators), and every additional country having them is an additional chance of at least one of them making the (imo regrettable) choice of using them.
With AI, however, we're dealing with software and Internet services. Both of which can inflict pretty much the entire magnitude of its consequences even with just one of them.
As long as there's at least one music generator, the difference that 1 or 100 more is minimal.
As long as there's at least one, say, from China or some tiny country that billionaires moved their companies to, the problem won't be solved.
The only solution to AI doing its thing on the art industries, is every country outlawing it, which is extremely unlikely no matter how much we (a relatively small group of people) "fight" it.
Furthermore, local models that can just be downloaded, are essentially impossible to stop (but their consequences would indeed be less world-changing if they were relegated to illegal usages).
>>127684779
>your line of reasoning
You're assuming that I have this defeatist view on everything. I don't.
My only line of reasoning is to do what's most likely to lead to the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome.
In this case, fighting it will lead to a worse outcome than accepting it, so I accept it and make some lemonade.
In other situations where something can be done, I don't have the same pessimistic attitude.
>>127687367
>pic
Lmao
