Cloud Hosting

Whenever I go into doomsday mode (becoming a kind of technological Cassandra), I think about a mansplaining memo that reveals a truth thats unknown to me, a woman. It expresses itself with forceful words, reproaching me: The truth is that its not a knife that kills: a man kills, it reads. Who could defend themselves against these words? Who dares contradict the engineers of progress?

What this memo tends to forget is that, if the instrument in question doesnt have a sharp end and if it wasnt available in the stores of any neighborhood, town or district it wouldnt be suitable to kill anyone at any time. Before the authors of the memo sneeringly tell me that were not going to ban knives or erect gates around the countryside, I would like to bring up the following reflection (which probably wont interest you, nor change your mind).

The argument of guns dont kill people, people kill people is used repeatedly by the NRA (along with its extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment) to avoid the imposition of any type of gun control. In order to continue making money, this organization is capable of blaming the countrys mental health problem (which, by the way, theyre not willing to spend a penny on) rather than recognizing that the only function of a weapon is to injure or kill. A gun isnt useful when youre trying to cut a steak or open a box. Its only capable of causing thousands of deaths 31,059 deaths in the United States in 2023 so far, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a website that counts American firearm deaths in real-time.

In Europe, since we do put gates up around the countryside (thats how paranoid we are), the possession and use of firearms is strongly limited. This is because were aware, precisely, that theyre instruments meant for killing. Whats more, in Spain according to the national laws that regulate weapons an individual can only possess or carry knives that are less than four inches long and have just a single edge. Automatic and double-edged knives are prohibited; no citizen can possess knives, machetes, and other bladed weapons that are duly classified as weapons by the competent authorities.

Thanks to the cultural evolution of our laws, weve been able to prevent many people from dying, simply by limiting the availability of tools that have the capacity to kill. No one thinks of limiting the number of people capable of killing as a solution to the problem, because if that were to occur nobody would be left.

This same form of thinking should be applied to technology. There are both civilian and military uses and classification for different types of tools, just as with pharmaceutical drugs: some can only be used in healthcare settings, under the prescription and control of a doctor, while some are over-the-counter. Meanwhile, certain aspects of medicine are subject to even strict international prohibitions, such as the cloning of humans. When were able to analyze risks, were able to limit and manage them through regulations.

And then theres data, social media and internet technology things that have been utilized by many people since birth. Generations have grown up and matured around technological instruments, not recognizing any danger in them. After all, who would have frowned upon the evolution of the personal computer or microchips, which allowed man to step on the Moon? Nobody, of course. Technology is neutral, cold, dispassionate and, therefore, beneficial. At least, thats what the tech giants would have you believe. That is, the same men who are asking tech writer Douglas Ruskoff about how they can protect themselves from their own robots.

Many people have been enriched by making certain online tools available to eight-year-old boys, which teach them that sexual violence is a normal way of interacting with girls. They have created apps that allow 11-year-old kids to take pictures every 30 seconds and share them with billions of people. Theyve even created free babysitting services, in the form of the iPads that parents hand their toddlers.

The tech leaders are the ones to blame when thanks to the democratization of AI apps are used to turn innocent photos of young girls into child pornography, via digitally-generated nudes. They have given consumers total access to technologies that should never have left highly-controlled environments technologies that shouldnt be operated by simply anyone.

I could hide a snack in a nuclear briefcase and blame my dog for the extinction of humanity after he accidentally pushes a button while trying to get a hold of it. I could blame him, if I were a psychopathic billionaire, but since Im merely a lawyer, what Ill do instead is not leave anything lethal within my dogs reach. Ill work with his basic impulses, instead of blaming him for them. This is a reminder to the tech people who put out that memo: guns kill, and AI shouldnt be accessible to teenagers raised on YouPorn.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAS USA Edition

See the rest here:
Exposed in the face of artificial intelligence - EL PAS USA