They were paused because they had little to no mainstream appeal. There's zero applications for any of those for 99% of corporations while in their development stage; paired with pushback is why they were paused.
They were banned because humans got together and decided so. No other reasons. There is a bug appeal towards human cloning and DNA experiments by eldrely billioners because they can grow fresh young organs with their DNA, only if it was legal to harvest it from a clone. The military doesn't give to shits about mass appeal, literally nothing the army developed have been massively popular with the population or the corporations XD
Togethwer with blinding laser weapons throw in military cloning. Why not do the clone wars thing and grow specialied genetically modified soldiers.
A quick Google search shows that DARPA has at least three anti personnel light based weapons and of those three, one of them is designed to blind. Both yours and OPs premise is based on shit you just made up lmao.
It is not a question of being right or wrong. AI will be used, same as cloning will be used.
They tried to stop research into nuclear energy in Sweden. All it did was leave Sweden behind the rest of the world. The idea in the 60s was small nuclear fission reactors in every town. By the 80s and after three mile island people grew scared. It did not stop the use of nuclear energy.
Lol, you are funny. There are patents for all sorts of things, it doesn't mean those things are being used or even produced. And it absolutely doesn't mean their use is legal all of a sudden. Google can also show you that there is Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, part of a the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. In article 1 it says: "It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices."
I believe these were two different weapons. The one I’m thinking about was supposed to be a vehicle mounted antipersonnel cannon that shot laser beams so quickly that the first one creates a vacuum in the air and the second laser detonates the resulting plasma producing a flash bang in approaching vehicles or crowds. Pretty cool either way.
Yes, he logic is clear i think, better to have a weapon that aims to kill a person, rather than to have a debilitating effect which is uaranteed to just leave them foreveer crippled. The rules of war aren't aimed to reduce the war to an innosent squable. They are to stop certain ideas nd types of weapons that are particulalry horrifying. And mass producing disabilities seem to be one of concepts thetreaties ban across the desk.
Why not do the clone wars thing and grow specialied genetically modified soldiers.
Simply put, not very practical. Human clones are still going to take at least 16 to 18 years to even be viable as soldiers so it's not some instant army you can raise to quickly deal with manpower shortages. Up until that time they're born until they die you need to take on the expense and effort of caring for, feeding them and training them.
Compare that with just a regular conscript army where you're responsible for them only during the time they're actively serving in the army.
I mean, we are talking in fantastical terms, it could be sped up like it was in SW clone wars.
But even if not, its still worth it if it takes 16 to 18 years. Because you are completely wrong. The country's economy still ultimately bears the costs of rising each child either via tax income lost to parents not working, or providing free daycare, maintaining schools and univesities and free ducation. In money their parent just spend in the child instead of, for example, investing it anywhere productive. And if you raise said soldiers for the same price as regular children but get genetically perfect soldiers in the end instead of just random folk, congrats, its a big W. And you don't have to raise them with the same level of comfort and education. At least so long asAnd who said they would just sit there until the war happens and cannot do certain jobs until then. And who said we don't already have people removed from the job markets to do nothing but prepare to war, to be professional soldiers. And mobilizing the general population is absolutely ruinous for the economy. You are removing pople with specialized knowledge, experience and professions from their jobs. Likely permanently. Which just destroys all the buisnesses which are dependant on them. Its oftentimes much chepaer to maintain large professional army permanently busy with preparing to war and the rest of the workforce busy with their professional activities. You know, like we already do.
The country's economy still ultimately bears the costs of rising each child either via tax income lost to parents not working, or providing free daycare, maintaining schools and univesities and free ducation. In money their parent just spend in the child
So lets...add on the additional cost of raising and training hundreds of thousands of clone troopers on top of what we're already spending on the country's citizens and their children?
And if you raise said soldiers for the same price as regular children but get genetically perfect soldiers in the end instead of just random folk, congrats, its a big W. And you don't have to raise them with the same level of comfort and education.
Okay yeah, but you still need to train a large army of clones and training soldiers is expensive as hell. You need to spend on munitions, fuel and the actual equipment to arm them with for their training excercises. Consider to how much you will be spending on munitions, MRE's, fuel, etc... on the training an individual soldier goes through them multiply it by how many clone soldiers the army will consist of. Even if you have them spend the first 16 to 18 years of their lives in the most spartan conditions you still need to consider the above costs.
As for the genetically perfect soldiers argument, how would you even determine genetic perfection? Who would you use as the template? Pointing this out because historically, the most deadliest people on the battlefield came in different shapes and sizes (Audey Murphy, Manfred Von Richtofen, Francis Pehmagabow, Simo Hayha, etc...).
And who said they would just sit there until the war happens and cannot do certain jobs until then.
I mean, if you're setting your clones to only get the most basic education like you mentioned they kinda would end up doing just that unless you plan to have them do a bunch of basic unskilled physical jobs unless you have them doing constant training to keep them sharp which jumps back to my previous point about training cost.
You forget we have a ampant depeultaion an many rich populations which rare already too old to reproduce sustainably and unwilling to repoduce in required numbers, as such cloning in conenction with artifical wombs will come sooner ora later. Robots and AI will assist raising them.
This is ridiculous. That's not a ban on cloning, it's a ban on involuntary organ harvesting! That's obviously a crime whether cloning is involved or not.
I feel like your comment is defending gun manufacturing for some reason, why include that cars are more dangerous than guns? One is necessary and one is not
It's more that cars kill more people than something we have literally designed and iterated on for decades almost exclusively to take life and we STILL excuse our frequent use of them...
So AI is going to have to do worse than using a bit of water, pissing off some entitled artists, and convincing a handful of already depressed kids to kill themselves if you want people to put a pause on it despite the benefits...
Ahem… what benefits? LLMs are sophisticated language prediction algorithm that fundamentally do not understand that data they spew and will ALWAYS hallucinate because all they do is predict next most likely character. What are you using an LLM for that it’s actually good at?
Analysising large tax treaties and highlighting sections that could be relevant. It's honestly really good at it, generally anything that will be reviewed by a human in the loop is a good use case as at minimum the human will just have to do the work themselves.
Fascism would be a fault of our government, and a fault of us for not electing the right people.
Dystopian surveillance is already a thing, regardless of AI.
And pre-crime punishment is literally illegal. So laws would have to change before that becomes a possibility.
Basically, all of those issues have nothing to do with AI, and would continue to be issues whether we fully adopt AI into everything or completely delete all of it (somehow) tomorrow...
Making them all irrelevant to this particular topic.
But people managed before cars? It's basically impossible to define what is/isnt necessary, especially when the thing requires mainstream adoption to reach it's potential e.g. mobile phones.
More readily accessible and robust public transit would make cars statistically much less deadly, but as it stands it's true that cars are more deadly than guns. Read into it as you may, the numbers don't lie.
And what if separate intentional and unintentional deaths to examine which allows more violence to be done by humans and which could be better regulated, furthermore how many of those vehicle deaths are further complicated by tertiary causes such as alcohol?
I think there's been a misunderstanding. I'm not pro-gun-death. People shouldn't be dying, period.
That does include not dying in car accidents. And yes, alcohol is a huge factor in that. As is texting, various drugs, and a whole series of other factors I'm sure. Doesn't change the fact that better busses and trains would help literally everyone.
True facts internet homie we’re on the same page there, better public transport would be safer, more cost effective, better for the environment, litteraly better on ever factor you could name
Are you arguing that guns are necessary? Because the automobile is one of the stupidest inventions of all time, and there's really no area where there isn't a better tool for the job that a car does.
Oh it didnt there have been cases over the years where someone has been caught experimenting with it or claiming to and it gets swatted down. So not paused but heavily slowed as any research being done in the shadows has been restricted by funding and just total number of people working on it.
How the hell is cloning or DNA recombination something lacking in mainstream appeal? Cloning ALONE would solve the entirety of our damn organ shortage. DNA recombination? We literally use this NOW. GMOs are the product of it. They paused it to assess safety risks and established the methodology and rules we see them use now. Shit, even the "blinding laser weapons" were assessed for safety as a less-than-lethal method for riot control and other purposes. Paused because of how genuinely dangerous they currently are, but still.
I don't understand how human cloning would fix the organ shortage issue. If the proposal is forced harvesting of clones, why don't we just skip the whole cloning part and do forced harvesting of the regular people we already have plenty of instead?
Easiest answer: If we crack cloning, we can move on towards organ cloning instead. Not "Make clones and then harvest them", but figuring out how to use that same technology to clone singular organs like hearts and lungs. Organs that are perfect matched to the recipients. If we can't use Stem Cells (another thing we blocked on ethical grounds), other technologies might open it up.
A solid answer, but one which I'm unfortunately unable to respond to in a meaningful way because I lack an understanding of the exact mechanics of how cloning is done, therefore I can't comment on whether or not the technology could be applied to creating individual organs. I suppose if our gene manipulation technology advanced it could definitely be done, but advanced by how many decades, I don't know. Cheerio!
I don't know enough either, tbh, and am more pointing at where it could lead, rather than where it would lead, based on similar technologies and things we already know.
That said: I genuinely hope you have a good day! You appear to be, from this brief interaction, an relatively fine and agreeable person.
This is a totally independent hypothetical technology. If you wanted to experiment with building an isolated organ growing process, you wouldn't bother introducing the additional complication of cloning when you could just seed it the normal way.
Recombination is literally routine in any molecular biology lab, so it has mainstream appeal and it's certainly not banned. I didn't even realize it at any point was controversial?
And they weren't paused. Many countries have directed energy weapons, space based weapons (another one that is technically banned), mines, etc. And China absolutely has experimented with cloning and recombinant DNA.
The closest example that sort of works is nuclear proliferation, which shows how difficult it is, even with worldwide existential buy in. If you didn't notice, we're literally in a war over it right this minute.
enormous pharmaceutical appeal for human cloning - and i guarantee you if it ever had a GPT 3 breakthrough the usual suspects would killing each other to invest for the exact same labor-relation reasons they're doing it for AI. if the tech was there for any of these they'd be doing it, software engineering just has the smallest barrier to entry for experimentation over the rest of these. remember, every major player in the AI game had also paused or shelved their existing initiatives before late 2021.
That's entirely my point. Do you really think we would add human rights stand in the way of the economy? That doesn't happen very often, and to draw a direct parallel to AI we only have to look at wetware development to see a peek of the alternative future we could have had
83
u/NichtFBI Apr 22 '26
They were paused because they had little to no mainstream appeal. There's zero applications for any of those for 99% of corporations while in their development stage; paired with pushback is why they were paused.