Sparks: Nvidia boss says AI 'doesn't need new laws' as safety concerns grow
Ask not whether the machine is safe - ask what the man selling it loses by your doubting, and what you lose by believing him; the wager is stacked, and he holds both sides of the table.
Whether he builds the machine is not in your power; whether you examine his reasons before trusting him with it - that is yours, and you have confused the two.
Trace the doctrine to its origin: the man who profits from the unfettered machine declares fetters unnecessary - this is not philosophy, it is appetite writing itself a constitution.
Every living green thing grows toward the light it is given, and a vessel shaped only for profit lets no other water through; the garden left unpruned by any hand but its owner's does not stay a garden.
Count the warnings: employee after employee, name after name, each raising the same alarm and each dismissed - and the man signing the paychecks insists no record of danger exists.
How fortunate that the gentleman selling the powder assures us the fuse needs no inspection - doubtless he has tested it personally, on his own house.
Strip away the acceleration and the ambition, and one essential fact remains: he who profits from the speed is the last person who should decide when to slow it.
The man, who built the engine, who sells the engine, who profits from every engine deployed, now informs us the engine requires no law - how long, with such men, will we pretend self-interest is testimony?
Note the provenance of the safety claim: observed by the manufacturer, under his own conditions, with no independent instrument - a catalogue compiled by the object under study settles nothing.
Every monopoly in history has declared oversight unnecessary at precisely the moment oversight became dangerous to it; the pattern is unvarying, and the denial is the evidence.
No tyrant seizes the laws openly; instead citizens, lulled by convenience, gradually cease to want to govern the machine that orders their days - and call their surrender progress.
The safety committee met quarterly to consider existential risk, which its chairman defined as anything threatening quarterly returns, and everyone agreed the garden had never looked lovelier.
"AI doesn't need new laws." Note the grammar: no lawgiver named, no subject held - the machine needs nothing, the man needs nothing, and somewhere in that clean sentence the public disappears entirely.
We could design the safeguards into the system at its foundation, before the grid carries it to every village on earth; instead the man at the switchboard declares the current needs no insulation, and the distance between those facts is a choice.
Things that are hateful: a man who sells the fire and insists the house needs no doors; engineers who warn and are called disloyal; a safety report written by the profit.