The latter would be preferred by most, and is most aligned with individualism, but sadly that is not where we are as a society. There are an entire class of people who believe they know what is best for you, about nearly every subject matter, and wish to limit all aspects of technology, life, politics, etc, to suit their superior beliefs.
Hardly surprising. When childhood mortality is high people grow up seeing their siblings and friends die as a common thing, and understand it could just as easily be them. With low expectation of survival, life is less intrinsically valuable and risk avoidance is not critical. Change things around such that everyone has a very good chance of living a long, healthy, prosperous life so long as they don't fuck it up, and risk aversion skyrockets. It's easy to forget that the generation currently in power in most industrialized nations is the first in human history to be raised thinking survival to adulthood was a given.
Alternatively, would you rather a world with 80% functionality safely, or a world with 100% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things?
After the past few years… anyone who can seriously complain about this seems like their identity is wrapped up in not admitting that the worst “misinformation” didn’t come from bad apples - but official sources.
I'd definitely prefer the latter. The damage that bad actors can do is often extremely limited, while the potential benefits of more capability are boundless.
Interesting question. We developed the whole concept of justice because this kind of abstract utilitarian morality doesn’t apply well. I’m all-in on justice. Give me the full model. I’m not doing anything wrong.
>would you rather a world with 80% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things, or a world with 100% functionality with people you don’t trust doing malicious things?
