I think you're overestimating how much real damage someone can cause with burpsuite and "a few youtube videos." I'd imagine if you pick a random person off the street, subject them to a full month's worth of cybersecurity YouTube videos, and hand them an arsenal of traditional security tools, that they would still be borderline useless as a black-hat hacker against all but the absolute weakest targets. But if instead of giving them that, you give them an AI that is functionally a professional security researcher in its own right (not saying we're there yet, but hypothetically), the story is clearly very different.
> Yeah, I'll concede, some physical tools like TNT or whatever should probably not be available to Joe Public. But digital tools?
Digital tools can affect the physical world though, or at least seriously affect the people who live in the physical world (stealing money, blackmailing with hacked photos, etc.).
To see if there's some common ground to start a debate from, do you agree that at least in principle there are some kinds of intelligence that are too dangerous to allow public access to? My extreme example would be an AI that could guide an average IQ novice in producing biological weapons.
> Yeah, I'll concede, some physical tools like TNT or whatever should probably not be available to Joe Public. But digital tools?
Digital tools can affect the physical world though, or at least seriously affect the people who live in the physical world (stealing money, blackmailing with hacked photos, etc.).
To see if there's some common ground to start a debate from, do you agree that at least in principle there are some kinds of intelligence that are too dangerous to allow public access to? My extreme example would be an AI that could guide an average IQ novice in producing biological weapons.