> If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with.
In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad, if only autocrats were not helped by us, they'll fall and they'll be replaced by democracy, and perhaps by crowds singing in unison Beetles' "Imagine". In reality, democracy is a very unlikely outcome of a dictator being toppled. The top 2 outcomes, by miles and miles, are 1. the dictator is replaced by another dictator and 2. the dictator is replaced by some weak pseudo-state like Somalia, Lebanon or Yemen.
I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. As I said, I have no idea who is governing the UAE, but I know that it's much easier to criticize them than to come with a realistic better alternative.
> In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad
Many other places, too. Obviously it's not a universal thing: every sufficiently large group of people has fans of autocracy. There has historically been evolutionary advantages to wanting a big, strong hand to control everything. Any alternative has not had sufficient time to evolutionarily propagate through humans.
The rest of your post kind of veers off-topic, so remember we're talking about individual people's decision to not work on something based on their own judgements. I don't think it's worth arguing at them that their judgements are wrongly made.
Again, If you think it's good or even neutral to give autocrats technology which they almost certainly will use for autocracy (even if they do other things with it), then this isn't a moral dilemma you need concern yourself with. Nobody is trying to convince you personally to change your morals. So, as long as you don't try to change theirs, there is no need to be defensive.
> I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others.
I think a good place to start with this, would be to be less confident that you know what's best for others who are deciding whether to empower autocrats. It's much easier to criticize them and their decision, than to come with a realistic, better alternative.
You've got it backwards. Open AI wants to do business with the UAE. A lot of the people here think this is bad, and you are one of them. I am saying: Open AI is engaging in business that is legal as far as the US laws are involved, because the UAE are not under sanctions. We (the US) are a democracy, and the US government acts as a representative of our collective will. As a democracy we decided, through our representatives, that is ok to do business with the UAE, otherwise we'd have sanctions on them. I am ok with that, and I was pointing out that private businesses should concern themselves with doing business, and the State Department should be trusted with making the value decision if a regime is autocratic enough that the US wants to put is on its sanctions list.
You think for some reason that this type of position is one of arrogance. That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats. And if myself I have no problem with autocrats, then I should just keep out of this, because nobody around here asked for my opinion.
But this is very backward. When Jesus said that only those who never wronged in their life should throw a stone, one could retort that only people who never wronged should tell other people what to do with the stones they find on the street. Does that type of argument make sense to you?
you're confusing what is legal with what is moral – the two dimensions are orthogonal
importantly, we are not forced to adopt the morality of 1 particular government, out of hundreds of thousands – this is an appeal to authority (and not even a good authority)
if someone thinks that empowering autocrats is immoral, even if it's not illegal, then it is indeed arrogance to say that you have decided their morality is wrong
> You think for some reason... That I should show modesty and let people, such as yourself, criticize Open AI for getting in bed with autocrats
not really: modesty in judging others was your suggestion. you can stand by your suggestion or not, but you don't have the power to "let" or not "let" anybody criticize autocrats or their enablers
remember here: them criticizing autocrats and their enablers, is equally valid to you criticizing them for their criticism; which is equally valid to others criticizing you for criticizing their criticism; etc... we could keep going, but as you undoubtedly see, there is no good discussion to be had in the meta-direction of criticizing criticism, rather than directly addressing the issues raised in the initial critique
as for the jesus analogy: I wish I could follow it, but I could not, likely due to a failing on my part (I'm not familiar with jesus) -- would you mind rephrasing the point as a non-analogy (directly)? perhaps an analogy won't be necessary because the message is clear!
In the West, we have the attitude that autocracy is bad, if only autocrats were not helped by us, they'll fall and they'll be replaced by democracy, and perhaps by crowds singing in unison Beetles' "Imagine". In reality, democracy is a very unlikely outcome of a dictator being toppled. The top 2 outcomes, by miles and miles, are 1. the dictator is replaced by another dictator and 2. the dictator is replaced by some weak pseudo-state like Somalia, Lebanon or Yemen.
I think we should re-calibrate our self-confidence that we know what's best for others. As I said, I have no idea who is governing the UAE, but I know that it's much easier to criticize them than to come with a realistic better alternative.