So, we don't know whether advancement in technology will help or hurt us, and if it hurts us it will result in the collapse of technology, so we should assume it will hurt us and purposefully retard the advancement of technology? If we were to artificially prevent technology from advancing, wouldn't that just be speedrunning its collapse, even though we aren't even sure it would have otherwise collapsed?

Also, what's the relationship between technology and capitalism, here? I understand that there's a strongly positive correlation between how free a market is and the rate of technological advancement for participants in that market, and that capitalist governments allow free markets, but that doesn't mean that a technological collapse would lead to government collapse.

> we should assume it will hurt us and purposefully retard the advancement of technology?

This is the position of Geoffrey Hinton, and other AI doomers. Their POV does not appear to being taken seriously right now, at least we're not seeing much evidence of international collaboration on AI safety protocols.

Insert here a picture of Homer Simpson with a bell and a sandwitch sign "The end of the world is near"

Explores accelerationism