Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anytime someone has a scary thought about ML it all comes down to control problems - eg. the machine having the final say about what happens without human being able to override it. In gmail now, if you say "attached" in your email but don't attach something, you can still send the message, it just gives you a warning. You're consistently shown improved interfaces and content because of ML, yet those aren't scary and…
Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light. Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots alrea…
The town where I grew up has a red light which only changes when a weight sensor is tripped. But weight sensors are expensive, and the approaching two-lane road only has a sensor in one lane. Worse, it's calibrated for cars, so motorcycles never trip it.
Yes, only. If you ride up late at night on a motorcycle, you have a choice between committing a serious traffic offense and waiting several hours for the light to change. No, this problem isn't ever going to be addressed.
I think it's damned reasonable to be scared of what we'll get when people hand authority to machines. Not for Terminator reasons, but for simple bureaucratic stupidity.