Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

caixinglobal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 416 posts

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#271

Post by Retric »

arghwhat wrote: post #269
Retric wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, in your own words being rich does not imply anything about hard work. Further if you actually look at the wealthy hard work has almost zero influence on the odds of being wealthy. Generally because you can pass wealth from person to person after it’s gained and the source is often just lucky. PS: I am in my 30’s and have zero debt and six figure savings. By some standards that’s wealth by others it’s practically…

You seem to set income = wealth. The fines are income based, with income scaling with hard work. That never makes a grocery worker equal a banker, but twice the hours at hourly wage means twice the income, thus twice the fine within income-based systems such as Finland.

Income does not imply wealth, but wealth does imply income.

Eventually, wealth results in income even for lazy bums. So, you can’t defend income by saying they must work hard as many of the largest incomes have nothing to do with hard work.

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#272

Post by arghwhat »

chki wrote: post #252
arghwhat wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only holds for those that a born rich, or fell upon immense luck. For those below Dubai princes, the riches come from an entirely distorted work/life balance where you are never really off-duty, and immense responsibility. I intend to get there one day with hard work so my family can be well off. However, I do not see why it makes sense to punish me for it. Fining me twice as much because I work double the hours…

By that standard you could also propose that the poor should be fined even heavier because they are the lazy ones and should get punished for that. There is no actual reasoning in your arguments why the fines should be the same for everybody, instead there is an argument why richer people should not be fined higher, while acknowledging that the height of a fine will impact people with differing levels of wealth in di…

> By that standard you could also propose that the poor should be fined even heavier because they are the lazy ones and should get punished for that.

I hope that you also understand how that is absurd on its own, and that I certainly wasn't suggesting this.

However, yes, if we're seeing the entire system (including fining speeding) as a way to adjusting bad behavior, then yes, you could theoretically think of a system that directly punishes laziness.

But, wouldn't such a system already be covered by your salary, which does scale as a result of your work (i.e. you can't improve and risk losing your income entirely if you're lazy, and you're rewarded for productivity)?

> There is no actual reasoning in your arguments why the fines should be the same for everybody,

I stated... somewhere, that the magnitude of your crime does not scale with your income, so scaling the fine that way does not seem logical.

It does serve to make punishments clearer, but it still does not seem logical nor fair to me.

> Some people do not mind a 25€ fine for bad parking because of their wealth so the fine doesn't work on them, while it works on other people.

I will try to put this into a different perspective then:

A person who is 20 years old has more years to spare than one that is 50. Should they therefore get longer jail sentences?

I think that punishment should only consider the crime. Anything else is discrimination. Those with less wealth can buy fewer apples, fewer burgers, and pay for fewer speeding tickets. Such is life.

Fixing differences between wealth becomes an anti-capitalist discussion (which is fun, but a subject for another day).

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#273

Post by arghwhat »

scottishfiction wrote: post #263
arghwhat wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many seem to interpret what I said as "poverty equals laziness". This was never in any way what I said. However, almost regardless of your situation, harder works gives greater results. You'll get significantly more if you work 14 hours a day instead of 8. Whether you're working a shit job and just trying to push up your work hours, you're trying to build your own company, or even if you're managing your multi-billio…

> You'll get significantly more if you work 14 hours a day instead of 8 That's another claim that it would be good to see some citations for. If you work in salaried position where overtime is unpaid (as many HNers will) then more than 8 hours of work will bring you no financial gain other than in those toxic workplaces where unpaid overtime is seen as a virtue.

In salaried positions, "overtime" is either rewarded with a raise or promotion.

For the types of job you are thinking of where overtime is entirely uncompensated (such as a lot of developer gigs), you are not really working overtime. You are working exactly what was expected from your employer. Any less, and you'd risk losing your position. Different jobs have different expected baseline work.

However, work above the expectation should still be compensated, and if it isn't, you're also within a group of people that is likely able to quit and find a different position at higher wage, or just a position where hard work will be rewarded. That is definitely the case for the developers here.

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#274

Post by arghwhat »

Retric wrote: post #271
arghwhat wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to set income = wealth. The fines are income based, with income scaling with hard work. That never makes a grocery worker equal a banker, but twice the hours at hourly wage means twice the income, thus twice the fine within income-based systems such as Finland.

Income does not imply wealth, but wealth does imply income. Eventually, wealth results in income even for lazy bums. So, you can’t defend income by saying they must work hard as many of the largest incomes have nothing to do with hard work.

Wealth does not imply income. You could be a retired with a massive fortune and no income. You could be born into wealth, not actually earning any yourself.

They are different concepts. One can lead to another, by neither implies the other.

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#275

Post by netsharc »

Zarath wrote: post #37

Hilarious, but unfortunately, incidents like these are used to "prove" how incompetent and useless these technologies are, all the while pushing forward their use.

Pull Request: Make arrest system more bug-resilient.

Unit test: drop bug while typewriter types out "Tuttle", make sure it doesn't type "Buttle".

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#276

Post by ako »

arghwhat wrote: post #245
monadgonad wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not being punished for that, you're being punished for a crime. That happens to be proportional to what you can give. What's not fair is fines that barely impact wealthy people.

Neither does it seem fair that I'll be fined twice as much if I work twice the hours, does it?

That just depends on how you define it. You could also state: everybody pays the same fines, e.g., 5% of their monthly income.

See, sounds fair, right?

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#277

Post by Evidlo »

dongping wrote: post #158
aw3c2 wrote: post #144

What is the trustworthiness of this website?

Caixin is a reputable magazine on financial news in China, its chinese PMI (Purchasing Managers' Indexes） are widely cited. [1] https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/1385987...

Others have pointed out that it doesn't seem possible to identify a single face out of millions with enough confidence to issue a fine with current technology.

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#278

Post by allannienhuis »

rabidrat wrote: post #189
allannienhuis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If employees were personally liable for costs of mistakes, no one would do the work - too much personal risk involved. Also, the degree of blaming anyone-but-me would be off the charts, crippling the organization. Having some type of accountability is important - incompetent people should not be allowed to keep their job, and institutions should have some incentive to improve, but not sure putting all the burden on i…

There are many jobs for which the doer is personally liable. They are required to be bonded and insured so that if anything happens, they don't go bankrupt or otherwise avoid compensating for damages. And there are still people to do the work. Not sure that's the best solution here, but the assumption that "no one would do the work" is likely not correct.

Good point. Although if they're required to be bonded as part of the job requirements, that means they still don't feel the full effect of the cost of their mistakes which is what I think was being proposed. That said, it's a lot closer along that spectrum because I assume their ability to be bonded/insured will be affected by subsequent claims against the bond.

I'm also not sure exactly how bonding would work in jobs where blame is hard to determine, or not attributable to a single individual (ie systemic issue). Perhaps that's one of the reasons it's not done more commonly.

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#279

Post by dmix »

maxxxxx wrote: post #4

Add to that a justice system also mostly automated and you are quickly caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare you can't get out if something goes wrong. Imagine the justice system run like google support. Even if something is clearly wrong you can't clear it up if you are not a famous person with a big Twitter following.

The justice system is hardly automated.

It's one of the least automated systems (ie, employing technology to reduce inefficiencies) of all industry 'niches' in the western world.

Law enforcement might be using technology to dole out punishment/fines more efficiently, but the actual justice system that civilians have to deal with after getting fined or charged (ie, the world of lawyers, judges, and courts) is extremely backwards in their use of humans, paper, fax machines, etc. Not using even basic technology. The justice system is famous for the extreme slowness for the amount of human-time required in processing of even the most basic small details.

By eliminating the amount of human-time (by a hired lawyer or oneself) that each person has to engage the systems (for example by missing work or paying with money instead of time) would do a lot of help the poor better deal with the justice system - and get better and fairer treatment by the system.

Re: AI Mistakes Bus-Side Ad for Famous CEO, Charges Her With Jaywalking

#280

Post by Udik »

arghwhat wrote: post #272
chki wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that standard you could also propose that the poor should be fined even heavier because they are the lazy ones and should get punished for that. There is no actual reasoning in your arguments why the fines should be the same for everybody, instead there is an argument why richer people should not be fined higher, while acknowledging that the height of a fine will impact people with differing levels of wealth in di…

> By that standard you could also propose that the poor should be fined even heavier because they are the lazy ones and should get punished for that. I hope that you also understand how that is absurd on its own, and that I certainly wasn't suggesting this. However, yes, if we're seeing the entire system (including fining speeding) as a way to adjusting bad behavior, then yes, you could theoretically think of a syste…

> I stated... somewhere, that the magnitude of your crime does not scale with your income, so scaling the fine that way does not seem logical.

My favourite way of arguing in favour of fines proportional to wealth/ income is this: wealth is something that gives you the power to buy things: say better food, better houses, better cars, or even things that most people cannot afford, for example a big yacht. Depending on how wealthy you are, some products or services become affordable. However, there is one thing that nobody should consider affordable, and that is breaking the law, which should be equally binding for everybody. But if you set a fixed price for breaking the law, that itself becomes a product, and the price defines a set of people for whom the product is affordable and even worth the price. Is that right or desirable?

Post reply on HN