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

391–400 of 416 posts

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

#391

Post by bicubic »

salvar wrote: post #388
bicubic wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the primary motivation anywhere was to alter driver behaviour, a points based penalty system is all it would take. Monetary fines in traffic infringements are entirely for revenue. Anecdote time: a friend from one of the nation's major universities was involved in a road authority funded study to evaluate the safety impact of newly installed speed cameras at several intersections. They found there was none. Said r…

Anecdote of my own: In my country, monetary fines in traffic infringements are explicitly not for revenue. They mix into the total state revenue and form a minuscule fraction of it. The police sees none of it. This distinction is made very clear, for example in a parliament answer by the justice minister: "...it is clear that the purpose of fines is not to increase the revenue of police departments but first and fore…

> Anecdote of my own: In my country, monetary fines in traffic infringements are explicitly not for revenue. They mix into the total state revenue [...]

You're contradicting your own claim.

Just because someone in a PR position says the purpose is not to increase revenue doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter where the revenue goes, the fines generate revenue. If they didn't care about revenue, they'd use penalty points - with the added benefit of not fucking over the lower and middle classes.

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

#392

Post by blattimwind »

113 wrote: post #376
vkou wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If as a driver, you aren't willing to slam on the brakes, to avoid killing someone, because you feel you have right of way... You shouldn't be driving. Your first goal, as a driver, should be avoiding accidents. Your second goal should be following the rules of the road. A human life is more important then enforcing your claim to the right of way.

"Aha, you fool! You have obstructed my right of way and now you must die."

"These mortal fools with their ignorant and mislead readings of traffic code!"

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

#393

Post by blattimwind »

wgerard wrote: post #172
coldtea wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Is there an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time? The driver would be more guilty as they should have been going with a suitable speed and pay attention to the road when driving inside the city.

Living in a major city myself, I can think of several intersections where one could be traveling the speed limit and paying attention but be completely unable to stop in time for a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly. There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc.

Basic Rule Of Speed: Only go so fast you can stop within visible distance. If there is not enough room for oncoming traffic, make it half the visible distance.

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

#394

Post by blattimwind »

wgerard wrote: post #154
ken wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only issue I have with keeping it illegal is that so many people already do it. I don't commute by car but I drive a couple evenings a week through the city, and in every single intersection on my trip (5 miles) I see people jaywalking. I see people do it right in front of cops, and nobody cares. What is the purpose of a law that few people follow, and which is never enforced? Shouldn't the laws of a republic ref…

I definitely see your point, and I have mixed feelings on it to be fair (for the very reason you noted). I think it's more about establishing right-of-way for me, more than punishing pedestrians for jaywalking. I don't think it's smart to allow pedestrians the right-of-way at all times, but I'm also learning that other countries do this already so I'm certainly willing to admit I could be wrong here!

> I don't think it's smart to allow pedestrians the right-of-way at all times, but I'm also learning that other countries do this already

I don't think there is any country with a rule like that. I do think many people are articulating a different rule [1] badly, making it appear as-if.

[1] Pedestrians can cross roads everywhere, but only if it's safe to do so and don't obstruct traffic. During the crossing transverse traffic does not have right of way momentarily.

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

#395

Post by blattimwind »

coldtea wrote: post #171
wgerard wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! I didn't know that. Also curious as with the other poster: What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Do they do an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time/was traveling the speed limit/etc?

> Also curious as with the other poster: What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Do they do an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time/was traveling the speed limit/etc? Yes. And the driver has the burden of proof. They drive in a city, so they should have appropriate distance from anything in front of them, and go slow enough to stop. What if it was a kid running into the street? Here's…

> so they should have appropriate distance from anything in front of them, and go slow enough to stop

This doesn't make sense. Crossing pedestrians go across the road, so if you are driving on a lane next to the sidewalk, then you could only go in first gear hovering the brakes, because any pedestrian on the sidewalk could start to cross the road in ~one second or less and would have right of way. Basically all streets would be zebra crossings. Obviously not how it works.

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

#396

Post by salvar »

bicubic wrote: post #391
salvar wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdote of my own: In my country, monetary fines in traffic infringements are explicitly not for revenue. They mix into the total state revenue and form a minuscule fraction of it. The police sees none of it. This distinction is made very clear, for example in a parliament answer by the justice minister: "...it is clear that the purpose of fines is not to increase the revenue of police departments but first and fore…

> Anecdote of my own: In my country, monetary fines in traffic infringements are explicitly not for revenue . They mix into the total state revenue [...] You're contradicting your own claim. Just because someone in a PR position says the purpose is not to increase revenue doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter where the revenue goes, the fines generate revenue. If they didn't care about revenue, they'd use penalty poi…

Just because something is revenue doesn't mean that the purpose is entirely to increase revenue. That is the claim you made. I have presented a counter-example to that, where revenue increase is clearly not the only reason for monetary fines. We have the stated purpose of the legislation -- you can call that PR or whatever you'd like but the stated purpose is not revenue increase -- and you have the fact that these revenues do not benefit any police departments or anyone directly. Instead they make up an absolutely tiny fraction of the total revenues of the state.

Just for fun, I calculated this fraction for a given year. The revenue from all traffic violation fines accounted for a whopping 0.1% of the total state revenue.

So apparently the only purpose of these traffic fines are to raise the state revenue by 0.1%, despite the explicit stated purpose of the legislation and any evidence to the contrary. Does that make sense to you?

Is this one of those things where you just know you're right because you feel it in your gut and nothing can ever convince you otherwise?

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

#397

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #364
pjc50 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? People don't do this deliberately very often because there's always the risk that the driver doesn't stop. If you try edging into the road you'll get honked at. The concept of jaywalking has never made any sense to me as a Brit; it's like that joke sign meme of "Danger of death and £20 fine".

If your response to "this works but is not ideal" is "people don't abuse it very often " then I think we agree. I'm not arguing for any particular change.

There's quite strong evolutionary pressure on people not to abuse it. The ones that do often don't last very long.

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

#398

Post by SmellyGeekBoy »

wgerard wrote: post #172
coldtea wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Is there an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time? The driver would be more guilty as they should have been going with a suitable speed and pay attention to the road when driving inside the city.

Living in a major city myself, I can think of several intersections where one could be traveling the speed limit and paying attention but be completely unable to stop in time for a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly. There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc.

The speed limit is called a limit for a reason. If prevailing conditions make it unsafe to drive at this speed then you're supposed to slow down.

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

#399

Post by tivert »

icebraining wrote: post #41
tivert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dictatorships have fallen because formerly loyal police officers stopped being loyal. It's unlikely that kind of personal evolution will happen with a machine.

Can you give me an example of such a dictatorship?

Pretty much every single one that fell through internal unrest. For a dictatorship to fall, it's security apparatus needs to stop performing its function of suppressing dissent and revolt.

Humans aren't machines. The police of a dictatorship, at some point, will have to confront an order to gun down protesters and the like to preserve the regime. Even if they're ideologically committed, they might recoil the order to kill and let the regime fall.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/02/protests-how-d...

> And the use of violence by the regime under challenge, argue both Petersen and Sadiki, acts as a further crucial trigger for escalation by protesters against the regime. It is not simply because the state use of violence - whether in Bahrain or Romania, Egypt or Libya - acts as reminder of its brutal nature at a time when it is more vulnerable than it realises. It is also because the use of state violence confronts those still part of the state with a moral and strategic question: whether to tolerate the use of force and hope the regime survives, or peel away and join the opposition.

> "It is the other side of the story to that of those rebelling," says Petersen. "There are different considerations for those in the military, police or special forces, defined by their role. They are required to make a choice: whether they can switch sides and hope the people accept their new narrative in the new world after the regime, or stick by it to the end.

> "Whether you defect to the opposition depends on these differential kinds of moral calculus. Ordinary soldiers, for instance, have their own calculus. And if they decide not to fire on protesters that sends a signal to the higher-ups in the military. Then pretty soon you might see the interest of the military changing."

> Petersen, however, has one caveat. That this kind of negotiation in an organisation like the military does not necessarily hold true if there is the early and "crushing" use of violence.

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

#400

Post by Dylan16807 »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #397
Dylan16807 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your response to "this works but is not ideal" is "people don't abuse it very often " then I think we agree. I'm not arguing for any particular change.

There's quite strong evolutionary pressure on people not to abuse it. The ones that do often don't last very long.

That's pressure not to jump in front of cars. You don't have to jump in front of a car to trigger this rule, you just have to put one foot into the road.
Post reply on HN