91–100 of 264 posts
Sometimes they're are used for good, like making drivers slow down: https://www.insider.com/optical-illusions-3d-crosswalk-drivi...
But other times they cause crashes: https://imgur.com/a/kYr94
Are humans similarly vulnerable?
The question becomes, how do we give an AI the concept of a BS detector? How can we train it to know, somehow, that the classification it has just made with a high degree of confidence makes no sense? This seems like a very difficult problem to solve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Id say no to the free speech since that sounds similar to shouting fire in a movie theater
And yet you don't have to look far from here to see lots of people claiming that a social network is violating freedom of speech if it censors or in any way limits the distribution of false claims that are intended to and likely to cause people to take dangerous actions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sort of find the idea of self-driving cars as ... selfish? Don't want to drive, take the bus. The idea that we all need our personal chariots (and now robotic chauffeurs) seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility. And, yes, I am guilty of owning a car myself and feel guilt about it. But for some reason the self-driving bit just seems to take it to another level for me. Maybe too there's an air of elitism abo…
Self-driving cars is not just about not wanting to drive. It's also about enabling Uber-style intelligent carpooling so that you can save energy while still maintaining similar times to driving, especially in places with poor or non-existent public transportation. It's also about reducing the number of cars in the world. You probably use your car for less than 5% of your life. Most of the time it just sits there taki…
To add, back in the old days when I still went into the heart of my local metropolis, Uber and Lyft style carpooling had the opposite effect of "reducing the number of cars". The streets are littered with pee bottles and packed with desperate drivers looking to score a quick buck, making u-turns across traffic while looking at their phones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sort of find the idea of self-driving cars as ... selfish? Don't want to drive, take the bus. The idea that we all need our personal chariots (and now robotic chauffeurs) seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility. And, yes, I am guilty of owning a car myself and feel guilt about it. But for some reason the self-driving bit just seems to take it to another level for me. Maybe too there's an air of elitism abo…
But what if self-driving cars were 10x safer than human-driven cars? Seems like your issue is with the personal vehicle bit, not the self driving bit. >Don't want to drive, take the bus. And what if my area has shitty bus service?
I strongly advise that anyone who pays attention to national politics diversify at least 50% of that energy into local issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which would fail in the case of construction workers holding up stop signs or school buses deploying stop signs, to cite just two examples.
It's actually comical in a way that we possess the technology to build robots that can operate heavy machinery and practically interpret the world the same way we do, but we still have to worry about people holding up plastic signs. It makes me think that the first real wide scale self driving vehicle deployment will have to come from a nation state rather than a corporation; the easiest way to solve all of these pro…
This infrastructure will need distributed two-phase commit. For safety-critical issues like school buses, eventual consensus won't be good enough. And then you'll need an infrastructure that detects when an older or simply defective car is present but not participating in the protocol. These problems are all solvable, but they're by no means trivial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouting fire in a movie theater is not a good example of unprotected speech, and as such it's not a good place to start reasoning from in deciding of other speech is unprotected. Otherwise, you start banning core political speech like advocacy against the draft, just like the since-overturned case that bad example comes from.
The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
What is true or false isn't always clear though, even if there's a popular or official consensus.
The point of having a public forum is to give new ideas a chance, as unheard of or unpopular as they may be. Of course, with that you get the risk of misinformation as well.
As a society we must choose how much risk we're willing to tolerate, and really consider if the the downsides of the level of free speech we have today are really so much different than what we've historically dealt with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Cameras can work just as well as your vision. Humans manage just fine and don't have LIDAR. Just because it causes the cars to slow down now doesn't mean it will in the future.
Cameras lack depth perception, which the brain very cunningly provides for humans at no additional cost. Humans do get very clunky and slow when that depth perception is taken away. One example is night vision goggles which basically just project a flat screen onto your eyeballs. Many people report that they become susceptible to tripping, falling, hitting objects, or just straight up walking into trees with NVGs, in…
The reason people become clumsy when using night vision devices is because they have a tiny field of view that only moves when your head moves. You can close one eye and walk around just fine. But if you attach two toilet paper tubes to your face, you'll have trouble balancing and avoiding obstacles. The clumsiness is caused by the lack of peripheral vision and the inability to quickly glance (since the only way to change what you see is to turn your head).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that that example became well-known due to the awful decision in Schenck v. United States does not mean that it's not a good example of speech that ought not be protected. Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected.
> Speech that is false and intentionally causes a panic should not be protected. What is true or false isn't always clear though, even if there's a popular or official consensus. The point of having a public forum is to give new ideas a chance, as unheard of or unpopular as they may be. Of course, with that you get the risk of misinformation as well. As a society we must choose how much risk we're willing to tolerate…
So since the ideas behind scientific racism, the dark enlightenment, white supremacy, Nazism and anti-semitism, and any prejudice based on conservative or religious ideals (such as sexual or gender discrimination or anti LGBT prejudice) are neither new nor unheard of, it's OK to stop giving them a chance?
I mean... flat earth? Do we really need to make sure the flat earthers have as wide a platform as they want just in case they turn out to have been right all along? Do we really need to vigorously debate every new iteration of "maybe the Jews do deserve to be driven into the sea" or "maybe eugenics is a good idea" that crawls out from under the rocks of society every few years? Do we need to keep the flame of "Bill Gates created COVID as a pretext to tag everyone with mind-control chips to make it easier to harvest adrenochrome for satanic blood magick" alive for future generations to ponder the possible wisdom of?
Maybe we can agree that, while there may be subtle cases where legitimate scientific or political ideas which run afoul of the status quo and public acceptance need protection in a free market of ideas, most of what's actually being defended in these discussions is regressive garbage that can be tossed back into the wastebin of history from whence it came, with nothing of value lost?