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

AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 142 posts

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#101

Post by Gud »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #88
jerf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that laws are an approximation of safety and well being. When laws were all we had, the delta between the laws and the actual thing we want (safety) was not something we spent a lot of time worrying about, because we couldn't detect the difference. The law couldn't be enforced anyhow. The problem is as we get perfect enforcement, the delta does become visible. The reality is that when a road is set to…

I mean sure but they give us rigid enforcement because there's no universal and fair way to define what the "real" limit should be. Limits do get changed dynamically on motorways. You can argue that with the ever greater digitization of cars there's a way out of that: use AI to monitor road conditions and dynamically adjust the speed limit, where those superseding limits are uploaded to a central server that in-car d…

Or better yet, school our children to be intelligent human beings that know how to use their judgement rather than implement some dystopian horror future where we are monitored by the all seeing busybodies assisted by AI.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#102

Post by sowbug »

I once heard a parable during a lecture about famed process expert W.E. Deming.

A bank's management was concerned that its tellers' cash drawer balances were often slightly off the expected counts. During spot checks, one drawer might be 25 cents over; another might be a few dollars short, and so on. Management thought this was symptomatic of sloppiness. To address the problem, they instituted a rule that all cash drawers had to be reconciled at the end of each day, and if there were a discrepancy, the teller would be disciplined.

After a few weeks, management asked for a report. Congratulations were given all around. Discrepancies had vanished entirely. Problem solved.

Eventually the real story surfaced. The tellers responded to the rule by creating a secret piggy-bank fund. If a drawer was over at the end of the day, the excess went into the fund. Deficits, likewise, drew from the fund. Thus, the books balanced perfectly at the end of each day. No other process changes occurred.

The lesson is that when you're trying to manage a process, you'll almost always see improvements in what you're measuring, but that does not mean that the root problem is solved. The number of tickets issued by these cameras will certainly go down, and police will use that number to justify more installations. In reality, drivers will start holding phones above their heads, wearing seatbelt-colored shirts, driving with the sunshade down, avoiding the routes with cameras, waving their arms around the cabin, and so on. The metric is number of tickets issued. Drivers and law enforcement will collaborate, conspire, and independently innovate for the exclusive goal of bringing that number down.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#103

Post by Brian_K_White »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #77
Verdex wrote: post #8

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S.…

Oh grow up. Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.

Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that.

Seatbelts are a great example of exactly the stated form of oppression through giving moral busybodies the power to be more than merely annoying with their presumptions and opinions about your life.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#104

Post by nvm0n2 »

Gud wrote: post #101
nvm0n2 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean sure but they give us rigid enforcement because there's no universal and fair way to define what the "real" limit should be. Limits do get changed dynamically on motorways. You can argue that with the ever greater digitization of cars there's a way out of that: use AI to monitor road conditions and dynamically adjust the speed limit, where those superseding limits are uploaded to a central server that in-car d…

Or better yet, school our children to be intelligent human beings that know how to use their judgement rather than implement some dystopian horror future where we are monitored by the all seeing busybodies assisted by AI.

I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal).

The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where the puck is going and where focus is needed.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#105

Post by matthewfelgate »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #103
matthewfelgate wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh grow up. Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.

Adults almost never use 'grow up' as an argument. They actually know what their argument is and say that. Seatbelts are a great example of exactly the stated form of oppression through giving moral busybodies the power to be more than merely annoying with their presumptions and opinions about your life.

Lol I wonder how much you cry when you see a fire extinguisher knowing it stops your right to die in a fire.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#106

Post by Gud »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #104
Gud wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or better yet, school our children to be intelligent human beings that know how to use their judgement rather than implement some dystopian horror future where we are monitored by the all seeing busybodies assisted by AI.

I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal). The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where t…

You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon.

I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#107

Post by AnimalMuppet »

matthewfelgate wrote: post #77
Verdex wrote: post #8

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S.…

Oh grow up. Wearing a seatbelt isn't oppression you muppet.

First, as a self-identifying muppet, I resent your using the term as a pejorative.

Second, and no longer tongue in cheek: You are definitely in violation of the HN guidelines. You can't comment like that here.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#108

Post by jerf »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #88
jerf wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that laws are an approximation of safety and well being. When laws were all we had, the delta between the laws and the actual thing we want (safety) was not something we spent a lot of time worrying about, because we couldn't detect the difference. The law couldn't be enforced anyhow. The problem is as we get perfect enforcement, the delta does become visible. The reality is that when a road is set to…

I mean sure but they give us rigid enforcement because there's no universal and fair way to define what the "real" limit should be. Limits do get changed dynamically on motorways. You can argue that with the ever greater digitization of cars there's a way out of that: use AI to monitor road conditions and dynamically adjust the speed limit, where those superseding limits are uploaded to a central server that in-car d…

If I wasn't clear, yes, the problem is human, not technological. At least inasmuch as humans using the technology better could at least do better than they are now, even if they couldn't get to perfect.

But first we must pass through a period of time where it becomes evident to even the dumbest and most self-interested people that automated enforcement of essentially arbitrary approximations is not in the best interest of society, no matter how appealing it may sound on the surface. Inhuman law enforcement is inhuman.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#109

Post by nvm0n2 »

Gud wrote: post #106
nvm0n2 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal). The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where t…

You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon. I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.

Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too.

So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them.

I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.

Re: AI cameras catch 297 drivers in three days in Cornwall

#110

Post by jfindley »

mdp2021 wrote: post #89
jfindley wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the UK, where this is happening, that's simply not true. There were 1695 road fatalities in 2022 total. That's very different from "thousands a day". I do not believe it is desirable (or practically possible) to eliminate all risk of death or injury from life, and increasingly orwellian surveillance measures to clamp down on every misdeed and ill advised risk does not, I think, make for a happier or freer society.

> That's very different from "thousands a day" So you had us check. We hope it is now clear to you that you showed having misunderstood the poster: «thousands of people are being killed by drivers every day» does not imply "here". But according to data, ( Road deaths over the long-term, 1900 to 2021 // Annual number of reported deaths resultant from any type of road accident. This includesvehicles, pedestrians and cy…

Putting an "AI" camera on a road in Cornwall, UK has no ability to affect how many people are killed on China's roads, and so it's deeply silly to use those numbers to try to justify doing so. There's far less invasive things that could be done to dramatically improve road safety in many of the countries you list.
Post reply on HN