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

The presumption that computers are working correctly

emptycity.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 171 posts

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#161

Post by atoav »

envsubst wrote: post #114
dazzawazza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is substantial evidence that the people in power in the Post Office Board dismissed the evidence from the sub post masters because they were, more often than not of Asian descent (Indian, Bangladeshi, Pakistani,...). So the Post Office Board had a mental block to joining the dots because they were racist. When they were eventually confronted with the overwhelming evidence of hundreds of false convictions they d…

> they doubled down because they lack any sense of morality. I don't believe you know what their internal mental states are.

Most internal mental states that have any impact on the actions of an individual are leaky. That is because they affect actual real world actions.

So given a set of actions you can infer a likely set of mental states — this is also done in the court room. Can you always infer with 100% accuracy and with every colorful detail fleshed out? No. Do you typically need to? No.

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#162

Post by envsubst »

atoav wrote: post #161
envsubst wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they doubled down because they lack any sense of morality. I don't believe you know what their internal mental states are.

Most internal mental states that have any impact on the actions of an individual are leaky. That is because they affect actual real world actions. So given a set of actions you can infer a likely set of mental states — this is also done in the court room. Can you always infer with 100% accuracy and with every colorful detail fleshed out? No. Do you typically need to? No.

> this is also done in the court room.

And we have we gone through that process to look at the issue from all sides and hear arguments from all parties? No.

You don't need to know intent to fire or punish someone anyway. In this case we can dismiss people for improper action, without demeaning them personally.

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#163

Post by brokenmachine »

auggierose wrote: post #121
gwd wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now; imagine a world where nobody could ever be convicted without mathematical verification of all components of evidence. Nobody could be convicted of anything, since even if we had 10 people and three 4k video cameras all see someone pull out a gun and shoot somebody, we can't have mathematical certainty even of the three video cameras, much less the unreliable wetware memories of 10 people. We might as well g…

I rather rely on the memories of 10 people than on 4K cameras which can be hacked. I don't mind relying on a 4K camera for something like tennis, to decide if a ball is out or not. But if it is just up to software if I go to prison for 10 years or not, I very much DO mind.

I'll take the 4k cameras over eyewitnesses, thanks.

Have you ever dealt with the public?

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#164

Post by brokenmachine »

momirlan wrote: post #106

Computers, as in hardware, work as designed. Are there bugs in the software run on them ? Then the title should be about "bugs" or logic errors, not "computers"

That's not even close to true. Hardware regularly has bugs ("errata"), as other commenters here have noted.

Also hardware and software are completely codependent nowadays.

Your trust in hardware is hopelessly misplaced.

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#165

Post by atoav »

envsubst wrote: post #162
atoav wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most internal mental states that have any impact on the actions of an individual are leaky. That is because they affect actual real world actions. So given a set of actions you can infer a likely set of mental states — this is also done in the court room. Can you always infer with 100% accuracy and with every colorful detail fleshed out? No. Do you typically need to? No.

> this is also done in the court room. And we have we gone through that process to look at the issue from all sides and hear arguments from all parties? No. You don't need to know intent to fire or punish someone anyway. In this case we can dismiss people for improper action, without demeaning them personally.

If you read my post again you will notice I didn't say anything about the situation at hand. I just refuted your general statement that one cannot reason about mental states from the visible actions.

I agree that one should be cautious with early accusations or hopping on trains just because they are rolling.

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#166

Post by envsubst »

atoav wrote: post #165
envsubst wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is also done in the court room. And we have we gone through that process to look at the issue from all sides and hear arguments from all parties? No. You don't need to know intent to fire or punish someone anyway. In this case we can dismiss people for improper action, without demeaning them personally.

If you read my post again you will notice I didn't say anything about the situation at hand. I just refuted your general statement that one cannot reason about mental states from the visible actions. I agree that one should be cautious with early accusations or hopping on trains just because they are rolling.

And if you read what I said, before your comment, you'll see its about this particular situation.

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#168

Post by kazinator »

kazinator wrote: post #127
checkyoursudo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. This is presumed guilt. The burden should always be on the prosecution to prove guilt, and if that requires the prosecution to prove the correctness of hardware, models, software, or data, then that is what should be required. And if the prosecution cannot prove the legitimacy of evidence, then than evidence should be disallowed. The standard does not have to b…

> This is contrary to the principle of presumed innocence. No it isn't. It just means that some situation involving information from computers is "circumstantial evidence". If programs have to be proved correct, that basically means data from computers could never be introduced as circumstantial evidence. For instance, guns are normally assumed not to go off unless someone pulls the trigger. If a member of the Crips…

> For instance, guns are normally assumed not to go off unless someone pulls the trigger.

Well, I looked into this; it's not that clear-cut.

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#169

Post by dang »

k0k0 wrote: post #29
phire wrote: post #7

As a programmer, it's my experience that the computer itself usually works correctly. It's almost never a hardware bug. But software.... software gets things wrong all the time and the computer hardware just blindly does what the software told it to.

Your experience is quite limited. Too limited to have a meaningful opinion on this subject frankly.

Please don't cross into personal attack. If you know more than someone else, that's great, but in that case please share some of what you know—without putdowns or snark—so the rest of us can learn.

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Re: The presumption that computers are working correctly

#170

Post by atoav »

envsubst wrote: post #166
atoav wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read my post again you will notice I didn't say anything about the situation at hand. I just refuted your general statement that one cannot reason about mental states from the visible actions. I agree that one should be cautious with early accusations or hopping on trains just because they are rolling.

And if you read what I said, before your comment, you'll see its about this particular situation.

Yeah, but my comment doesn't has to be. I am allowed to go into your direction, generalize your statement or put it into a different environment and examine it. How else should people discuss things?
Post reply on HN