It appears the slope actually is slippery.
Yep. Slippery slope "fallacy" is actually nothing more than "you are not allowed to be human and extrapolate from trends."
Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
21–30 of 87 posts
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#22More shit to fail. Honda Insights have a "gas cap sensor" that lights the "check engine" light when the gas cap isn't tight enough. "to prevent VOC emissions in California" I'm told. But after nearly 20 years, the sensor isn't reliable anymore, and is hard to find and expensive, so the practical thing is to dike it out. I've no idea how the "drunk driver" detection is supposed to work; but how is it going to be any m…
The tech industry has spent decades hyping up AI, convincing the public that they have created human-equivalent general-purpose AI because your phone can do good speech recognition that can read answers parsed from Wikipedia or control your house's lights. The tech press goes along with it, painting a vision that AI can do anything. And then we blame the politicians for buying into the hype? Although I do blame the Republicans for defunding Congress's Office of Technology Assessment in 1992, which offered independent, non-partisan, evidence-based assessments of the feasibility of exactly this kind of law.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#23This is terrible overreach and a good example of magical thinking about the abilities of AI. Even if the false positive rate of such a system was only 0.1% per driving session, an extraordinarily ambitious goal for any AI system, that still translates to an incredible number of false positives across all drivers. Someone who drives twice a day for work would be expected to hit a false positive every couple of years o…
maybe match the low reliability of classification with a low impact rule, if the system thinks you're drunk you just have to drive slower ?
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#24More shit to fail. Honda Insights have a "gas cap sensor" that lights the "check engine" light when the gas cap isn't tight enough. "to prevent VOC emissions in California" I'm told. But after nearly 20 years, the sensor isn't reliable anymore, and is hard to find and expensive, so the practical thing is to dike it out. I've no idea how the "drunk driver" detection is supposed to work; but how is it going to be any m…
Basically anything we can do to make cars more expensive and take them off the road I support at this point, driving in America right now is a frustratingly brutal experience that leaves thousands dead, maimed, late or in prison, every day as well driving the environment into a state of global chaos.
I love these kind of laws, oh we mildly inconvenienced a car company, big deal, they'll end up making more money off it in the end. Hopefully I'll just stop seeing the bodies of people being decapitated or torn in half on my commute to DC and actually be able to actually go where I want on time.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#25This is terrible overreach and a good example of magical thinking about the abilities of AI. Even if the false positive rate of such a system was only 0.1% per driving session, an extraordinarily ambitious goal for any AI system, that still translates to an incredible number of false positives across all drivers. Someone who drives twice a day for work would be expected to hit a false positive every couple of years o…
I think it’s off base to pin this on AI enthusiasm, that’s just kind of unclear writing in the article. The legislation doesn’t specify a particular anti drunk driving provision, just that the NHSTA study the issue and determine the best course of action. Mandatory breathalyzers seems like what, um, sober minds will come up with. Which certainly feels like stunning overreach to me, but isn’t strictly about AI
Technically the wording is vague enough that they could be referring to anything, but the article specifically highlights distracted driving systems that scan drivers’ eyes:
> Among the systems that have been studied are ones that monitor a driver for signs of distracted, impaired or fatigued driving. One uses sensors that scan drivers’ eyes for signs that are similar to ones that police officers look for when they suspect impairment during traffic stops.
Even breathalyzers aren’t as fool-proof as they sound. Apparently eating certain meals right before using a breathalyzer can trigger false positives. Even breathalyzers have not insignificant numbers of false positives they would become a huge problem if forced upon the entire driving population.
So even with breathalyzers, it’s still about magical thinking about technology’s ability to monitor people’s behavior.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#26How about we mandate alcoholism detectors in liqour bottles instead?
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#27I guess this is the bill? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684 (Warning, it takes a minute or so for Chrome to render the HTML "text" tab. PDF link: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs... ) The scope creep seems insane.
As with all submitted legislation it is available at congress.gov.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#28I guess this is the bill? https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3684 (Warning, it takes a minute or so for Chrome to render the HTML "text" tab. PDF link: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684pcs... ) The scope creep seems insane.
Specifically you want section 10105 in your version of the text.
I think its 24220 in the senate version? I dunno.. I don't fully get the system.
Keyword to search for is "passively".
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#29It seems like insurance companies should be liable for massive damages for DUIs (raising rates), but offer the option to "voluntarily" install a breathalyzer to get lower rates. That feels like the American way.
Re: Drunk-driver detectors for cars mandated in infrastructure bill
#30If this happens I imagine used cars will be more valuable than new ones (and not because people want to drive drunk but because its impractical and requires more stuff that can fail + higher costs)