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

Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 239 posts

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#221

Post by AstralStorm »

imtringued wrote: post #109
greeneggs wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trolley problem is just an extreme example, that people can easily understand and think about. Less extreme versions of it occur all the time. For example, say you are driving along a road, passing a bicyclist. You'd like to give the cyclist more room, but there's an oncoming car in the lane next to you. How much room do you give? At exactly what threshold do you decide to wait to pass the cyclist? What if the cy…

If there is an oncoming car you don't overtake.

I know a plenty of people that attempt to squeeze past the cyclist giving them scant room. Almost 100% of the time, despite it being forbidden by law here.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#222

Post by AstralStorm »

aoeuasdf1 wrote: post #114
imtringued wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is one universally acceptable rule: Do not choose your victim. If they are unlucky, they are unlucky. That's all there is to it. Choosing who should be "unlucky" doesn't solve the problem. By assuming unavoidable failure you effectively give up solving the underlying problem. The solution is to avoid the failure in the first place.

No system can avoid failure 100% of the time. It may find itself going too fast with a unexpected loss of some control - brake failure, intentional sabotage, (imperceptible) oil slick, whatever. However, the system still has some control to choose between several terrible and costly outcomes. It must choose its victim. How should it chose?

Does it really matter? Human drivers are dime a dozen and act vastly differently under stress. It has not been tested.

Armchair scenarios do not help, we need actual research in simulators at high stress.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#223

Post by alexbeloi »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #216
ethbro wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have some valid points in critiquing government, but you're doing them a severe disservice by the way you present them. Context-appropriate facts, not rhetoric. > In the late 19th century, when there was less government intervention, America saw the most rapid rate of economic growth. The late 19th century of American history featured a large number of one-time-only economic improvements and wholescale pillaging…

> You have some valid points in critiquing government, but you're doing them a severe disservice by the way you present them. Context-appropriate facts, not rhetoric. I think you just don't like that I'm right about this. If I'm making a valid argument, should it matter that I'm presenting it in a manner that is inconsistent with some form of political correctness? > Additionally, unrestrained consolidation of compet…

Here, I've boiled y'alls argument down for easy digestion

When the economy does well:

    Pro-government: government fueling/supporting industry into prosperity

    Anti-government: markets make everyone richer as expected
When economy does poorly:

    Pro-government: capitalist greed/exploitation leads to ruin

    Anti-government: government regulation/strangulation leads to ruin
Feel free to repeat this argument for every boom/bust in the past/future

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#224

Post by inimino »

AstralStorm wrote: post #222
aoeuasdf1 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No system can avoid failure 100% of the time. It may find itself going too fast with a unexpected loss of some control - brake failure, intentional sabotage, (imperceptible) oil slick, whatever. However, the system still has some control to choose between several terrible and costly outcomes. It must choose its victim. How should it chose?

Does it really matter? Human drivers are dime a dozen and act vastly differently under stress. It has not been tested. Armchair scenarios do not help, we need actual research in simulators at high stress.

Does what humans actually do matter? What matters is what we want the machines to do, which is going to be worked out between buyers, manufacturers, lawyers, lawmakers, and the rest of us.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#225

Post by _andromeda_ »

alexbeloi wrote: post #223
_andromeda_ wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have some valid points in critiquing government, but you're doing them a severe disservice by the way you present them. Context-appropriate facts, not rhetoric. I think you just don't like that I'm right about this. If I'm making a valid argument, should it matter that I'm presenting it in a manner that is inconsistent with some form of political correctness? > Additionally, unrestrained consolidation of compet…

Here, I've boiled y'alls argument down for easy digestion When the economy does well: Pro-government: government fueling/supporting industry into prosperity Anti-government: markets make everyone richer as expected When economy does poorly: Pro-government: capitalist greed/exploitation leads to ruin Anti-government: government regulation/strangulation leads to ruin Feel free to repeat this argument for every boom/bus…

I never quite got what your preference is. Are you saying that it is all futile and we should just leave the markets be?

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#226

Post by s_q_b »

proteinbased wrote: post #139
s_q_b wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he knew the origin, but chose it anyway. It is an elegant phrase. Communists could be very eloquent. How else do you think they managed to convince so many people to be communists?

I am not a communist, but I must point out, that it works exactly the same way with capitalism too. If you got some time, there is a great documentation called 'The Century of the Self', which shows (among other things) how modern marketing in western countries started and evolved.

Thank you, I'll have to add it to my list.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#227

Post by pmyjavec »

zaroth wrote: post #215
pmyjavec wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but this is wrong, your clothes aren't being magically created by automated sewing equipment, they're being made in the third world, and hundreds of hours go into garments, The reason you work the treadmill to keep buying them? Planned obsolescence. See http://truecostmovie.com for more information. This common narrative that, "automation" will let us finally get to tackle the real issues really is a myth, it's…

It's the spinning and weaving that's been automated, which was the bulk of the manual labor. Sewing the cloth of a fine dress shirt takes between 30 minutes and 4 hours, says Quora. For that shirt, you work an hour to earn $150, pay $50 in payroll/income taxes, pay $100 for shirt, of which maybe another $20 of that will also be taxes (sales tax at the point of sale, and then income tax on the corporation, not even co…

You're neglecting other steps, cutting, button holes, ironing etc, this is also not a pair of jeans, handbang or other more complex garments.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#228

Post by Scarblac »

imtringued wrote: post #109
greeneggs wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trolley problem is just an extreme example, that people can easily understand and think about. Less extreme versions of it occur all the time. For example, say you are driving along a road, passing a bicyclist. You'd like to give the cyclist more room, but there's an oncoming car in the lane next to you. How much room do you give? At exactly what threshold do you decide to wait to pass the cyclist? What if the cy…

If there is an oncoming car you don't overtake.

If the road is really broad and there is plenty of space for the cyclist and you without getting close to the lane the oncoming car is in, of course you overtake.

The interesting case is in between.

Re: Barack Obama on A.I., Autonomous Cars, and the Future of Humanity

#229

Post by alexbeloi »

_andromeda_ wrote: post #225
alexbeloi wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here, I've boiled y'alls argument down for easy digestion When the economy does well: Pro-government: government fueling/supporting industry into prosperity Anti-government: markets make everyone richer as expected When economy does poorly: Pro-government: capitalist greed/exploitation leads to ruin Anti-government: government regulation/strangulation leads to ruin Feel free to repeat this argument for every boom/bus…

I never quite got what your preference is. Are you saying that it is all futile and we should just leave the markets be?

My stance is that this a nature/nurture kind of debate, to argue either extreme is ridiculous, there are clearly elements of both sides that are true.

No positive/negative turn in the economy can be isolated to a single cause, so neither side will ever be convinced by the others arguments.

A third point, which I think is often lost in these arguments, is that governments have interests that are beyond improving the financial standing of its citizens. A pure market capitalist probably wouldn't think subsidizing farming or shipbuilding a particularly good idea, but the government might be willing to accept some market inefficiency in exchange for food security or having an established ship building industry for times of war. Similarly, high income inequalities may cause high social unrest, it's in the governments own interest to prevent this, so it may be willing to accept lower total nation wealth in exchange for more evenly distributed wealth among its citizens by imposing progressive taxes and creating welfare programs.

Everybody agrees that markets work, the main questions are: are they optimizing for the thing you want? and are there cultural/political externalities that the market doesn't care about but a government might?

Post reply on HN