261–270 of 478 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I absolutely want to ban self-driving cars that behave in ways no human can explain or understand! Can you explain or understand the algorithms humans use to drive cars?
Humans are held responsible if they cause harm to others. If a driver hits a pedestrian on purpose he is charged with murder. Who do you charge if a self-driving car behaves in this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I absolutely want to ban self-driving cars that behave in ways no human can explain or understand! Can you explain or understand the algorithms humans use to drive cars?
Humans are held responsible if they cause harm to others. If a driver hits a pedestrian on purpose he is charged with murder. Who do you charge if a self-driving car behaves in this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an incredibly naive perspective. I guess you want to ban search engines, self driving cars, automated filtering of lewd and abusive content (why do you think FB isn’t full of porn? It’s not a hand engineered algorithm), automatic speech recognition for the hearing impaired, and a vast swath of important technology I didn’t list. I don’t think you really understand the implications of what you’re asking for. S…
I agree with you but I am still scared of racism.
My suspicion is that the concern with machine learning over racism is rooted in two things. The first is just the general modern trend of accusing anything you don't like of being racist, because everybody hates racism and wants to fight it. And the second is the fear on the part of people who make a living fighting racism that machine learning might actually put them out of a job.
Because machine learning is basically a paperclip optimizer. You tell it to maximize a thing, it maximizes the thing and minimizes everything else. Racism isn't paperclips, so the paperclip optimizer will optimize for smashing it in favor of making more paperclips. And then they're out of business.
Because when you look at the criticism of this stuff, it generally looks like this. ~12% of the population is black, only ~5% of the selected applicants are black, the algorithm is accused of racism.
But nothing is that simple, because all kinds of things like income and education level and so on correlate with race, so you have to take all of those things into account before you can tell what's going on. And taking into account all of the available data is how machine learning works.
Which isn't to say that you couldn't make an algorithm racist. Tell it to optimize for applicants with a particular skin color and it does. But then your problem isn't with the algorithm, it's with the jackasses who asked for that.
What to optimize for is a much more general and difficult question. (Hint: Not paperclips.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I absolutely want to ban self-driving cars that behave in ways no human can explain or understand! Can you explain or understand the algorithms humans use to drive cars?
Humans are held responsible if they cause harm to others. If a driver hits a pedestrian on purpose he is charged with murder. Who do you charge if a self-driving car behaves in this way?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this article on simple linking vs. previewing sums up the issue: https://theconversation.com/webs-inventor-says-news-media-ba...
I wonder if FB ever offered or considered letting users link without previews (e.g., choose a word or words of their post to become the link text). It would defuse the way users scan headline/preview/image on the feed (instead of going to the publisher and reading the content). Not sure Australia would have accepted this but I believe it addresses some of their concerns.
It looks like the blast radius from this decision is impacting organizations that is out of scope of this legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how regulatory capture happens. Google can afford to pay for the right to link to publishers. New startups can't. Australia has strengthened Google's monopoly, all in the guise of "taking on" big tech.
> Google can afford to pay for the right to link to publishers. New startups can't. The law specifically only targets Google and Facebook due to their monopoly power. New startups are not affected.
If /r/australia got too influential or troublesome to this politician, in the lead up to an election perhaps, then there is no need to get anything through parliament - this individual can essentially add reddit.com to a list and then send Condé Nast the bill.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While that is probably technically true, in reality the Australian government is unlikely to make Australian businesses comply, giving them a competitive advantage - I think this is a protectionist policy, but the right won't admit to that because it goes against their "free market" ideals.
Does Australia have businesses in similar model like Facebook? Or are you talking about completely different models?
Oh no, not that, anything but that. In all seriousness I hope this drives the less informed in Australia to seek out actual news sources and break out of the echo chamber that is Facebook. And I hope it forces Facebook to actually support journalism instead of leeching off of it. You can't have a robust democracy without a robust fourth estate.
Are these less informed people numerous enough to cause a problem to others, perhaps by voting badly? How would you know? Are you one of them? How would you know? If you are, then aren't any opinions you share on the internet just making things worse? I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is. For example, you expr…
Yes.
>How would you know?
By the simple fact the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers and letting the states deal with it (poorly). So far the virus has escaped a dozen times through badly run quarantines and none of the lessons are shared between states, because each state has to build the experience for itself.
>I ask these questions because I keep seeing the news exaggerating some bogeyman and people believing that it's more significant than it really is.
You ask these questions because its a weaselly way to get around the HN rules of not insulting people while implying exactly the same thing. In short are you looking for a job with News Corp? Because this is exactly the type of content they want google and FB to support.
I live in Australia and while I'm excited to see less Facebook use, I see a lot of comments saying things like, "good, Facebook monetized an addiction model and this curbs that". While true, the proposed law that has pushed them to do this is incredibly dangerous. The law doesn't just apply to Facebook, it applies to whoever the Treasurer of Australia[0] says it applies to - it isn't metrics/rules based: https://i.im…
I'm not familiar with news media consumption in Australia, but I wonder would this push users to news aggregators like "News Break" or "Apple News"?