4 ms·
Why should they be made to walk an extra block? So that they don't die. A fact that should be increasingly relevant as the reigns are slowly handed over to com
by M_Grey 10y ago
Why should they be made to walk an extra block? So that they don't die.
A fact that should be increasingly relevant as the reigns are slowly handed over to computers.
- mindslight 10y agoThe need to "not die" is a result of a deliberate policy choice, which you're obscuring by making it seem like the pedestrian is the only one choosing. If we're talking about metaphorical "reigns" meaning control of society, then we definitely should not be handing these over to computers. The goal should be for computers to be responsible to people [0], rather than people being controlled by computers. Otherwise, we are abdicating are own right to exist. [0] True independent AI would function as its own agent. But I would categorize that as a new "person".
- M_Grey 10y agoA deliberate policy choice of... allowing cars on roads? Before that it was horse drawn carriages and people on horseback running people down. I'm not clear on the pure policy choice you're referencing. The rest of your post is a complete tangent.
- mindslight 10y agoThe policy choice you seem to be advocating is that cars should have complete right of way, which is decidedly not the present condition. My "tangent" directly addressed something you said.
- M_Grey 10y ago>The need to "not die" is a result of a deliberate policy choice... Your earlier statement. Now you're saying that policy (the one you describe as a construction designed to be burdensome earlier) is one you feel I've implied? I've done no such thing. You're the one claiming that the current system is burdensome, don't try to wriggle out of that. Your tangent meanwhile did not directly address something I said, it addressed an extension of what I said pertaining to vehicles, and expanded it to a society-wide issue. So again... tangent.