5 ms·

Because certain types of technical advancement requires an element of devaluing people. "Calculator" used to be a job performed exclusively by humans. Moving t

by avar 10y ago

Because certain types of technical advancement requires an element of devaluing people. "Calculator" used to be a job performed exclusively by humans. Moving to mechanical & digital calculators didn't only require gains in efficiency, but also a recognition that this was a job humans were simply worse at than machines, so it was irresponsible to task a human with it. Similarly self-driving cars can't simply be a nice thing to have, eventually we have to have the discussion that it's irresponsible to have human driven vehicles on the road.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
Promoting the tech and respecting people are not mutually exclusive. I'm not arguing that we should endanger people and my comment is not about this one instance. It's about a general attitude of devaluing people. Where do you think that road leads? When Uber vehicles were found to have run red lights a couple of weeks ago, Uber's response was that these were human operated and served as an example of why they must rid the roads of error-prone human drivers as quickly as possible. This, as if humans were a scourge that must be eliminated. There is a strange rising anger with people for being human. And, once we've ridded the roads, labor force, economy, etc. of all the pesky humans, then what? Who owns the tech? Who has the power? Will they be as benevolent as the machines we've learned to worship? What is the value of a human life by then? Quote whatever stats you like, but normalizing this attitude of fallible, dispensible humans is dangerous in many ways.
- avar 10y ago
  What do you even mean by "devaluing"? Of course a more error prone, dangerous and expensive driver has less value. Is pointing this out somehow wrong? I think not pointing it out devalues human life. The road of getting rid of fallible humans from boring automatable jobs leads to Utopia, and I reject your notion that this is somehow inherently different from e.g automation in agriculture or computing
  - unclebucknasty 10y ago
    >What do you even mean by "devaluing"? I've been clear about my meaning. Can't simplify it any further. >Because certain types of technical advancement requires an element of devaluing people That's your quote. What did you mean? >Of course a more error prone, dangerous and expensive driver has less value. There's a difference between preferring tech to do the driving and saying the human has "less value". You don't see that? In any case, a hostile regard for human fallibility that approaches promotion of the dispensability of humans isn't a good thing.
    - swasheck 10y ago
      A nice sci-fi trope is that the unpredictability of humanity, and when/how it will "fail" when something better would "succeed", results in the preservation of humanity itself. It's nice to consider in the wake of the elitism.
      - unclebucknasty 10y ago
        Well, I think there's something to the notion that there is value in humanity, in spite of--or perhaps even because of--its flaws and non-binary approach to the Universe. And, of course, there's the whole "I Robot" deal, wherein the robot elects to save the life of the adult vs. the child based purely on a sterile odds-of-survival calculation. That's not really what I had in mind with my comments here, but it is an interesting point. And maybe it is another reason to consider prudence as we rush headlong into a world increasingly reliant upon technology.
        marcosdumay 10y ago
        > Well, I think there's something to the notion that there is value in humanity, in spite of--or perhaps even because of--its flaws and non-binary approach to the Universe. We are approaching a very scary time when this conjecture will be subject to cold empirical evaluation. I think we'll pass the test. But wishing that humans were good on things we aren't do not help anybody.
    - 10y ago
disposablezero 10y ago
People tend to hate on anything which threatens their job/identity, even if it rationalizes not addressing preventable causes of million of injuries and deaths. That is the definition of a SJW.
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  That's actually not the definition of SJW. You may want to look up the history of the term and consider what your eagerness to bash people over the head with it says about you.

by avar 10y ago

unclebucknasty 10y ago

Promoting the tech and respecting people are not mutually exclusive. I'm not arguing that we should endanger people and my comment is not about this one instance. It's about a general attitude of devaluing people. Where do you think that road leads? When Uber vehicles were found to have run red lights a couple of weeks ago, Uber's response was that these were human operated and served as an example of why they must rid the roads of error-prone human drivers as quickly as possible. This, as if humans were a scourge that must be eliminated. There is a strange rising anger with people for being human. And, once we've ridded the roads, labor force, economy, etc. of all the pesky humans, then what? Who owns the tech? Who has the power? Will they be as benevolent as the machines we've learned to worship? What is the value of a human life by then? Quote whatever stats you like, but normalizing this attitude of fallible, dispensible humans is dangerous in many ways.

avar 10y ago
What do you even mean by "devaluing"? Of course a more error prone, dangerous and expensive driver has less value. Is pointing this out somehow wrong? I think not pointing it out devalues human life. The road of getting rid of fallible humans from boring automatable jobs leads to Utopia, and I reject your notion that this is somehow inherently different from e.g automation in agriculture or computing
- unclebucknasty 10y ago
  >What do you even mean by "devaluing"? I've been clear about my meaning. Can't simplify it any further. >Because certain types of technical advancement requires an element of devaluing people That's your quote. What did you mean? >Of course a more error prone, dangerous and expensive driver has less value. There's a difference between preferring tech to do the driving and saying the human has "less value". You don't see that? In any case, a hostile regard for human fallibility that approaches promotion of the dispensability of humans isn't a good thing.
  - swasheck 10y ago
    A nice sci-fi trope is that the unpredictability of humanity, and when/how it will "fail" when something better would "succeed", results in the preservation of humanity itself. It's nice to consider in the wake of the elitism.
    - unclebucknasty 10y ago
      Well, I think there's something to the notion that there is value in humanity, in spite of--or perhaps even because of--its flaws and non-binary approach to the Universe. And, of course, there's the whole "I Robot" deal, wherein the robot elects to save the life of the adult vs. the child based purely on a sterile odds-of-survival calculation. That's not really what I had in mind with my comments here, but it is an interesting point. And maybe it is another reason to consider prudence as we rush headlong into a world increasingly reliant upon technology.
      - marcosdumay 10y ago
        > Well, I think there's something to the notion that there is value in humanity, in spite of--or perhaps even because of--its flaws and non-binary approach to the Universe. We are approaching a very scary time when this conjecture will be subject to cold empirical evaluation. I think we'll pass the test. But wishing that humans were good on things we aren't do not help anybody.
  - 10y ago

disposablezero 10y ago

People tend to hate on anything which threatens their job/identity, even if it rationalizes not addressing preventable causes of million of injuries and deaths. That is the definition of a SJW.

unclebucknasty 10y ago
That's actually not the definition of SJW. You may want to look up the history of the term and consider what your eagerness to bash people over the head with it says about you.