3 ms·

Self-driving cars might be the worst example. We need to hold firm on the precautionary principle in regards to them.

emiliobumachar 10y ago
Why? Shouldn't the bar be "better" instead of "perfect"? If we can drop car deaths by a large percentage by allowing self driving cars that kill a lot, but not as much as humans, shouldn't we?
andrewflnr 10y ago
Funny you should say that. I thought self-driving cars were a bad example for GP to use because they have almost no down side, especially in the long run. Humans suck at driving, and at dealing with high speed phenomena in general. Computers are great at that. They'll do even better when they don't have any idiot humans in their way on the road. Even if they were more dangerous than human-driven cars, they wouldn't pose anything like the existential threat that nukes, bio-engineering, AI, and nano-tech do.
- omegaworks 10y ago
  > they wouldn't pose anything like the existential threat They will further the decline of the city. If you are hoping to see America densify and embrace vibrant walkable communities, there will no longer be that visceral pressure of commute-hate to encourage it. Additionally, there will be 3+ million Americans that will be out of a job because of it. You witnessed just how backwards a huge abandoned workforce took us on November 8th, don't underestimate the impact another wave of displacement could have.
  - andrewflnr 10y ago
    Do you seriously think that compares to nuclear holocaust? Ecological collapse caused by reckless tinkering? Hard AI takeoff? Any sort of out-of-control replicating technology? We're worried about the literal extinction of humanity. Urban decay and unemployment don't even register on that scale.
    - lithos 10y ago
      Desperate humans are a great fuel for any type of change. Those desperate people will not care about the world burning around them, or prevention of it burning. Walmart, insurance, and shipping companies are one of the top 5 or all in the top 5 as employer's for a frightening number of States. All of these are ripe for AI disruption.

Why? Shouldn't the bar be "better" instead of "perfect"? If we can drop car deaths by a large percentage by allowing self driving cars that kill a lot, but not as much as humans, shouldn't we?

andrewflnr 10y ago

Funny you should say that. I thought self-driving cars were a bad example for GP to use because they have almost no down side, especially in the long run. Humans suck at driving, and at dealing with high speed phenomena in general. Computers are great at that. They'll do even better when they don't have any idiot humans in their way on the road. Even if they were more dangerous than human-driven cars, they wouldn't pose anything like the existential threat that nukes, bio-engineering, AI, and nano-tech do.

omegaworks 10y ago
> they wouldn't pose anything like the existential threat They will further the decline of the city. If you are hoping to see America densify and embrace vibrant walkable communities, there will no longer be that visceral pressure of commute-hate to encourage it. Additionally, there will be 3+ million Americans that will be out of a job because of it. You witnessed just how backwards a huge abandoned workforce took us on November 8th, don't underestimate the impact another wave of displacement could have.
- andrewflnr 10y ago
  Do you seriously think that compares to nuclear holocaust? Ecological collapse caused by reckless tinkering? Hard AI takeoff? Any sort of out-of-control replicating technology? We're worried about the literal extinction of humanity. Urban decay and unemployment don't even register on that scale.
  - lithos 10y ago
    Desperate humans are a great fuel for any type of change. Those desperate people will not care about the world burning around them, or prevention of it burning. Walmart, insurance, and shipping companies are one of the top 5 or all in the top 5 as employer's for a frightening number of States. All of these are ripe for AI disruption.