3 ms·
Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, adva
by Danihan 10y ago
Look at red lights as an example. Those are just primitive robots. Yet, when I'm sitting at an empty intersection at night, even though I have excellent, advanced sensors in my eyes, I'm not allowed to just run a red light.
Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up.
It's not based on scary movies... primitive robots already force me to waste my time on a nightly basis.
- cortesoft 10y agoYou absolutely can run the red light, it would just be against the law. That has nothing to do with robots. We have been making laws that limit what we can do for millennia.
- Danihan 10y agoThe law has everything to do with robots and how they will integrate with society, like it or not.
- _iao 10y agoLaw is literally enforced group-think
- __jal 10y agoRight. It is just like explosives. There is no problem leaving agents of rapid chemical reaction lying around where kids may find them, it is the kids. This also has nothing to do with robots.
- tyingq 10y agoGmail does this already. Try and attach a Windows exe to an email. I have valid reasons to want to do that, but have to find workarounds. It seems happy with uploading the same file to Google drive and putting a link in the email. Though that doesn't solve my use case of sharing with Chinese Nationals who are blocked from those urls. I'm also not clear on how/why this is somehow more secure.
- danieltillett 10y agoCan't you zip up the .exe in an encrypted form and send the password? This is better anyway since even if gmail let the .exe go out the spam filter at the other end is likely to strip the .exe anyway.
- ComputerGuru 10y agoNope. Zip archives do not password protect the index. This trick used to work, but not any more. RAR files used to get through, but now Gmail detects them as well. I think even 7z.
- tyingq 10y agoThey've gotten very clever about workarounds. See: http://imgur.com/a/y4Lxz http://imgur.com/a/y4Lxz Tried tar, gzip, even uuencode. Then taking "exe" out of the file name with the uuencoded version. Edit: Shell archive works! apt-get install sharutils;shar file.exe > file.exe.shar
- scandox 10y agoGreat example. I'm delighted that the robots have the final say on this. Long may they override your advanced sensors.
- Danihan 10y agoYou may be an authoritarian if... ^
- primitivesuave 10y agoBrilliant example! Though it seems more an example of humans giving a robot the final say, rather than a robot earning the final say based on the merit of its predictions.
- nebabyte 10y agoThat's a terrible example. He's talking about control and overrides; in that context, a red light is a literal counterexample of your point. You can violate systems with overrides, and doing so might have consequences, but that's distinct from systems you can't override which was kemendo's point on our fear of where the control lies. (If tomorrow we decide to swap the meaning of red and green, that control is still humans'; the lights won't do anything about it.) A self-driving car that locks up if you try and run a red would be an example, but as you didn't say that I'm guessing you just missed the point.
- Danihan 10y agoA driver cannot control nor override a light -- they can't make it change quickly colors when an intersection is obviously empty. They can only ignore it entirely. That's different. You wouldn't be "overriding" killer robots by hiding in underground tunnels. You'd just be avoiding them entirely. My main argument though is that people's distrust comes from extrapolation of negative real life experiences, not just from the world of fiction.
- nebabyte 10y ago> A driver cannot control nor override a light You can rewire it or shoot it with a gun. It has no physical control over your actions. That is the actual sense of the word "control" in a humans-vs-robots debate.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Bartweiss 10y ago> Red lights aren't just a "helpful warning." The town where I grew up has a red light which only changes when a weight sensor is tripped. But weight sensors are expensive, and the approaching two-lane road only has a sensor in one lane. Worse, it's calibrated for cars, so motorcycles never trip it. Yes, only. If you ride up late at night on a motorcycle, you have a choice between committing a serious traffic offense and waiting several hours for the light to change. No, this problem isn't ever going to be addressed. I think it's damned reasonable to be scared of what we'll get when people hand authority to machines. Not for Terminator reasons, but for simple bureaucratic stupidity.
- ThrustVectoring 10y agoDoes your local jurisdiction allow right turns on red? It'd be legal to turn right and pull U-turns until you get to the direction you want to go.
- Bartweiss 10y agoSadly it's a T-junction, with the two lane approach (the broken one) lacking a right turn. Definitely a good trick for most broken lights, though.
- nebabyte 10y ago> If you ride up late at night on a motorcycle, you have a choice between committing a serious traffic offense and waiting several hours for the light to change Uhh, or (A) Back up, pull over your motorcycle, walk the crosswalk(s) as a pedestrian with a 'bike', get on motorcycle on the side of the road you want to go on, continue; or (B) Make a right turn + U-turn as many times as needed to reach the desired turn? (3-way intersections can pose a problem, but the through road is most likely defaulting to green and if not you can pull over...) If your municipality still treated either of the above as a 'serious traffic violation' yet still not springing for better sensors that likely exist for more mainstream compatibility then you're just living with idiots at that point (or they just don't like motorcycles :P)
- joe_the_user 10y ago
- AndrewKemendo 10y agoThat's not the machine though, that's the inflexibility of the human legal process. It's more than possible technologically to manage that exact problem (and is implemented elsewhere): sensors to detect a car and turn light or blinking yellows after a certain time of day. So it's not the machines, it's humans ceding power to them voluntarily.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- bauerd 10y ago>The robots already have the final say in that arena, because human law (for now) backs them up. But traffic lights don't "have a say", they're put up and have their mechanics defined by humans. Neither does electronic time recording have a say on how many hours of work are required for an employee to get a paycheck.