3 ms·

CFCs and asbestos are very useful and we've also decided to largely ban them outright because of the horrible side effects. It turns out there's hardly any safe

CFCs and asbestos are very useful and we've also decided to largely ban them outright because of the horrible side effects. It turns out there's hardly any safe ways to use them so they're not really worth the benefits.

abrichr 8y ago
Good point! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon: > Because CFCs contribute to ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere, the manufacture of such compounds has been phased out under the Montreal Protocol, and they are being replaced with other products such as hydrofluorocarbons Maybe this success is at least somewhat due to the fact that there is an alternative technology that has very similar utility and cost, but without the significant negative effects. The absence of such an alternative might explain why Asbestos hasn't had similar success. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Usage_by_industry_and_product_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Usage_by_industry_and...: > Some countries, such as India, Indonesia, China, Russia and Brazil, have continued widespread use of asbestos.
- jcadam 8y ago
  The CFC-free albuterol inhalers (for us asthmatics) introduced in the last ten years are objectively worse than the ones they replaced. On the bright side, the new formulations meant new patents for drug manufacturers and the elimination of cheap generic alternatives for patients, so there's that.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Was CFC the propellant, or part of what you inhaled? I find it hard to believe that inhaling CFC could be good for you.
    - roywiggins 8y ago
      CFC was used as the propellant. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/QuestionsAnswers/ucm077808.htm https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/Question...
adamisom 8y ago
I'm not sure how applicable this is because of the nature of the AI beast. It took decades for asbestos to be banned and given how slow we were to collectively make the decision we might just be too slow in turning away from AI/ML tech.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  The other problem with AI is a matter of definitions- how do you even define it? Whereas it's obvious what leaded gasoline or radium watch faces are. When you've got a technique that is contained in featureless server racks and produces outputs, not substances, you can't really ban the outputs (they're just decisions) and banning the techniques is probably impossible short of melting down all the GPUs or whatever. One possibility is that a bad AI decision could create huge liability costs on whoever is running the algorithm. If the algorithm can't explain that its decision was reasonable, courts could get... testy. And that would drive people towards at least explainable AI. That is, it might end up being cheaper to have some racist employees than a big monolithic AI making racist decisions (or other human failings like being a bad driver).

abrichr 8y ago

Good point! From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorofluorocarbon: > Because CFCs contribute to ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere, the manufacture of such compounds has been phased out under the Montreal Protocol, and they are being replaced with other products such as hydrofluorocarbons Maybe this success is at least somewhat due to the fact that there is an alternative technology that has very similar utility and cost, but without the significant negative effects. The absence of such an alternative might explain why Asbestos hasn't had similar success. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Usage_by_industry_and_product_type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#Usage_by_industry_and...: > Some countries, such as India, Indonesia, China, Russia and Brazil, have continued widespread use of asbestos.

jcadam 8y ago
The CFC-free albuterol inhalers (for us asthmatics) introduced in the last ten years are objectively worse than the ones they replaced. On the bright side, the new formulations meant new patents for drug manufacturers and the elimination of cheap generic alternatives for patients, so there's that.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Was CFC the propellant, or part of what you inhaled? I find it hard to believe that inhaling CFC could be good for you.
  - roywiggins 8y ago
    CFC was used as the propellant. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/QuestionsAnswers/ucm077808.htm https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/Question...

adamisom 8y ago

I'm not sure how applicable this is because of the nature of the AI beast. It took decades for asbestos to be banned and given how slow we were to collectively make the decision we might just be too slow in turning away from AI/ML tech.

roywiggins 8y ago
The other problem with AI is a matter of definitions- how do you even define it? Whereas it's obvious what leaded gasoline or radium watch faces are. When you've got a technique that is contained in featureless server racks and produces outputs, not substances, you can't really ban the outputs (they're just decisions) and banning the techniques is probably impossible short of melting down all the GPUs or whatever. One possibility is that a bad AI decision could create huge liability costs on whoever is running the algorithm. If the algorithm can't explain that its decision was reasonable, courts could get... testy. And that would drive people towards at least explainable AI. That is, it might end up being cheaper to have some racist employees than a big monolithic AI making racist decisions (or other human failings like being a bad driver).