3 ms·

This person is playing a dangerous game and using her autistic child as an experimental toy. She's overconfident and certainly does not understand all the ramif

by sidlls 7y ago

This person is playing a dangerous game and using her autistic child as an experimental toy. She's overconfident and certainly does not understand all the ramifications of what she's doing.

cabaalis 7y ago
Hacking the operation of an insulin pump for your child seems so insanely dangerous I could not even conceive of attempting it. The other things she talks about, such as helping autistic people recognize emotions, could be enormously beneficial and much less potentially harmful. My understand of part of the autism spectrum is difficulty empathizing, not being able to understand cues of emotion. I have the benefit of being able to understand pretty well that words I've just spoken or actions I've taken have hurt somebody's feelings. If an AI can flash up an image of "this person is now sad" right after someone lacking that ability has done or said something, they have the opportunity to apologize or say it differently. That could greatly improve their social interactions and personal happiness.
- inimino 7y ago
  > I could not even conceive of attempting it. Someone had to write the software that runs on her kid's insulin pump. If you could make it better and had the resources to do it right, you'd probably find it less insanely dangerous and more like the obvious way to approach the problem.
- craftinator 7y ago
  I'd feel more comfortable with my software running the pump than someone else's, especially given the UI of most insulin pumps I've seen. They make it easy it get it wrong.
thrav 7y ago
She demonstrated a bit of a misunderstanding of ADHD and the impact it has on people. Interestingly, if her working memory device is as good as she says, it may have serious potential as a non-chemical treatment for ADHD.
inimino 7y ago
But you're fully qualified to make absolute statements about someone else's family and someone else's knowledge and someone else's skill and someone else's ethical choices based on a pop article you just read!?
- gervase 7y ago
  From the comment guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. This comment is not constructive; if you disagree with the parent's assessment, please explain how and why in order to stimulate meaningful discussion.
  - inimino 7y ago
    The parent did not make an assessment. The parent made a value judgement and commented not on the article but on the author in absolute terms. I assume good faith, and my comment pointed out that the parent commenter in fact was being arrogant, as it is arrogant to make value judgements about someone else's situation from a position of relative ignorance.

by sidlls 7y ago

This person is playing a dangerous game and using her autistic child as an experimental toy. She's overconfident and certainly does not understand all the ramifications of what she's doing.

cabaalis 7y ago

Hacking the operation of an insulin pump for your child seems so insanely dangerous I could not even conceive of attempting it. The other things she talks about, such as helping autistic people recognize emotions, could be enormously beneficial and much less potentially harmful. My understand of part of the autism spectrum is difficulty empathizing, not being able to understand cues of emotion. I have the benefit of being able to understand pretty well that words I've just spoken or actions I've taken have hurt somebody's feelings. If an AI can flash up an image of "this person is now sad" right after someone lacking that ability has done or said something, they have the opportunity to apologize or say it differently. That could greatly improve their social interactions and personal happiness.

inimino 7y ago
> I could not even conceive of attempting it. Someone had to write the software that runs on her kid's insulin pump. If you could make it better and had the resources to do it right, you'd probably find it less insanely dangerous and more like the obvious way to approach the problem.
craftinator 7y ago
I'd feel more comfortable with my software running the pump than someone else's, especially given the UI of most insulin pumps I've seen. They make it easy it get it wrong.

thrav 7y ago

She demonstrated a bit of a misunderstanding of ADHD and the impact it has on people. Interestingly, if her working memory device is as good as she says, it may have serious potential as a non-chemical treatment for ADHD.

inimino 7y ago

But you're fully qualified to make absolute statements about someone else's family and someone else's knowledge and someone else's skill and someone else's ethical choices based on a pop article you just read!?

gervase 7y ago
From the comment guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. This comment is not constructive; if you disagree with the parent's assessment, please explain how and why in order to stimulate meaningful discussion.
- inimino 7y ago
  The parent did not make an assessment. The parent made a value judgement and commented not on the article but on the author in absolute terms. I assume good faith, and my comment pointed out that the parent commenter in fact was being arrogant, as it is arrogant to make value judgements about someone else's situation from a position of relative ignorance.