3 ms·

I think you are absolutely correct. and i'm disappointed again at the broader HN downvoters who lack any sense of perspective. It's like the hackers all tur

I think you are absolutely correct. and i'm disappointed again at the broader HN downvoters who lack any sense of perspective. It's like the hackers all turned into fuzzy-headed luddites here.

Piskvorrr 7y ago
Ah, sure: The New World Order requires sacrifices, as it's axiomatically Good, Correct, and Right. Anyone opposing it is the Enemy. (Now technooptimism-flavored: when Friend Computer runs you over, it's because you were secretly a traitor.)
puranjay 7y ago
Come on. It's one thing to be run over by a fellow human being, it's another to be run over by a system developed by a corporation in the pursuit of greater profits. As a species, we've long accepted that living around each other poses some hazards and we've made our peace with it. But to stretch that agreement to a multi-billion dollar corporation that only wants to make money off it? That's too much to ask for.
- glofish 7y ago
  I think the "for-profit"" by a "multi-billion dollar corporation" thought process is clouding your judgment. It is such a trite and overused argument. Why does it feel so different to you if the accident was caused by negligent human texting, versus an engineer making decisions in code? If anything that engineer was most likely operating in much better faith than the texting, perhaps drunk human driver.
  - puranjay 7y ago
    It's a rather complicated question. Intention matters a lot when it comes to dealing with on-road incidents. If there is no intention, we deem it an "accident", else we deem it manslaughter. The punishment - by courts and by society - are much harsher for the latter. Can code be "accidental"? Surely not. Someone had an intent to write and implement it. If it fails, its not "accidental"; the system was just programmed that way. So the question is: are we okay with for-profit companies intentionally writing software that can lead to deaths?

I think you are absolutely correct. and i'm disappointed again at the broader HN downvoters who lack any sense of perspective. It's like the hackers all turned into fuzzy-headed luddites here.

Piskvorrr 7y ago

Ah, sure: The New World Order requires sacrifices, as it's axiomatically Good, Correct, and Right. Anyone opposing it is the Enemy. (Now technooptimism-flavored: when Friend Computer runs you over, it's because you were secretly a traitor.)

puranjay 7y ago

Come on. It's one thing to be run over by a fellow human being, it's another to be run over by a system developed by a corporation in the pursuit of greater profits. As a species, we've long accepted that living around each other poses some hazards and we've made our peace with it. But to stretch that agreement to a multi-billion dollar corporation that only wants to make money off it? That's too much to ask for.

glofish 7y ago
I think the "for-profit"" by a "multi-billion dollar corporation" thought process is clouding your judgment. It is such a trite and overused argument. Why does it feel so different to you if the accident was caused by negligent human texting, versus an engineer making decisions in code? If anything that engineer was most likely operating in much better faith than the texting, perhaps drunk human driver.
- puranjay 7y ago
  It's a rather complicated question. Intention matters a lot when it comes to dealing with on-road incidents. If there is no intention, we deem it an "accident", else we deem it manslaughter. The punishment - by courts and by society - are much harsher for the latter. Can code be "accidental"? Surely not. Someone had an intent to write and implement it. If it fails, its not "accidental"; the system was just programmed that way. So the question is: are we okay with for-profit companies intentionally writing software that can lead to deaths?