3 ms·

Certainly could be negative, I didn't list them not because I don't think they're possible, but because I was responding to the negative perspectives on this st

by gfodor 6y ago

Certainly could be negative, I didn't list them not because I don't think they're possible, but because I was responding to the negative perspectives on this story which in many cases presumes the ones I listed are not possible. Saying "there is no further argument to be had" is just a way of shutting down debate. Why exactly is asking customers to opt-in to testing this somehow off the table? I'm not saying you're wrong, but you haven't given an argument and just are stating your belief as if it is some immutable fact.

tsimionescu 6y ago
> Why exactly is asking customers to opt-in to testing this somehow off the table? Because they are likely to not just harm themselves, but also others. And also because they are not given access to enough information to be able to make an informed decision on whether the technology is safe to use, under what parameters. Not to mention that the lack of accountability this creates for the company introduces perverse incentives - the company is getting free labour, and the more it hides about real stats, the more free labour it is likely to get. This is all pretty well settled ethics - it is for the same reason that we don't allow companies to run beta tests for potentially life-saving drugs. This is long settled both legally and ethically, and the self-driving case is essentially identical, so why reopen that debate?
- gfodor 6y ago
  I don’t agree this is settled ethically unless you can come up with a better example. This leaves full agency in the hands of the driver throughout the application, unlike a drug which is a point-in-time decision which leads to a long chain of events outside the patient’s control. A better example would be something where a manual operator was displaced by an automated one, especially where the operator was a non-professional and the use of the thing is risky and already kills many people. Perhaps there is an analog in trucking or machinery.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    In most cases, drugs need to be taken regularly for a period of time to have any observable effect, positive or negative. Sure, it's still much less immediate than a driving decision, but it's also not simply a point-in-time decision. More importantly though, I believe that the statistical characteristics are more relevant here - I have no idea to how much risk I'm exposing myself by activating the Tesla "FSD", because (1) I don't know how much I can trust myself to switch from supervision to split-second control, and (2) I have no idea how badly this has been going for other drivers of the Tesla, or how likely the Tesla is to make really poor decisions (will it stop before the intersection, or plow directly into traffic? What percentage of the time will it do either?)

by gfodor 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

> Why exactly is asking customers to opt-in to testing this somehow off the table? Because they are likely to not just harm themselves, but also others. And also because they are not given access to enough information to be able to make an informed decision on whether the technology is safe to use, under what parameters. Not to mention that the lack of accountability this creates for the company introduces perverse incentives - the company is getting free labour, and the more it hides about real stats, the more free labour it is likely to get. This is all pretty well settled ethics - it is for the same reason that we don't allow companies to run beta tests for potentially life-saving drugs. This is long settled both legally and ethically, and the self-driving case is essentially identical, so why reopen that debate?

gfodor 6y ago
I don’t agree this is settled ethically unless you can come up with a better example. This leaves full agency in the hands of the driver throughout the application, unlike a drug which is a point-in-time decision which leads to a long chain of events outside the patient’s control. A better example would be something where a manual operator was displaced by an automated one, especially where the operator was a non-professional and the use of the thing is risky and already kills many people. Perhaps there is an analog in trucking or machinery.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  In most cases, drugs need to be taken regularly for a period of time to have any observable effect, positive or negative. Sure, it's still much less immediate than a driving decision, but it's also not simply a point-in-time decision. More importantly though, I believe that the statistical characteristics are more relevant here - I have no idea to how much risk I'm exposing myself by activating the Tesla "FSD", because (1) I don't know how much I can trust myself to switch from supervision to split-second control, and (2) I have no idea how badly this has been going for other drivers of the Tesla, or how likely the Tesla is to make really poor decisions (will it stop before the intersection, or plow directly into traffic? What percentage of the time will it do either?)