4 ms·
> To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriate
by oceanplexian 6y ago
> To me, the idea of an algorithm which detects when a driver is at increased risk (e.g. drowsy, or not wearing a seatbelt, or maybe using a phone inappropriately) seems like a fundamentally good move. And makes basic sense in any vehicle still piloted by a human.
I have a counter proposal. How about instead of trying to micromanage employees, companies raise the hiring bar?
If you don't want people working for you who break the rules, pay them well, and create a culture of inclusion and safety. I hear exactly the same complaints from friends involved in manufacturing where employees are constantly doing drugs on shift, showing up late, and abusing the system. Well what the heck did you expect? You pay them $10-15 per hour and treat them like they are replaceable robots rather than people. Of course they are going to screw you over.
- mft_ 6y ago(Late coming back to this, but) I totally agree with you. My original comment was addressing the sensationalism applied to an idea... because it was associated with Amazon and/or AI and/or cameras, etc. I wasn't for a moment intending to support Amazon's overall approach to its employees. That said, it doesn't have to either/or: I still think that such algorithms (if they work sufficiently well) make sense to be used in any vehicle (commercial or private, Amazon or otherwise) piloted by a human, given obvious human weaknesses & variability, and the damage that badly-driven vehicles can do.