4 ms·

>Automation and scale create their own threats. I don't know why such a simple fact needs to be repeated over and over again. It's either naivete or malice tha

>Automation and scale create their own threats. I don't know why such a simple fact needs to be repeated over and over again. It's either naivete or malice that makes people ignore that fact. A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications.

Forgeties79 4y ago
>A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications. What a fantastic example. Borrowing this for sure.
FartyMcFarter 4y ago
Another example is the police. Most people agree the existence of a police force to enforce laws is a good thing (society would function very differently otherwise). But if there was a policeman for each other person on the planet following them 24x7 and enforcing every possible law on them, not so much anymore. Quantity is a quality all of its own.
- awb 4y ago
  On the other hand, why have a law if it’s not meant to be enforced universally and consistently? When laws are applied selectively it creates an unequal experiences in the population. No one wants the tyranny of oppressive applications of overbearing laws. So, in those instances, change the law to be fair enough and compassionate enough that it can be applied in all instances where the letter of the law is broken. And obviously privacy is important and ubiquitous surveillance would undermine our ability to enjoy life. But in public spaces, consistently applying fairly written compassionate laws wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
  - Arainach 4y ago
    Because the real world has nuance and is not black and white. Humanity relies on people using their judgment; trying to make absolute laws with zero tolerance has been a failure everywhere it's tried. It is impossible to numerate all reasonable exceptions, and impossible to specify exceptions precisely enough that bad actors can't exploit them. If you make the rules overly strict and enforce them universally, you end up with people in jail for offenses no one cares about. If you make the rules at all loose, bad actors instantly seize on any loopholes and ruin the commons for anyone.
    - awb 4y ago
      Yeah, but that’s why you have a “human in the loop”, to handle the infinite number of edge cases. You’d never want end-to-end AI for anything mission critical like justice.
      - Arainach 4y ago
        You have a human in the loop explicitly to, in your words, not "enforce universally and consistently". * Most people agree that stealing from a store is wrong. * Most people agree that opening food/medicine and consuming it in the store before paying is stealing * Most people believe that helping those in a medical emergency is important If I was in a store and saw someone going into hypoglycemia and grabbed a candy bar and handed it to them, or if they were having a heart attack and I grabbed a bottle of aspirin and opened it to give them one, I am committing a crime. Most reasonable people would say that even if a police officer was standing in front of me watching me do it that I should not be charged. That's why we don't want universal enforcement.
        skissane 4y ago
        > Most people agree that opening food/medicine and consuming it in the store before paying is stealing In my jurisdiction, that is only stealing if you do it with intention of not paying for it. Sometimes I go to the supermarket, pick a drink off the shelf, start drinking it, take the partially drunk (or sometimes completely empty) bottle to the checkout to pay. Never got in trouble, staff have never complained - I know the law is on my side, and pretty confident the staff training tells them the same thing.
  - Scea91 4y ago
    I think the main problem is not in universal law enforcement but in constant surveillance which is a bit orthogonal. Why should people be under constant surveillance even at times when they are not breaking any laws? Why should someone else have access to every moment of your life?
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      This is a fantastic question for the NSA!
    - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
      Good point, but I think my main point still stands: being ocasionally surveilled by the police is OK (I don't mind them looking at me in public places if I'm near them), but if you scale this up to constant surveillance it's a very different story.

Forgeties79 4y ago

>A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications. What a fantastic example. Borrowing this for sure.

FartyMcFarter 4y ago

Another example is the police. Most people agree the existence of a police force to enforce laws is a good thing (society would function very differently otherwise). But if there was a policeman for each other person on the planet following them 24x7 and enforcing every possible law on them, not so much anymore. Quantity is a quality all of its own.

awb 4y ago
On the other hand, why have a law if it’s not meant to be enforced universally and consistently? When laws are applied selectively it creates an unequal experiences in the population. No one wants the tyranny of oppressive applications of overbearing laws. So, in those instances, change the law to be fair enough and compassionate enough that it can be applied in all instances where the letter of the law is broken. And obviously privacy is important and ubiquitous surveillance would undermine our ability to enjoy life. But in public spaces, consistently applying fairly written compassionate laws wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.
- Arainach 4y ago
  Because the real world has nuance and is not black and white. Humanity relies on people using their judgment; trying to make absolute laws with zero tolerance has been a failure everywhere it's tried. It is impossible to numerate all reasonable exceptions, and impossible to specify exceptions precisely enough that bad actors can't exploit them. If you make the rules overly strict and enforce them universally, you end up with people in jail for offenses no one cares about. If you make the rules at all loose, bad actors instantly seize on any loopholes and ruin the commons for anyone.
  - awb 4y ago
    Yeah, but that’s why you have a “human in the loop”, to handle the infinite number of edge cases. You’d never want end-to-end AI for anything mission critical like justice.
    - Arainach 4y ago
      You have a human in the loop explicitly to, in your words, not "enforce universally and consistently". * Most people agree that stealing from a store is wrong. * Most people agree that opening food/medicine and consuming it in the store before paying is stealing * Most people believe that helping those in a medical emergency is important If I was in a store and saw someone going into hypoglycemia and grabbed a candy bar and handed it to them, or if they were having a heart attack and I grabbed a bottle of aspirin and opened it to give them one, I am committing a crime. Most reasonable people would say that even if a police officer was standing in front of me watching me do it that I should not be charged. That's why we don't want universal enforcement.
      - skissane 4y ago
        > Most people agree that opening food/medicine and consuming it in the store before paying is stealing In my jurisdiction, that is only stealing if you do it with intention of not paying for it. Sometimes I go to the supermarket, pick a drink off the shelf, start drinking it, take the partially drunk (or sometimes completely empty) bottle to the checkout to pay. Never got in trouble, staff have never complained - I know the law is on my side, and pretty confident the staff training tells them the same thing.
- Scea91 4y ago
  I think the main problem is not in universal law enforcement but in constant surveillance which is a bit orthogonal. Why should people be under constant surveillance even at times when they are not breaking any laws? Why should someone else have access to every moment of your life?
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    This is a fantastic question for the NSA!
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    Good point, but I think my main point still stands: being ocasionally surveilled by the police is OK (I don't mind them looking at me in public places if I'm near them), but if you scale this up to constant surveillance it's a very different story.