3 ms·

> That’s like saying every Tesla owner should be able to program their own car! Let’s open the source code of Tesla to every owner! Other critiques aside, thes

> That’s like saying every Tesla owner should be able to program their own car! Let’s open the source code of Tesla to every owner! Other critiques aside, these things are not very similar. You can't run someone over with a buggy recommender system. You bork your own newsfeed, who cares?

bazmattaz 4y ago
Ok fair enough, I formed that analogy in haste. My point was that it’s not easy at all to “open up” an machine learning model for a user to “program”. It’s complex enough for an ML engineer to develop! In theory, maybe it is possible but it would be incredibly expensive to produce such a system, let alone maintain. But even then, the ability to control an Ml system is such a niche ask that it would never happen
alexvoda 4y ago
I think you should be able to program your own car and that should be the default. And I think that can be made safe too. It does not mean that any change should be allowed on the road. But there could be a system where you pay a fee and send your code to be audited and aprooved for use on public roads. Otherwhise you can only run that code on a test track. And also not all parts of a car's software are safety critical.
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  If more then zero resources are deducted to this absolutely useless software developer fetishism, I’d be entirely disappointed. “Audit” and “approval” does not equal “well-tested”.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    It is not "software developer fetishism", it is plain and simple ownership, property rights. If I buy a car I expect to own the car and be able to do whatever I want with it especially on private land, as long as I don't interfere/endanger/etc. with other people. We used to live in this world but we no longer do. If the car has DRM, locked boot loaders, etc. I can not do whatever I want with it, not even on private property, therefore I am not the owner of the car, I am just the custodian. Same with household appliances, agricultural equipment, phones, etc. . Mass alphabetization was a quantitative change in the number of people who could read and write and was most probably opposed (the printing press certainly was) by some at the time but it resulted in a qualitative jump in the quality of life of everyone. The same is applicable for programming. As technology becomes more accessible people should expect to be able to make it conform to their needs instead of them adapting to quirks of tech. The ability to modify the software is just one part of the right to repair. Purchasing a product used to mean ownership which included the right to repair.

bazmattaz 4y ago

Ok fair enough, I formed that analogy in haste. My point was that it’s not easy at all to “open up” an machine learning model for a user to “program”. It’s complex enough for an ML engineer to develop! In theory, maybe it is possible but it would be incredibly expensive to produce such a system, let alone maintain. But even then, the ability to control an Ml system is such a niche ask that it would never happen

alexvoda 4y ago

I think you should be able to program your own car and that should be the default. And I think that can be made safe too. It does not mean that any change should be allowed on the road. But there could be a system where you pay a fee and send your code to be audited and aprooved for use on public roads. Otherwhise you can only run that code on a test track. And also not all parts of a car's software are safety critical.

KyeRussell 4y ago
If more then zero resources are deducted to this absolutely useless software developer fetishism, I’d be entirely disappointed. “Audit” and “approval” does not equal “well-tested”.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  It is not "software developer fetishism", it is plain and simple ownership, property rights. If I buy a car I expect to own the car and be able to do whatever I want with it especially on private land, as long as I don't interfere/endanger/etc. with other people. We used to live in this world but we no longer do. If the car has DRM, locked boot loaders, etc. I can not do whatever I want with it, not even on private property, therefore I am not the owner of the car, I am just the custodian. Same with household appliances, agricultural equipment, phones, etc. . Mass alphabetization was a quantitative change in the number of people who could read and write and was most probably opposed (the printing press certainly was) by some at the time but it resulted in a qualitative jump in the quality of life of everyone. The same is applicable for programming. As technology becomes more accessible people should expect to be able to make it conform to their needs instead of them adapting to quirks of tech. The ability to modify the software is just one part of the right to repair. Purchasing a product used to mean ownership which included the right to repair.