5 ms·

If the easiest action is not to spit, why did he continue spitting? Let's move on from spitting, as it's a dull example, but into behaviors in general. How do

If the easiest action is not to spit, why did he continue spitting? Let's move on from spitting, as it's a dull example, but into behaviors in general. How do you get someone to stop doing something? Punishment does not work. Telling someone not to do something only encourages them to do it even more. So, like most other solutions, we can instead work off incentivizing positive action. We saw this with smokers, you give them a designated area, a place to put out their smokes, alongside restrictions like not smoking indoors, and you've got a winning combination. Likewise, we need thorough solutions to behavioral problems, not "easy" ones. Easy ones don't last long. Habits remain. If cameras save lives, why do you not have a camera in every room in your home?

iinnPP 3y ago
I can't tell you why this specific person spits, nor can anyone. I can only state that as a person who has lived in social housing, cameras were what made it possible. Even with these cameras, the building I was in was responsible for a whopping 50% of homicides in my city for the ~year I was there. Having AI do the work and catching this garbage behavior would have been welcomed by many residents, and unwelcomed by the people spitting on the elevator buttons, doorknobs, entry system, and mailboxes. Which was a daily occurrence. Punishment does work. It works to get those people out and get people who can be decent human beings in. It is punishment to the other residents to let it continue unabated. Your camera comment is odd. I know the cameras saved lives. Witnessed it with my own two eyes. You also don't know what cameras exist in my home, maybe I do have one in every room? It is a deterrent that reminds a person who may think twice about their actions because of the increased probability of being punished. Go walk through some social housing without cameras while wearing expensive shoes and jewelry. Do it daily for a year. That will change your perspective, assuming you are still around to provide it.
- jart 3y ago
  Yeah I was pleasantly surprised reading the article that the people managing these public housing complexes actually cared enough about the folks living there to install the cameras. I hope the GP has the empathy to understand why that's important, but judging by the focus on carrots and socially engineering away nicotine usage, I doubt they've ever cohabitated spaces with someone who isn't a tech worker making $300k/year.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  I don’t think people are anti camera. People are against using cameras to retroactively police EVERYTHING. No one likes the spitter, but the example of the blind person lending her keys out to someone doing a grocery run for them is where this is stupid and harmful. A rational human would have seen that a stranger was accessing the building using a disabled person’s credentials with armfuls of groceries and correctly surmised the situation, or made a quick call to confirm that it was authorized. Instead, a formal process was initiated where one possible outcome is that a low income blind person is evicted. That didn’t happen, but it is a waste of resources to have a formal process to have a blind person file a report explaining their shopping needs.

iinnPP 3y ago

I can't tell you why this specific person spits, nor can anyone. I can only state that as a person who has lived in social housing, cameras were what made it possible. Even with these cameras, the building I was in was responsible for a whopping 50% of homicides in my city for the ~year I was there. Having AI do the work and catching this garbage behavior would have been welcomed by many residents, and unwelcomed by the people spitting on the elevator buttons, doorknobs, entry system, and mailboxes. Which was a daily occurrence. Punishment does work. It works to get those people out and get people who can be decent human beings in. It is punishment to the other residents to let it continue unabated. Your camera comment is odd. I know the cameras saved lives. Witnessed it with my own two eyes. You also don't know what cameras exist in my home, maybe I do have one in every room? It is a deterrent that reminds a person who may think twice about their actions because of the increased probability of being punished. Go walk through some social housing without cameras while wearing expensive shoes and jewelry. Do it daily for a year. That will change your perspective, assuming you are still around to provide it.

jart 3y ago
Yeah I was pleasantly surprised reading the article that the people managing these public housing complexes actually cared enough about the folks living there to install the cameras. I hope the GP has the empathy to understand why that's important, but judging by the focus on carrots and socially engineering away nicotine usage, I doubt they've ever cohabitated spaces with someone who isn't a tech worker making $300k/year.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
I don’t think people are anti camera. People are against using cameras to retroactively police EVERYTHING. No one likes the spitter, but the example of the blind person lending her keys out to someone doing a grocery run for them is where this is stupid and harmful. A rational human would have seen that a stranger was accessing the building using a disabled person’s credentials with armfuls of groceries and correctly surmised the situation, or made a quick call to confirm that it was authorized. Instead, a formal process was initiated where one possible outcome is that a low income blind person is evicted. That didn’t happen, but it is a waste of resources to have a formal process to have a blind person file a report explaining their shopping needs.