5 ms·

I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone els

I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". It's for the good of everyone else on the road, and, in the case of seatbelts, for the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries due to failing to take such a basic precaution.

johnnyworker 3y ago
> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" It's the mass surveillance that was called such. > It's for the good of everyone else on the road Nope, they too are subject to mass surveillance.
wuliwong 3y ago
> the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining people for overeating or something like that.
- xnx 3y ago
  > even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health Distracted driving is a risk to other people, obesity is not.
  - carimura 3y ago
    the point is obesity is a risk in a different way because it stresses the healthcare system.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Healthcare systems can scale up to meet the extra demand, and obese people can be asked to pay more for their healthcare. That doesn't apply for phone driving/drunk driving/etc because you can't charge people more based on the risk that someone else might hit them.
      - TrueGeek 3y ago
        We can’t staff for the current level of demand of our healthcare systems, how would we “scale up”? Additionally, this article is about the UK where healthcare is paid through taxes. Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes?
        flir 3y ago
        > Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes? A soft drinks industry levy, for example?
        candiodari 3y ago
        ... and then use that money, exclusively, to expand medical training and build new hospitals? WITHOUT taking away any of the current funding for such programs? Sure.
        flir 3y ago
        I personally am against hypothecated tax. I think "tax A to pay for B" is a harmful rhetorical trick, linking two decisions that are actually orthogonal. I'd rather fund health because it's the right thing to do, and tax highly processed foods because it's the right thing to do (less certain on that second one).
        nvm0n2 3y ago
        Of course "we" can, there is simply no desire to do so in some countries. The UK uses a nationalized essentially communist form of healthcare provisioning and then gives it away for free to anyone who turns up, legally or otherwise, so they should expect constant shortages. Nobody else uses that system for a reason. However the UK is unwilling to change, so it's not something you can generalize from. There are other places in the world where healthcare systems do scale up just fine and supply keeps up, because they provision differently. BTW the UK government does impose all sorts of sin taxes on people already, and provides benefits based on health assessments, so tying tax levels to the outcome of similar health assessments isn't a big leap. But yes in reality it'll be countries with more flexible insurance systems that can calibrate things that way.
- psd1 3y ago
  No, that's not the point at all. Inattentive driving is a risk to others. Risk of death or life-changing injury.
lisper 3y ago
> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but someone else might. This is the problem: who gets to decide? Today the people deciding the parameters for focusing the AI's attention might be benevolent and acting in good faith by your standard and mine, but who is to say that this will still be true tomorrow? Not everyone shares our quality metric.
- flangola7 3y ago
  Who decides which laws can be enforced by capture and imprisonment?
  - lisper 3y ago
    When those kinds of things are handed over to AI automation the results are often dystopian as well (at least by my quality metric).
carimura 3y ago
Maybe I'm reading it wrong but to me it seems like the quote is in fact talking about "for the good of everyone else".
- candiodari 3y ago
  ... and yet I feel this AI is "somehow" lacking in the other side of the equation. It's the government's duty to maintain the roads in a safe state (no potholes, no blocking the sidewalk forcing pedestrians onto the road, actually have correct signage, ...) Strangely, while all of that is covered under the existing laws too, none of it gets covered by AI cameras. Must be an oversight that will be corrected any second now ...

johnnyworker 3y ago

> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims" It's the mass surveillance that was called such. > It's for the good of everyone else on the road Nope, they too are subject to mass surveillance.

wuliwong 3y ago

> the good of the rest of society that needs to deal with the burden of caring for unnecessary injuries I understand that point of view but I do think it can be tyrannical to not let people live their lives even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health. In the US, obesity is a far greater burden on our health care system than people not wearing seatbelts. I still can't get behind fining people for overeating or something like that.

xnx 3y ago
> even if they are making decisions that are bad for their physical health Distracted driving is a risk to other people, obesity is not.
- carimura 3y ago
  the point is obesity is a risk in a different way because it stresses the healthcare system.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Healthcare systems can scale up to meet the extra demand, and obese people can be asked to pay more for their healthcare. That doesn't apply for phone driving/drunk driving/etc because you can't charge people more based on the risk that someone else might hit them.
    - TrueGeek 3y ago
      We can’t staff for the current level of demand of our healthcare systems, how would we “scale up”? Additionally, this article is about the UK where healthcare is paid through taxes. Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes?
      - flir 3y ago
        > Are you suggesting the overweight pay higher taxes? A soft drinks industry levy, for example?
        candiodari 3y ago
        ... and then use that money, exclusively, to expand medical training and build new hospitals? WITHOUT taking away any of the current funding for such programs? Sure.
        flir 3y ago
        I personally am against hypothecated tax. I think "tax A to pay for B" is a harmful rhetorical trick, linking two decisions that are actually orthogonal. I'd rather fund health because it's the right thing to do, and tax highly processed foods because it's the right thing to do (less certain on that second one).
      - nvm0n2 3y ago
        Of course "we" can, there is simply no desire to do so in some countries. The UK uses a nationalized essentially communist form of healthcare provisioning and then gives it away for free to anyone who turns up, legally or otherwise, so they should expect constant shortages. Nobody else uses that system for a reason. However the UK is unwilling to change, so it's not something you can generalize from. There are other places in the world where healthcare systems do scale up just fine and supply keeps up, because they provision differently. BTW the UK government does impose all sorts of sin taxes on people already, and provides benefits based on health assessments, so tying tax levels to the outcome of similar health assessments isn't a big leap. But yes in reality it'll be countries with more flexible insurance systems that can calibrate things that way.
psd1 3y ago
No, that's not the point at all. Inattentive driving is a risk to others. Risk of death or life-changing injury.

lisper 3y ago

> I wouldn't call "requiring drivers to not be using mobile phones" a "tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims". You wouldn't, and I wouldn't, but someone else might. This is the problem: who gets to decide? Today the people deciding the parameters for focusing the AI's attention might be benevolent and acting in good faith by your standard and mine, but who is to say that this will still be true tomorrow? Not everyone shares our quality metric.

flangola7 3y ago
Who decides which laws can be enforced by capture and imprisonment?
- lisper 3y ago
  When those kinds of things are handed over to AI automation the results are often dystopian as well (at least by my quality metric).

carimura 3y ago

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but to me it seems like the quote is in fact talking about "for the good of everyone else".

candiodari 3y ago
... and yet I feel this AI is "somehow" lacking in the other side of the equation. It's the government's duty to maintain the roads in a safe state (no potholes, no blocking the sidewalk forcing pedestrians onto the road, actually have correct signage, ...) Strangely, while all of that is covered under the existing laws too, none of it gets covered by AI cameras. Must be an oversight that will be corrected any second now ...