4 ms·

I mean sure but they give us rigid enforcement because there's no universal and fair way to define what the "real" limit should be. Limits do get changed dynami

by nvm0n2 3y ago

I mean sure but they give us rigid enforcement because there's no universal and fair way to define what the "real" limit should be. Limits do get changed dynamically on motorways. You can argue that with the ever greater digitization of cars there's a way out of that: use AI to monitor road conditions and dynamically adjust the speed limit, where those superseding limits are uploaded to a central server that in-car dashes can download from. As long as the limit only ever goes above the signposted limit, it can work. People with old cars just won't learn when they can go faster (except via smartphone maps).

Gud 3y ago
Or better yet, school our children to be intelligent human beings that know how to use their judgement rather than implement some dystopian horror future where we are monitored by the all seeing busybodies assisted by AI.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal). The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where the puck is going and where focus is needed.
  - Gud 3y ago
    You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon. I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too. So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them. I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.
jerf 3y ago
If I wasn't clear, yes, the problem is human, not technological. At least inasmuch as humans using the technology better could at least do better than they are now, even if they couldn't get to perfect. But first we must pass through a period of time where it becomes evident to even the dumbest and most self-interested people that automated enforcement of essentially arbitrary approximations is not in the best interest of society, no matter how appealing it may sound on the surface. Inhuman law enforcement is inhuman.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

Gud 3y ago

Or better yet, school our children to be intelligent human beings that know how to use their judgement rather than implement some dystopian horror future where we are monitored by the all seeing busybodies assisted by AI.

nvm0n2 3y ago
I'm as libertarian as they come but honestly I can't get worked up about traffic cameras. We are tracked everywhere we go with our phones anyway, that battle is lost (and of course wearing a cap or mask in your car isn't illegal). The type of AI surveillance that is truly dystopian is surveillance of communications and participation in public debates, with automatic financial punishment for wrongthink. That's where the puck is going and where focus is needed.
- Gud 3y ago
  You cannot claim to be as libertarian as they come while simultaneously advocating(not simply accepting) an ever present panopticon. I also consider myself as libertarian as they come; I refuse to accept the rapid decline in personal freedoms(including on the road) and will do what I can to resist it.
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    Purist libertarians believe in having enough state-enforced rules to prevent people using violence against each other. The gap here is only between deliberate acts of violence and irresponsibility large enough to yield the same effect. Like, if someone gets drunk and punches someone else in the face, libertarians say the police should step in (which requires that they know it's happening). If that person gets drunk and then mows someone down in a car, it's not inconsistent to say police should step in there too. So I can't quite tell if you're in favor of laws against things like drunk/distracted driving but don't want them to actually be enforced, or if you're against the laws themselves. I'm not sure it can be consistent to be for such laws but against the most obvious way of enforcing them. I don't think libertarianism as a classical philosophy has much to say on the topic of surveillance, as it would be captured in having a minimal/small state anyway. But given that it does believe in enforced laws, I can't see where the prohibition against cameras comes from.

jerf 3y ago

If I wasn't clear, yes, the problem is human, not technological. At least inasmuch as humans using the technology better could at least do better than they are now, even if they couldn't get to perfect. But first we must pass through a period of time where it becomes evident to even the dumbest and most self-interested people that automated enforcement of essentially arbitrary approximations is not in the best interest of society, no matter how appealing it may sound on the surface. Inhuman law enforcement is inhuman.