3 ms·

The "skin in the game" point is interesting. Imagine if there was a way to buy personal injury insurance for a device such as the Onewheel. Then the insurer h

The "skin in the game" point is interesting. Imagine if there was a way to buy personal injury insurance for a device such as the Onewheel. Then the insurer has an incentive to audit the code and check for safety hazards, in order to figure out what premium to charge. If you're a customer and you want to know which device is the safest, check to see which has the cheapest insurance.

nucleardog 3y ago
Seems it would be easier and more effective to handle this at the source. Set some minimum standards for the products and require a bond or insurance for them to be sold. We already set standards for other vehicles and safety critical products (FAA, FMVSS, UL listing, etc). The minimum standards makes a case for culpability through negligence relatively easy. Requiring a bond or insurance means either betting a substantial amount of your own resources on the fact that you have done correctly, or convincing an insurance company (who are demonstrably passable at assessing risk based on their still being in business) to assess the likelihood of payouts and price your premiums accordingly. If you can’t convince them you made this safe, you won’t be able to afford to put it on the market. Then instead of expecting somehow that OneWheel is going to cooperate with audits they have no real incentive to participate in, consumers in aggregate to make informed, rational decisions, and a bunch of other things that are unlikely to happen… (The insurance company is just going to base rates on aggregate historical data like they do with cars. Some of you may need to die so we can determine whether the products are safe. Best of luck.) People can just go buy products at the store and be relatively confident that they’re not going to kill them. I’d wager that markets are generally healthier when people have confidence that generally available products aren’t dangerous. I can only imagine how little I’d purchase if instead of electrical standards and UL listing I had to go talk to my home insurer every time I wanted to plug something else into the wall so I could find out if it was going to kill my family.
chubot 3y ago
Why do people get in cabs with crazy cab drivers? There's even a game called "Crazy Taxi" Because they are confident that the cab driver doesn't want to kill HIMSELF. If he behaves recklessly, he'll face consequences That is, self-driving cars with remote operators are a moral hazard. If they make a mistake, the operator doesn't face any consequences This is not a trivial point. If you look deeply into causation, you'll see it in many places --- Likewise, Tesla's policies of forcing your hands on the wheel are incoherent. They claim to drive you around, except that it's your fault if something goes wrong. Well, that's exactly where I wanted the help. Definitely check out "Skin in the Game" by Taleb if you haven't I predict that this will become a recognized limitation of AI. In 10 or 20 years, we'll realize that it was a philosophically incoherent position to claim that a machine is doing something, WITHOUT being liable for the consequences of performing poorly. And not just incoherent, but bad engineering. Without this vital feedback, it won't operate well, and it won't learn. In evolution, which is the process that has produced machines capable of navigating the world (us), death is a very strong piece of feedback!

nucleardog 3y ago

Seems it would be easier and more effective to handle this at the source. Set some minimum standards for the products and require a bond or insurance for them to be sold. We already set standards for other vehicles and safety critical products (FAA, FMVSS, UL listing, etc). The minimum standards makes a case for culpability through negligence relatively easy. Requiring a bond or insurance means either betting a substantial amount of your own resources on the fact that you have done correctly, or convincing an insurance company (who are demonstrably passable at assessing risk based on their still being in business) to assess the likelihood of payouts and price your premiums accordingly. If you can’t convince them you made this safe, you won’t be able to afford to put it on the market. Then instead of expecting somehow that OneWheel is going to cooperate with audits they have no real incentive to participate in, consumers in aggregate to make informed, rational decisions, and a bunch of other things that are unlikely to happen… (The insurance company is just going to base rates on aggregate historical data like they do with cars. Some of you may need to die so we can determine whether the products are safe. Best of luck.) People can just go buy products at the store and be relatively confident that they’re not going to kill them. I’d wager that markets are generally healthier when people have confidence that generally available products aren’t dangerous. I can only imagine how little I’d purchase if instead of electrical standards and UL listing I had to go talk to my home insurer every time I wanted to plug something else into the wall so I could find out if it was going to kill my family.

chubot 3y ago

Why do people get in cabs with crazy cab drivers? There's even a game called "Crazy Taxi" Because they are confident that the cab driver doesn't want to kill HIMSELF. If he behaves recklessly, he'll face consequences That is, self-driving cars with remote operators are a moral hazard. If they make a mistake, the operator doesn't face any consequences This is not a trivial point. If you look deeply into causation, you'll see it in many places --- Likewise, Tesla's policies of forcing your hands on the wheel are incoherent. They claim to drive you around, except that it's your fault if something goes wrong. Well, that's exactly where I wanted the help. Definitely check out "Skin in the Game" by Taleb if you haven't I predict that this will become a recognized limitation of AI. In 10 or 20 years, we'll realize that it was a philosophically incoherent position to claim that a machine is doing something, WITHOUT being liable for the consequences of performing poorly. And not just incoherent, but bad engineering. Without this vital feedback, it won't operate well, and it won't learn. In evolution, which is the process that has produced machines capable of navigating the world (us), death is a very strong piece of feedback!