5 ms·

We should remember stories like this when we consider the future of AI. Midgley could only see the benefits to be gained. He did not have the foresight to see t

by ipnon 3y ago

We should remember stories like this when we consider the future of AI. Midgley could only see the benefits to be gained. He did not have the foresight to see that seemingly inconsequential scientific and industrial decisions can have immeasurable outcomes.

lucasban 3y ago
This applies to anything new, not just AI. It’s also important to have the appropriate level of caution, without fear mongering, and accept that even our best due diligence can be insufficient at times.
tdeck 3y ago
He totally could foresee the dangers. He got lead poisoning in 1923 and had to take time off. Dozens of people in the plant where they were manufacturing the stuff got lead poisoning and had neurological symptoms. Several people died. It's not like there weren't massive warning signs that this substance was going to be a problem. This would be like if the AI you were trying to launch had killed 10 of your coworkers and driven 10 more of them insane, and also you decided to name it something deceptive so people didn't know there was AI in it.
bastawhiz 3y ago
I mean, Midgley knew lead was dangerous. He suffered from lead poisoning himself. People in his plants died and came down with serious lead poisoning just a year after he had to step away because of his lead poisoning. He was directly informed about the risks of lead years in advance. Two years after he got lead poisoning, he did a demonstration where he huffed TEL and poured it on his hands and claimed he could do it every day without consequence. Nobody believed him, perhaps because it was no secret that lead exposure was dangerous. The state of New Jersey didn't believe it either and shut down his plant, and he later came down with lead poisoning again and had to take a leave of absence. So to your point, these were the actions of a man who saw people in his factories dying, came down with lead poisoning twice himself, and kept selling the stuff. That's not a lack of foresight, that's just greed. He just didn't care. The benefits he saw were "making a shitload of money".
- metalcrow 3y ago
  > he huffed TEL and poured it on his hands and claimed he could do it every day without consequence I can't imagine he knew about the dangers in that case. Even someone amazingly greedy would be unlikely to risk the very serious complications doing this would cause.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ttfkam 3y ago
    It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.
  - bastawhiz 3y ago
    I guess you could draw a line between "someone told you, you listened, and you chose not to internalize that information" and "your brain is too rotted out from lead poisoning to care about the dangers of lead poisoning"? If you yourself have to take a leave of absence (admitting the cause) and dozens of your employees become sick with the same thing (many of whom die), it's certainly not unknown. Whether it's unappreciated or ignored is different. In this case I don't think we can know for sure. I would speculate, though, that Midgley knew exactly what he was doing. After the state of NJ shut down his plant, the feds had it reopened. TEL was important for military purposes. Midgley knew that he found himself possessing a key ingredient for internal combustion. It's not often that you can insert yourself as a key component of an existing (fifteen year old!) industry. He knew he could put on a show and downplay the risks, and if he pulled it off he'd be rich like a Rockefeller.
- ChainOfFools 3y ago
  > he later came down with lead poisoning again and had to take a leave of absence. reminds me of the guy who made millions (billions?) selling identity theft protection theatre (LifeLock IIRC) by running an absurd ad campaign in which he put his own name and SSN in public advertisements for the service, and promptly had his identity stolen, and kept having stolen over and over for years. But with hundreds of millions in the bank selling this scam he likely had plenty of other resources to mitigate the damage, resources his millions of customers likely do not.
mullingitover 3y ago
> He did not have the foresight to see that seemingly inconsequential scientific and industrial decisions can have immeasurable outcomes. Lead toxicity wasn't some big unforeseeable surprise, there was over two millennia of documentation on the dangers of lead when Midgley kicked off the mass production of tetraethyl lead. It's better to just say the man was cursed. He also brought Freon to market. Arguably no living person has done as much environmental damage as he accomplished single-handedly. As Bill Bryson said, he had "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny."
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  And where did I hear someone say that we should ban everything he ever touched — just in case.
123yawaworht456 3y ago
you people insert the current thing into the most peculiar contexts.

by ipnon 3y ago

lucasban 3y ago

This applies to anything new, not just AI. It’s also important to have the appropriate level of caution, without fear mongering, and accept that even our best due diligence can be insufficient at times.

tdeck 3y ago

He totally could foresee the dangers. He got lead poisoning in 1923 and had to take time off. Dozens of people in the plant where they were manufacturing the stuff got lead poisoning and had neurological symptoms. Several people died. It's not like there weren't massive warning signs that this substance was going to be a problem. This would be like if the AI you were trying to launch had killed 10 of your coworkers and driven 10 more of them insane, and also you decided to name it something deceptive so people didn't know there was AI in it.

bastawhiz 3y ago

I mean, Midgley knew lead was dangerous. He suffered from lead poisoning himself. People in his plants died and came down with serious lead poisoning just a year after he had to step away because of his lead poisoning. He was directly informed about the risks of lead years in advance. Two years after he got lead poisoning, he did a demonstration where he huffed TEL and poured it on his hands and claimed he could do it every day without consequence. Nobody believed him, perhaps because it was no secret that lead exposure was dangerous. The state of New Jersey didn't believe it either and shut down his plant, and he later came down with lead poisoning again and had to take a leave of absence. So to your point, these were the actions of a man who saw people in his factories dying, came down with lead poisoning twice himself, and kept selling the stuff. That's not a lack of foresight, that's just greed. He just didn't care. The benefits he saw were "making a shitload of money".

metalcrow 3y ago
> he huffed TEL and poured it on his hands and claimed he could do it every day without consequence I can't imagine he knew about the dangers in that case. Even someone amazingly greedy would be unlikely to risk the very serious complications doing this would cause.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ttfkam 3y ago
  It's hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on his not understanding it.
- bastawhiz 3y ago
  I guess you could draw a line between "someone told you, you listened, and you chose not to internalize that information" and "your brain is too rotted out from lead poisoning to care about the dangers of lead poisoning"? If you yourself have to take a leave of absence (admitting the cause) and dozens of your employees become sick with the same thing (many of whom die), it's certainly not unknown. Whether it's unappreciated or ignored is different. In this case I don't think we can know for sure. I would speculate, though, that Midgley knew exactly what he was doing. After the state of NJ shut down his plant, the feds had it reopened. TEL was important for military purposes. Midgley knew that he found himself possessing a key ingredient for internal combustion. It's not often that you can insert yourself as a key component of an existing (fifteen year old!) industry. He knew he could put on a show and downplay the risks, and if he pulled it off he'd be rich like a Rockefeller.
ChainOfFools 3y ago
> he later came down with lead poisoning again and had to take a leave of absence. reminds me of the guy who made millions (billions?) selling identity theft protection theatre (LifeLock IIRC) by running an absurd ad campaign in which he put his own name and SSN in public advertisements for the service, and promptly had his identity stolen, and kept having stolen over and over for years. But with hundreds of millions in the bank selling this scam he likely had plenty of other resources to mitigate the damage, resources his millions of customers likely do not.

mullingitover 3y ago

> He did not have the foresight to see that seemingly inconsequential scientific and industrial decisions can have immeasurable outcomes. Lead toxicity wasn't some big unforeseeable surprise, there was over two millennia of documentation on the dangers of lead when Midgley kicked off the mass production of tetraethyl lead. It's better to just say the man was cursed. He also brought Freon to market. Arguably no living person has done as much environmental damage as he accomplished single-handedly. As Bill Bryson said, he had "an instinct for the regrettable that was almost uncanny."

JKCalhoun 3y ago
And where did I hear someone say that we should ban everything he ever touched — just in case.

123yawaworht456 3y ago

you people insert the current thing into the most peculiar contexts.