4 ms·
Tin-foil hat time: 1. First, models will predict pollution. The outcomes will help shape urban policy. But these won't solve crime or stop people from driving.
by nmitchko 2y ago
Tin-foil hat time:
1. First, models will predict pollution. The outcomes will help shape urban policy. But these won't solve crime or stop people from driving.
2. Second, models will predict individual behavior and track person level emissions. The outcomes will force behavior changes, mostly freedom limiting.
3. Third, and finally, models will predict thoughts. The the thought of driving instead of walking might trigger a response.
It's a slippery slope and we need to draw a line between prediction and policy.
- userbinator 2y agoIndeed this is the another thing pushing us towards dystopia. Now it's "climate change" . Previously it was drugs and terrorism.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mpalmer 2y agoThat is some heavy-duty foil in your hat there. Even allowing for the ridiculously massive technical leap from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3, it doesn't make much sense. For one thing, if states are determined to enforce individual emissions limits, they can do it today with legislation. You don't need a predictive model. What does the model add? Also, the only difference between 2 and 3 is whether a person acts on a thought. So are you suggesting with #3 that predicted thoughts (e.g. not literal mind reading) which a person doesn't act upon will prompt state action?
- MSFT_Edging 2y agoWhy is it that freedom is always tied to the right to pollute as much as possible, as opposed to the right to live in a world with low pollution?
- mpalmer 2y agoUsing the unqualified word "freedom" has an ambiguity that political actors exploit. Freedom to do something is entirely separate to "free to live in a world where ___". To be honest, I feel the latter sense of the word is a bit of a stretch - semantically, not politically. But you see it because "freedom" is a powerful word in politics, and rather than argue against "freedom", pundits go up the ladder of abstraction and argue the definition instead.
- MSFT_Edging 2y agoSorry, that question was rhetorical to point out the sillyness of equating driving to freedom.
- mpalmer 2y agoAh. Well I hope my answer was useful for anyone who didn't take it as rhetorical!