4 ms·

Can you imagine what driving cars would look like if they would be only (self-)regulated by VC-backed startups like we see so far with this new technology? Woul

by fenykep 7mo ago

Can you imagine what driving cars would look like if they would be only (self-)regulated by VC-backed startups like we see so far with this new technology? Would there be seatbelts, speedbumps, brake signals, licenses or speed limits? This obviously isn't a binary question. Sure we cars have benefits but we don't let anyone ducktape a V8 to a lawnmower, paint flames over it and sell it to kids promising godlike capabilities without annoying "safety features". Economic benefits can not justify the deaths of people, especially as this technology so far only benefits a handful of people economically. I would like to see the evidence (of benefits to the greater society that I see being harmed now) before we unleash this thing freely and not the other way around.

Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago
Fun fact but the creator of the seat-belt actually gave his patent for free > This is Nils Bohlin, an engineer at Volvo.[0] He invented the three-point seat belt in 1959. Rather than profit from the invention, Volvo opened up the patent for other manufactorers to use for no cost, saying "it had more value as a free life saving tool than something to profit from" [0]: https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-nils-bohlin-an-engineer-at-volvo-he-invented-IYRJR6kR9 https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-nils-bohlin-an-engineer-at... I have so much respect for the guy.
anomaly_ 7mo ago
>Economic benefits can not justify the deaths of people This is a absurd standard. Humans wouldn't be able to use power stations, cars, knives, or fire! Everything has inherent risk and we shouldn't limit human progress because tiny fractions of the population have issues.
- TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
  It's not an absurd standard at all. Risks are quantifiable, and not binary. But the absurdity is that there is a long and tragic history of using economic benefits as an excuse for products and services that cause extreme and widespread harm - not just emotional and physical, but also economic. We are far too tolerant of this. The issue isn't risk in some abstract sense, it's the enthusiastic promotion of death, war, sickness, and poverty for "rational" economic reasons.

by fenykep 7mo ago

Imustaskforhelp 7mo ago

Fun fact but the creator of the seat-belt actually gave his patent for free > This is Nils Bohlin, an engineer at Volvo.[0] He invented the three-point seat belt in 1959. Rather than profit from the invention, Volvo opened up the patent for other manufactorers to use for no cost, saying "it had more value as a free life saving tool than something to profit from" [0]: https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-nils-bohlin-an-engineer-at-volvo-he-invented-IYRJR6kR9 https://ifunny.co/picture/this-is-nils-bohlin-an-engineer-at... I have so much respect for the guy.

anomaly_ 7mo ago

>Economic benefits can not justify the deaths of people This is a absurd standard. Humans wouldn't be able to use power stations, cars, knives, or fire! Everything has inherent risk and we shouldn't limit human progress because tiny fractions of the population have issues.

TheOtherHobbes 7mo ago
It's not an absurd standard at all. Risks are quantifiable, and not binary. But the absurdity is that there is a long and tragic history of using economic benefits as an excuse for products and services that cause extreme and widespread harm - not just emotional and physical, but also economic. We are far too tolerant of this. The issue isn't risk in some abstract sense, it's the enthusiastic promotion of death, war, sickness, and poverty for "rational" economic reasons.