3 ms·
Bjarne Stroustrup has a great quote which is something like (from memory, so I don't guarantee complete accuracy) "I used to want a computer which was as easy t
by nathanb 13y ago
Bjarne Stroustrup has a great quote which is something like (from memory, so I don't guarantee complete accuracy) "I used to want a computer which was as easy to use as a telephone. I got my wish; I now no longer know how to use my telephone".
The problem is that software (and social networking software in particular) is designed to take advantage of general unfamiliarity / cluelessness and manipulate people into doing something they didn't actually intend to do. The case is legally interesting for two reasons:
1. As DanBC pointed out above, when you have a restraining order against you, you are expected to take reasonable precaution not to violate it inadvertently. However, accidentally running into your ex in the grocery store is not in itself a violation -- so long as you do not then proceed to intentionally violate the order. Could an inadvertent social networking invitation constitute a violation due to lack of reasonable precaution, or it it more like the grocery store scenario?
2. The argument from ignorance. Computer systems are frequently regarded by laypeople as being not just unknown but unknowable. Can it be successfully argued that this crazy computer stuff is just too complicated and that a reasonable person could not take adequate precaution against the whims of an unknowable computer system.
This is the adult, 21st-century version of "the dog ate my homework" -- "Google violated my restraining order". Should it go to court? Absolutely. But it's still of great interest to the HN crowd because -- depending on the technical understanding of the judge and the type of argument chosen by the counsel -- it could end up impacting the design of web services and the sort of legal arguments we see decades into the future.
Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, anything I say about legal matters is probably wrong, if restraining order lasts for more than four hours consult a physician, etc.
- mindslight 13y ago> Computer systems are frequently regarded by laypeople as being not just unknown but unknowable In this case, it's not just the laypeople - it's even worse. This particular system is entirely under the control of a third party, so it's behavior is unpredictable to everybody.
- dredmorbius 13y agoI'll raise you one more: the system is self-learning, to the point that Google engineers themselves don't understand how it reaches the results it does. Google engineers don't understand how their "deep learning" computer systems have gotten so good http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255 http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=292255 By Jack Clark, 15th November 2013 Google no longer understands how its "deep learning" decision-making computer systems have made themselves so good at recognizing things in photos. This means the internet giant may need fewer experts in future as it can instead rely on its semi-autonomous, semi-smart machines to solve problems all on their own. The claims were made at the Machine Learning Conference in San Francisco on Friday by Google software engineer Quoc V. Le in a talk in which he outlined some of the ways the content-slurper is putting "deep learning" systems to work.