LogFAQs > #954553558

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Controversial Opinion #4: Automation
darkknight109 06/02/21 6:03:18 AM #292:	LinkPizza posted... Like I said earlier, an actual article said that experts warned that self-driving cars were "particularly susceptible" to hacking Compared to what? That's a pretty important qualifier. And which experts? LinkPizza posted... And their view can still be obstructed in more than one place at the same time. Meaning they still might not see the car that caused the chain reaction. Hey, look, it's another one of these bizarrely tightly constrained hypotheticals teased to try and force a point. Again, if you have to put that many qualifiers on your hypothetical to make it actually run, you've lost the argument. LinkPizza posted... So, if the cars that were in the accident were in the far left lane and didn't the car in the far right lane that caused the chain reaction, they it becomes hard to actually pin the accident on them. Which is a veritable impossibility given the number of cameras you're talking about. LinkPizza posted... And since witnesses don't have to wait at the scene of an accident, they may not ever catch the other person... And since the one that start the chain reaction wasn't in an accident, it probably won't stop. All of which is just as true for a human driver in the same situation, so you haven't actually proven anything even if we accept this ridiculous hypothetical as valid. LinkPizza posted... So, for driving, it has to be perfect. Humans aren't perfect and we let them drive. So AI that aren't perfect but are better than humans (which they already are) are more than ready to drive. LinkPizza posted... You can say how low the chances are, but my driving also hasn't gotten me killed, so there's no different to me except I have no control over my own life anymore. Survivorship bias!! That's double-bingo!! LinkPizza posted... And I can't prove it until I find the topic. Better get cracking, then - you don't seem to have anything better to do with your time. LinkPizza posted... And trust me, my memory is much better than yours. Certainly doesn't seem like it. At the very least, given the quantity of typos and bad grammar in your posts, you don't seem to be very good at writing, which doesn't speak very highly of your mental acuity. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:954553558] in Controvers... [t:79384298]...</cite> <quote><quote> LinkPizza posted... Like I said earlier, an actual article said that experts warned that self-driving cars were "particularly susceptible" to hacking</quote>Compared to what? That's a pretty important qualifier. And which experts? <quote> LinkPizza posted... And their view can still be obstructed in more than one place at the same time. Meaning they still might not see the car that caused the chain reaction.</quote>Hey, look, it's another one of these bizarrely tightly constrained hypotheticals teased to try and force a point. Again, if you have to put that many qualifiers on your hypothetical to make it actually run, you've lost the argument. <quote> LinkPizza posted... So, if the cars that were in the accident were in the far left lane and didn't the car in the far right lane that caused the chain reaction, they it becomes hard to actually pin the accident on them.</quote>Which is a veritable impossibility given the number of cameras you're talking about. <quote> LinkPizza posted... And since witnesses don't have to wait at the scene of an accident, they may not ever catch the other person... And since the one that start the chain reaction wasn't in an accident, it probably won't stop.</quote>All of which is just as true for a human driver in the same situation, so you haven't actually proven anything even if we accept this ridiculous hypothetical as valid. <quote> LinkPizza posted... So, for driving, it has to be perfect.</quote>Humans aren't perfect and we let them drive. So AI that aren't perfect but are better than humans (which they already are) are more than ready to drive. <quote> LinkPizza posted... You can say how low the chances are, but my driving also hasn't gotten me killed, so there's no different to me except I have no control over my own life anymore.</quote>Survivorship bias!! That's double-bingo!! <quote> LinkPizza posted... And I can't prove it until I find the topic.</quote>Better get cracking, then - you don't seem to have anything better to do with your time. LinkPizza posted... And trust me, my memory is much better than yours. Certainly doesn't seem like it. At the very least, given the quantity of typos and bad grammar in your posts, you don't seem to be very good at writing, which doesn't speak very highly of your mental acuity. --- Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster. Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1