abhibeckert @ abhibeckert @beehaw.org

Posts

0

Comments

321

Joined

2 yr. ago

Let them drive in fog and suddenly they can’t even see clearly visible emergency vehicles.

That article you linked isn't about self driving car. It's about Tesla "autopilot" which constantly checks if a human is actively holding onto the steering wheel and depends on the human checking the road ahead for hazards so they can take over instantly. If the human sees flashing lights they are supposed to do so.

The fully autonomous cars that don't need a human behind the wheel have much better sensors which can see through fog.

Drive to the right edge of the road and stop until the emergency vehicle(s) have passed

That is a direct quote from the California DMV and from the sounds of it that's exactly what the autonomous car did.

The right answer, in my opinion, is to allow the first responders to take control of the car. This wasn't just a lone ambulance that happened upon a stationary car. It was a major crash (where a human driven car ran over a pedestrian) with a road that was blocked by emergency vehicles. A whole bunch of cars, not just autonomous ones, were stopped in the middle of the road waiting for the emergency to be over so they could continue on their way. Not sure why only this one car is getting all the blame.

We should ban police cars too - because allegedly an empty police car was also blocking the ambulance.

The AV spokesperson said they reviewed the footage and found there was room to pass their vehicle safely and another ambulance and other cars did so.

The voice will be able to use shame via the media / social media etc, to ensure things it wants are passed.

Indigenous Australians can already talk to the media and use social media. The Voice doesn't change that at all.

Also - every citizen of this country has the right to advocate for things they want to see passed into law. That's what it means to live in a democracy.

What The Voice actually does is force our government (not the media, not the general public), to listen when indigenous representatives raise important issues. It doesn't force the government to act, only listen. And if the government does do anything that the majority of Australians disagree with... they will be voted out with prejudice at the next election and the new government will immediately reverse whatever they did. You're worried about something that just won't happen.

Without a doubt she will want full sovereignty over any other race.

Um... there is no way in hell Australians would allow Lidia Thorpe to have full sovereignty over this country. Have your forgotten the part where her boyfriend was president of the Victorian chapter of the largest outlaw motorcycle gang in Australia?! Sure - police have no evidence he committed a crime. But he was president of an organisation that has had gunfights in broad daylight where innocent bystanders were shot to death for simply standing in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not to mention selling hard drugs to kids.

Nobody should be listening to Lidia Thorpe on anything and it's an embarrassment that the Greens allowed her to be a leading member of the party.

And if what you actually meant was "some other indigenous person" should have full sovereignty... well, which person specifically? Who exactly are you suggesting should replace King Charles as sovereign of Australia? I get it, he's a terrible person for the role, I think we should find someone better. But I don't see anyone putting their hand up. When someone competent does, then we can hold another referendum.

For now, it's at best an impossibly unrealistic dream. At worst it's a deliberate and malicious attempt to make sure no meaningful progress happens. And honestly, I'm leaning towards the latter.

There are valid reasons to vote no.

Such as? I've never seen one and I think if there were valid reasons the No campaign would be spreading the word far and wide.

I agree with a concern from the ‘no’ camp, that this ends up being a bandaid or virtue-signalling; and if it passes then “job well done” and we don’t keep moving forward.

I'm sorry but that argument doesn't have any merit at all.

If you are hungry, is it a "band aid solution" to take one step towards the kitchen? Taking one step isn't going to fill you up. There's going to be far more work after the step, but that step is an essential component of the full solution.

This entire issue is going to take generations of hard work to fix. The fact this referendum alone will not fix everything on it's own is totally irrelevant. The referendum will help in a few key small ways, and therefore it should be passed.

Indigenous Australians must take a leadership role in patching the rift between them and the rest of the country. It simply cannot be solved by white people alone. This referendum, if we vote Yes, will enshrine into law an essential framework for representatives of Indigenous Australia to collaborate with the broader government as a whole.

I very much fear that if the result is ‘no’, we have collectively just affirmed racism

That is exactly how the 'no' vote will be interpreted. Even if 90% of people vote 'yes' most people will see that as proof that 10% of the population are racist.

This is a litmus test of Australian society. Are we ready to make real progress or not? Voting no means we are not ready.

As someone who has lived in rural Australia - they barely service anywhere outside of metro areas.

My brother lives just an hour from a major regional city (population 150k), on the outskirts of a relatively large town, only a five min drive to a large post office that serves tens of thousands of people. He still doesn't get mail delivery and has to pay for a PO Box.

In fact - the private couriers offer far better service for his address.

The changes needed can be achieved without a Constitutional amendment.

Australia has tried doing it without a referendum multiple times over our history, every single time they started promising and then fizzled out into nothing.

By putting it in the constitution, there would have to be a new referendum in order to undo the changes.

That has been tried in the past, more than once, by both left and right wing parties. It failed miserably every time.

A strawman argument is where you ignore what was said by the other person and instead respond with something distorted. That's not what I did - the core premise of Drew's argument is that AI will not "make the world better" and I provided a crystal clear example of how it makes the world better.

It was just one example, and obviously not the complete picture, but what choice do I have? It's such a broad topic I couldn't possibly list everything AI will impact without writing an entire book.

I think we all understand that capitalism is mostly bad for humans, and really good for corporations and their owners.

No I disagree. Corporations exist exclusively to benefit their human owners them. Which means anything that's "good for corporations" is good for a select small number of humans.

Don't blame "capitalism" for wealth inequality. Blame the actual humans (e.g. Donald Trump, Elon Musk) who have made it their life's work to drive the global economy even harder into a world that benefits the fiew and ignores the struggles of the many.

Also - not all corporations are bad. Some of them do great work that truly benefits the world and I would personally put OpenAI in that category. Their mandate is not to make a profit - and in fact the amount of profit they can legally make has been limited. Their mission is literally "to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity". I hope they succeed, and I think they will. Drew is wrong.

But the general premise of “No, you can’t autodebit” or “Sure, I’ll let you think you can auto-debit. Doesn’t mean I’ll have it turned on at that moment” still holds.

That doesn't hold in Australia. I've never heard of a bank here that allows you to (easily) stop someone from taking money out of your account. In fact, even if the account is empty they might be able to overdraw it if they have the right level of merchant account (I had that happen once, when I booked a flight that was about to depart, and they messed up/failed to charge me for the flight. Three months later someone noticed and my account was charged/overdrawn).

As someone who runs a business that charges customers money all day every day... if I have the customer's details then I can charge their account whatever I want. Sure, I could go to jail (or be sent out of business) if I do the wrong thing... but there isn't really much protection below that point and if I'm only mildly scummy, I'd probably get away with it.

I’m not even sure where to deposit it if I wanted to

I'm not a BankWest customer but I expect you can deposit it at any post office, for free, and it'll be much quicker and more convenient than going to the branch ever was.

It reinforces Western interpretations

No. It reinforces the interpretation of whoever trained the model. Those people don't have to be western.

the method of enforcement should be to arrest the perpetrators

To do that, you have to know who the perpetrators are, which is routinely impossible.

This isn't a hypothetical situation, we are living in a world where servers are kicked off the internet, SSL certificates are revoked, vast quantities of emails are deleted without even sending them to a spam folder, lemmy communities are closed down, etc.

In a perfect world, none of that would be necessary and we could simply send the perpetrators to jail. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in one where censorship is the only option.

The key difference is you're an experienced cyclist. You're capable of recognising that it's safe to go 60mph down that particular hill and if it wasn't you'd be on the brakes. Also you probably know how hard you can pull that front brake lever without going over the handle bars.

Inexperienced cyclists and high speeds are a really bad combination.

Most parents wouldn't let their teenager ride YZF-R1, and they shouldn't be letting them ride a high powered eBike either.

You think teenagers care about insurance? Even if they did, they certainly can't buy any.

I'm pretty sure the teens my neighbourhood that go as fast as they can at night on the wrong side of the road around blind corners with their lights turned off are uninsured. I love my eBike. Not a fan of how I see other people riding them every day though (and not just kids).

Could have just typed the script in the first place.

Sure - but ChatGPT can type faster than me. And for simple tasks, CoPilot is even faster.

Also - it doesn't just speed up typing, it also speeds up basics like "what did bob name that function?"

Like the article itself mentions, it has immense potential for advertising, scams and political propaganda. I haven’t seen AI proponents offering meaningful rebuttals to that.

You won't get a direct rebuttal because, obviously, an AI can be used to write ads, scams and political propaganda.

But every day millions of people are cut by knives. It hurts. A lot. Sometimes the injuries are fatal. Does that mean knives are evil and ruining the world? I'd argue not. I love my kitchen knives and couldn't imagine doing without them.

I'd also argue LLMs can be used fact check and uncover scams/political propaganda/etc and can lower the cost of content production to the point where you don't need awful advertisements to cover the production costs.