7 ms·
yeah I agree about the negative externalities but I'm curious about the perceived benefits. did anybody argue that cars were actually slower than horse and carr
by mrwrong 9mo ago
yeah I agree about the negative externalities but I'm curious about the perceived benefits. did anybody argue that cars were actually slower than horse and carriage? (were they at first?)
- embedding-shape 9mo agoThe cars were obviously faster than the typical horse transportation and I don't think anyone tried to argue against that, but laws typically restricted cars so they couldn't go faster than horses, at least in highly populated areas like cities. As others mentioned too, the benefit of not needing roads to go places were highlighted as a drawback of cars too. People argued that while cars might go faster, the result would be that the world would be worse off in total.
- mrwrong 9mo agosure but my point is people could agree they were faster at least. that is decidedly not true for LLMs. maybe due to alignable vs non-alignable differences