7 ms·

What you're talking about is who to blame, not how to keep more people alive.

by mvkel 9d ago

datsci_est_2015 9d ago
“Who to blame” turns out to be one of the most important facets of humanity, and it turns out we structure our entire society around it: assigning liability and pursuing justice. That’s not something that can be handwaved away to technocratically chase a metric (traffic deaths).
- mvkel 9d ago
  A person needs to die for us to assign liability and pursue justice. If fewer people die, there is no liability to assign. It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. Which yeah, sounds just like us! "This is the way we've always done it!"
  - saulpw 8d ago
    If fewer people die, there is only less liability to assign. Remember that the original argument was "FSD needs to have 0 fatalities before we adopt it". And it's not valid to argue that some traffic fatalities are unavoidable; I know people who work at the DOT and "Vision Zero"[0] is a thing, and already implemented in some European countries/cities. Without FSD. So FSD needs to clear this bar. [0] https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/ https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
  - datsci_est_2015 8d ago
    > It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. God I hate technocracy. There’s a reason we elect politicians and not technologists who think everything is simple and we just aren’t making the technically correct policy decisions. “I’m sorry ma’am, we won’t be investigating anyone for your daughter’s death at the hands of the Sexy Deathmobile 5000 because technically no one is liable. But just think, there would have been so many other children killed this year if we didn’t allow these Sexy Deathmobiles to take over the roads! I hear there’s even a software update that will reduce toddler deaths by 5% at the expense of a 10% rise in dog and raccoon deaths, but it’s a choice our technocratic overlords are ecstatic to implement!” You’re also arguing against a false alternative, which is the status quo. I’d rather have our money put towards safe streets and reducing demand for toddler-bulldozers (cars with raised grills) than a FSD pipe dream that would only enrich a few billionaires and the lucky SWEs who happen to pick the correct company to work for.

What you're talking about is who to blame, not how to keep more people alive.

by mvkel 9d ago

What you're talking about is who to blame, not how to keep more people alive.

datsci_est_2015 9d ago

“Who to blame” turns out to be one of the most important facets of humanity, and it turns out we structure our entire society around it: assigning liability and pursuing justice. That’s not something that can be handwaved away to technocratically chase a metric (traffic deaths).

mvkel 9d ago
A person needs to die for us to assign liability and pursue justice. If fewer people die, there is no liability to assign. It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. Which yeah, sounds just like us! "This is the way we've always done it!"
- saulpw 8d ago
  If fewer people die, there is only less liability to assign. Remember that the original argument was "FSD needs to have 0 fatalities before we adopt it". And it's not valid to argue that some traffic fatalities are unavoidable; I know people who work at the DOT and "Vision Zero"[0] is a thing, and already implemented in some European countries/cities. Without FSD. So FSD needs to clear this bar. [0] https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/ https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
- datsci_est_2015 8d ago
  > It sounds like you're arguing for a human being to die to preserve a human being to blame. God I hate technocracy. There’s a reason we elect politicians and not technologists who think everything is simple and we just aren’t making the technically correct policy decisions. “I’m sorry ma’am, we won’t be investigating anyone for your daughter’s death at the hands of the Sexy Deathmobile 5000 because technically no one is liable. But just think, there would have been so many other children killed this year if we didn’t allow these Sexy Deathmobiles to take over the roads! I hear there’s even a software update that will reduce toddler deaths by 5% at the expense of a 10% rise in dog and raccoon deaths, but it’s a choice our technocratic overlords are ecstatic to implement!” You’re also arguing against a false alternative, which is the status quo. I’d rather have our money put towards safe streets and reducing demand for toddler-bulldozers (cars with raised grills) than a FSD pipe dream that would only enrich a few billionaires and the lucky SWEs who happen to pick the correct company to work for.