onceKnowable

7 ms·

1.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Your whole hypothesis is nonsense. The intent of those cigarette laws is to stop minors from getting their hands on cigarettes. It’s not intended to make criminals of kids.
2.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Google Docs & Apple’s ICloud both have cloud based excel sheet equivalents that can allow multiple people to edit simultaneously and also track who made what changes. If you did this with git, it’d have to be text based so a CSV textile
3.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Only if the whole population succumbs to ignorance. Not saying that doesn’t happen, especially in light of stuff like net neutrality and the NSA et al’s data gathering. But on the whole, the general public will drown out cranks who shout ab
4.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Ouch! :( ^TFW the app they busted their ass developing needs to be totally rebranded and relaunched because they forgot to check if their chosen wordmark was already used!
5.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
That attitude is what turns non-nerds away from asking our opinion on the technologies that we develop. If you don’t want to be involved in the debates about AI, automation et al, then you can’t really comment on those who do. If you do wan
6.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
That’s why informed public debate is not about adding warning stickers to things, it’s about creating competent laws that robustly protect the public. In your example, the result shouldn’t be warning stickers, it’s laws specifically against
7.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Hold on, you’re ascribing a lack of dystopias because you don’t see one right now. That’s because laws have been passed to restrict that possibility. The public debate has been conducted on a lot of technologies that could have lead us to
8.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Absolutely not! A council, no matter how large, is, relative to the general public as a whole, made up of a small number of individuals. Such a council would raise so many ethical concerns, such as: Who are these individuals? Why are they o
9.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Regardless of the ethics of the initial developers of the individual fission researchers, they were experts in their narrow field. They could never be held responsible for not realizing that MAD was the only outcome that their work would re
10.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
That’s not what’s being asked. No one person, or team of people, can determine that. What the article is proposing is that creators of new technologies inform the public so that the general public can decide if new laws are required to prev
11.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
>It’s not clear to me that anyone can predict the consequences of technology That’s the whole point of the article, no one person can ever figure that stuff out. That’s why the public needs tone informed. No matter how educated (maliciou
12.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
The general public too. Ask any non-nerd if they are aware that by accessing their Gmail account via a third party service, that that service can read their emails. I’m sure that the majority will be freaked out by even the notion that that
13.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
None of those actions were the result of an informed public debate. In fact, they’re all actions that show that an informed public debate regarding new technologies is needed to protect the public from not only unscrupulous businesses or ex
14.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Einstein alerted the authorities about the dangers on Aug 2nd, a month before the war had even started and long before the US had joined the fight. But the authorities kept it secret, choosing to develop these weapons. But, had those weapon
15.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Exactly, that is the exact question. Who should be the arbiter? The public. Everyone. The physicists & engineers didn’t identify the MAD inevitability from developing nukes. The public did. I’m not demonizing the physicists or engineer
16.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Easy example in recent software development history: the developers who built the software controlling emissions cheating on Volkswagen cars a few years ago. That lead to nearly a decade of overly polluting cars being missold to the public.
17.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
It’s not about holding particular people responsible in hindsight. It’s about having a public debate to decide what laws are needed to robustly protect the public before the technology is even misused. So in your examples it’d be: - when th
18.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
It’s not that hard. Take an example: your team has developed technology that can identify, with five nines accuracy, the yearly income of a user. That’s innovative, for sure. And nobody is taking the achievement away from your team. But you
19.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
No, yeah sorry, I’m obviously being super brief here to just get the point across without writing a thesis on my phone :) Although, predictably enough, I followed up with more thesis length posts to clarify my point! Namedropping einstein t
20.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Of course they were all geniuses. And the project as a whole definitely was done in as ethical a way as possible. They weren’t bad people and I’m not implying that they were. But the point isn’t anything to do with any of that. The point is
21.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
His disclosures were before the war. If the public had a chance to chip in, along with a public debate that would inevitably lead to our current MAD theory, then it’s reasonable to imagine that the current “let’s not go to war with each oth
22.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
There’s no need to be defensive or naive about Apple’s data gathering. It’s clearly stated in all of their terms that they gather usage data. Personally, I’d trust them more than Facebook, Google and most other companies. But to assume they
23.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
There’s precedent here. Einstein notified the US President when it became clear as to the danger associated with, what were then, recent developments in high-energy particle physics. That allowed politicians, who would have had very little
24.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
There’s precedent here. Einstein notified the US President when it became clear as to the danger associated with, what were then, recent developments in high-energy particle physics. That allowed politicians, who would have had very little
25.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Absolutely, if that data is stolen due to the designers’ neglect in the security aspects of the systems they signed off as “adequately designed”.
26.
by onceKnowable 8y ago
Yeah but that’s a different argument to what you’re replying to. If that civil engineer sold or allowed (for any reason from negligence, insufficient security protocols, malice, ignorance etc) blueprints for his design to end up in enemy ha