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.
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…
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…
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!
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…
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…
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…
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…
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’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…
>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…
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…
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…
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.…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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!…
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…
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…
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…
Bullshit, the market doesn’t demand your right to privacy. Nor does the market care about your property right. The democracy you live in enshrines those rights on your behalf.
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…
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.
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…
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…
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!
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…
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…
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…
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…
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’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…
>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…
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…
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…
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.…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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!…
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…
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…
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…
Bullshit, the market doesn’t demand your right to privacy. Nor does the market care about your property right. The democracy you live in enshrines those rights on your behalf.
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…
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…