undefined | Better HN

0 pointsthe_snooze3y ago0 comments

>Automation and scale create their own threats.

I don't know why such a simple fact needs to be repeated over and over again. It's either naivete or malice that makes people ignore that fact.

A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications.

0 comments

FartyMcFarter3y ago

Another example is the police. Most people agree the existence of a police force to enforce laws is a good thing (society would function very differently otherwise). But if there was a policeman for each other person on the planet following them 24x7 and enforcing every possible law on them, not so much anymore.

Quantity is a quality all of its own.

awb3y ago

On the other hand, why have a law if it’s not meant to be enforced universally and consistently?

When laws are applied selectively it creates an unequal experiences in the population.

No one wants the tyranny of oppressive applications of overbearing laws. So, in those instances, change the law to be fair enough and compassionate enough that it can be applied in all instances where the letter of the law is broken.

And obviously privacy is important and ubiquitous surveillance would undermine our ability to enjoy life. But in public spaces, consistently applying fairly written compassionate laws wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

Arainach3y ago

Because the real world has nuance and is not black and white. Humanity relies on people using their judgment; trying to make absolute laws with zero tolerance has been a failure everywhere it's tried. It is impossible to numerate all reasonable exceptions, and impossible to specify exceptions precisely enough that bad actors can't exploit them.

If you make the rules overly strict and enforce them universally, you end up with people in jail for offenses no one cares about.

If you make the rules at all loose, bad actors instantly seize on any loopholes and ruin the commons for anyone.

awb3y ago

Yeah, but that’s why you have a “human in the loop”, to handle the infinite number of edge cases. You’d never want end-to-end AI for anything mission critical like justice.

1 more reply

Scea913y ago

I think the main problem is not in universal law enforcement but in constant surveillance which is a bit orthogonal.

Why should people be under constant surveillance even at times when they are not breaking any laws? Why should someone else have access to every moment of your life?

FartyMcFarter3y ago

Good point, but I think my main point still stands: being ocasionally surveilled by the police is OK (I don't mind them looking at me in public places if I'm near them), but if you scale this up to constant surveillance it's a very different story.

Forgeties793y ago

This is a fantastic question for the NSA!

Forgeties793y ago

>A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications.

What a fantastic example. Borrowing this for sure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

FartyMcFarter3y ago

Quantity is a quality all of its own.

awb3y ago

On the other hand, why have a law if it’s not meant to be enforced universally and consistently?

When laws are applied selectively it creates an unequal experiences in the population.

Arainach3y ago

If you make the rules overly strict and enforce them universally, you end up with people in jail for offenses no one cares about.

If you make the rules at all loose, bad actors instantly seize on any loopholes and ruin the commons for anyone.

awb3y ago

Yeah, but that’s why you have a “human in the loop”, to handle the infinite number of edge cases. You’d never want end-to-end AI for anything mission critical like justice.

1 more reply

Scea913y ago

I think the main problem is not in universal law enforcement but in constant surveillance which is a bit orthogonal.

Why should people be under constant surveillance even at times when they are not breaking any laws? Why should someone else have access to every moment of your life?

FartyMcFarter3y ago

Forgeties793y ago

This is a fantastic question for the NSA!

Forgeties793y ago

>A change in scale can easily lead to a change in kind. A party popper and a flashbang are functionally the same thing, but their scale makes them have wildly different implications.

What a fantastic example. Borrowing this for sure.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse