Garbage article.
Arguably, this makes autopilot, with its singular set of fuzzy logic, worse than human drivers. It’s flaws, after all, will continue to exist even if it kills its host.
Such language and marketing campaigns are actively killing uninformed drivers.
How much is 'enough' regulation?
Without exactly refuting you or The Famous Article, the ditch on the other side of the road is a sterile, risk-managed wasteland.
Social media companies’ primary mission is to keep people hooked auch that they can show them more ads. The data collection and targeting is ok order to better target these ads.
There is no big conspiracy to somehow do something unimaginable with that data
Invoking the word "conspiracy" is a cheap way to dismiss any argument. No conspiracy was asserted by the GP. And any time there is hidden information and people are similarly motivated it can appear to be a conspiracy. This could be why whenever I play poker everyone else at the table seems to be conspiring to take my money away . . .
What's of interest here is not the (small number of) deaths caused by "captains of industry" but the irrational fixation of people like the author on these figures.
It certainly seems Stockton was willing to do this, ignoring the evidence that his sub was safe and willing to kill others on the off chance that it failed.
That he died as a result is not relevant to his disregard for others.
As I said, the interesting thing here is the attitude shown by posters like you and the author of this piece.
But Rush seems to lean heavily towards true believer. If he wanted to scam people, he could have found much more remunerative ways to do it, and he certainly wouldn't have piloted the sub himself.
Holmes was pretty clearly a grifter. I have no idea why that would be a hard question, but of course maybe you have some indicators going the other way.
The issue here is a willful disregard for human life.
This is as true of Tesla, meta, Amazon, alphabet, M$ and apple and the reason this incident has sparked such catharsis is that it happens constantly. There is a great article to be written on why there is such hatred for these people but it has to start by admitting that people's feelings are valid and this article simply didn't have the spine to explore that idea. It was clearly written to allow the author to convince themselves of something they know they don't really believe and it doesn't deserve to be read by anybody on here, go read a vacume manual and you will find more thought provoking content.
I think you completely misread the article, which actually suggests that this is commonplace: "we should perhaps give pause to consider that in America, we seem entirely comfortable with sociopaths (or those with such tendencies, at least) driving progress at the expense of human life, and even continue to financially support them."
That moral framework doesn't function at the extremes of how human societies work these days. People keep demanding that leaders behave in a way that makes sense for a tiny community, and therefore regularly get ineffective or deceptive leadership. One of the reasons capitalism is so powerful is it puts rationalist guidelines in place instead of religious ones.
Really though? Healthy human emotion state is still calibrated at the experience of several thousand years ago?
While I do agree that healthy state is NOT calibrated for our current rapidly-technologized environment, I'm not sure it's correct that it's still stuck in the stone age.
Happy to be proven wrong though if you've got something interesting to read on the topic!
I think you misread the article.
They are still the minority of individuals (~20%), but the most likely place people will interact with them.
There is absolutely a balance between safety and progress. Progress depends on the ability of the first version to be imperfect. Perfect is the enemy of good, and so many technologies both cost lives AND save lives in greater proportion.
Profits over people.
No sane person would want to be Elon Musk. Some of you here might think you would like to be him, and you might for an afternoon or a day, but not a lifetime.
