Drewelite

Seems like there are a lot of half baked ideas online about AI that seem to come from assumptions based on some sci-fi ideal or something. People are shocked that an artificial intelligence gets things wrong when they themselves have probably made a handful of incorrect assumptions today. This Tom Scott talk is a great explanation of how truth can never be programmed into anything. And will never really be obtainable to humanity in the foreseeable future.

Could not have said it better. The whole reason contemporary programs haven't been able to adapt to the ambiguity of real world situations is because they require rigidly defined parameters to function. LLMs and AI make assumptions and act on shaky info - That's the whole point. If people waited for complete understanding of every circumstance and topic, we'd constantly be trapped in indecision. Without the ability to test their assumptions in the real world, LLMs will be like children.

Conservatives think the same thing about liberals. When you think you're right, you also think you're doing the world a favor by speaking your mind.

My analogy makes it clearer to highlight a point. But you're right that Honda wouldn't shut down if these regulations are passed. But It could be that the companies they're partnering with are giving them a cheaper rate on infotainment systems for a cut of the data that's collected. If we made Honda produce two Civics. One that steals your data and one that is just $200 more expensive, then we fully educate people on why the more expensive version is better. And then they STILL chose the cheap data miner. Then taking that option away with regulation is wrong. I might not agree with consumers here. But the reality is that they might just not agree with us about what's important. Enforcing a choice because we "know better" isn't right.

If the majority of people come together to push a regulation because it's something we don't even want to consider when purchasing electronics, then great. I'm just not sure that's the case. And I think we get into trouble jumping to regulation on every issue because often what people say they want, isn't really what they want.

I agree that people can't learn everything about every market. But what people care to learn about and pay attention to counts for something.

Imagine your friends are trying to decide on a place to eat. You suggest a very healthy restaurant where all the food is listed with ingredients and their source farms. But then someone says, "Eh, I wanna save money. Let's do Taco Bell." You explain that that's an objectively worse decision. That food health is really important. That in the long run, eating unhealthy actually costs more in medical bills. But they decided to go to Taco Bell.

Putting your foot down and demanding the healthy option might objectively be the "right" choice. But in reality, they'll just get Taco Bell on their own time and resent you for taking their choice away. People have to be presented with the information and decide for themselves or they'll just resent the institution enforcing the choice.

Did you just read the last sentence? Lol. AFTER proper education about the risks of lack of data privacy, if they still don't care then so be it.

Well you are voting with your wallet, the only problem is you've been out voted. Honda makes good automotives and part of the "price" now is people giving them their data. People just don't understand/care enough to not want to buy a Honda. If this were really a big deal to people it would open a place in the market for new automotive companies like Rivian, Lucid, or Polestar to gain massive ground by not doing this.

This is an education issue. We need to inform people about the dangers of a lack of data privacy. If they still don't care, then so be it.

So why aren't there reddit apps that do the same?

My understanding is, they didn't know what to get ready for. It's like somebody saying "I'm going to change the game a lot, watch out!" So what do you do then? Sit around and not develop anything for 2 years because it might be based on code that will change?

I mean, it's nice to hear some regret. Maybe other CEOs will take note... Probably not. But maybe

Yeah it feels like a tech company that's less about being high-tech and more about actual product design. Instead of creating something that is packed with the most features, they just made something that was unique, fun, and enjoyable to use.

This is a false equivalency. The correct analogy would be: if I think about murdering someone and then draw a picture of it or make a movie about murdering them, is that wrong?