a computer shouldn't be allowed to fuck around because a computer can never find out
- she/her, Shark if we don't interact
- sharkaeopteryx.neocities.org/
Sharks are cool and comfortable!
Elden Thing | Back & Body Hurts Platinugggggh Rewards Member
Profile pic and banner credits: sharkaeopteryx art by @superkiak! eggbug by eggbug! Mash-up by me!
[Alt-text for pfp: a cute sharkaeopteryx sat on the ground with legs out, wings down, jaw ajar, and hed empty, looking at eggbug and eggbug's enigmatic smile.]
[Alt-text for banner: a Spirit Halloween banner with eggbug and the sharkaeopteryx that Superkiak drew for me looking at it with inscrutable expressions]
I'm a Vietnamese cis woman born and currently living in the U.S. You may know me from Sandwich, from Twitter or Mastodon (same username), or on Twitch as Sharkaeopteryx. I do not have a Discord or Bluesky account.
Ask me about language learning/teaching, cooking/eating food, late diagnosis ADHD, and volunteer small business mentoring. Or don't, I'm not the boss of you.
I think people deserve to be young, make mistakes, and grow without being held to standards they don't know about yet and are still learning. So, if you are under 22, please don't try to strike up a friendship or get involved in discussions on my posts.
Please don't automatically assume I follow/know/co-sign someone just because I reposted something from them—sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Also, if you think being removed as a follower when we're not mutuals is a cardinal sin, please do not follow me.
🐘Mastodon
search for @sharksonaplane@mastodon.sandwich.net and hit follow if you want
Hang out with me on the Auldnoir forum! (you can DM there!)
discourse.auldnoir.org/Sign my Cohost yearbook 📝
recocards.com/board/cohost-yearbook-sharksonaplane-94772758696cFollow me on Twitch
twitch.tv/sharkaeopteryxAdd my RSS feed (not working yet but I'll get to it!)
sharkaeopteryx.neocities.org/rss.xmlMy Throne link
throne.com/sharkaeopteryxMy Ko-fi link
www.ko-fi.com/sharkaeopteryx
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @tsiro's post:
I mean this is that IBM presentation slide from 1979, right? I think you're in position with a long history of being correct, even if it's not necessarily been brought to bear in the world.
I don't know. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but this sounds to me like you would rather have someone to hold accountable for death or injury then prevent said death or injury in the first place. That seems entirely backwards to me.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a debate on what accountability means in the presence of automated processes, but I'm not willing to delay tangible safety benefits for that.
When dealing with corporations, the threat of accountability (the OSHA inspector comes in and shuts your operation down, you are held liable for negligence, etc) is unfortunately required to have safety improvements in the large majority of cases.
Sure, but the original comment presupposed that we do have safety improvements without accountability.
Not quite. Why do we trust the unaccountable entity's safety data?...
Arguably I (and judging by OPs other comments, OP as well) was thinking of stuff like self-driving cars, where accident statistics are RIGHT THERE. But again this is less a question of "who is accountable for this nominally safe system" and more one of "okay but is it actually safe". Which is a fair question to ask! But not the question OP asked.
Contrary to intuition, the statistic of "accidents within the set of all self-driving cars" doesn't say anything as meaningful as its contribution to safety, even directly compared to "accidents within all human-driven cars".
There is a fallacy here that I don't know the name of, but basically, what should be asked is instead "have the introduction of self-driving cars positively correlated to reduced accidents?" Just saying that there are less accidents within a given subset doesn't actually account for its impact to the whole.
There's a number of ways that it could be true but actually mean it contributed more to accidents - for example, people using them when they normally wouldn't have driven at all. But these kinds of things are never reported in parallel, which is what makes using that isolated statistic a useful smokescreen - and a useless argument in the face of tangible ethical concerns.
in reply to @jckarter's post:
thanks! i gotta hand most of the credit to @bethposting for the tee up tho
Pinned Tags