|
|
|
|
|
|
by simonh
1460 days ago
|
|
|
That's literally what a smart contract is. From the Etherium website: "Smart contracts are a type of Ethereum account. This means they have a balance and they can send transactions over the network. However they're not controlled by a user, instead they are deployed to the network and run as programmed. User accounts can then interact with a smart contract by submitting transactions that execute a function defined on the smart contract. Smart contracts can define rules, like a regular contract, and automatically enforce them via the code. Smart contracts cannot be deleted by default, and interactions with them are irreversible." So if they can send transactions over the network, and are not controlled by a user, how is that not putting code in the driver's seat? |
|
|
Because humans enter into them.
What you're describing is not a problem of the code making decisions for people, it's a problem of people not being able to back out of something once they've made the decision.
I think there's definitely an argument around if this is worth it or not, but it's a different issue. An issue that's akin to many decisions in real life. To take a dramatic example, this is akin to firing a gun. Once fired, a bullet cannot be taken back, but the bullet is not in control, but it is a situation created entirely by human agency.
I suppose the devs who create the software we're talking about would have some agency in the previous scenarios. But I wouldn't be nearly as concerned if the people in, say, the train car were entirely the devs that wrote the train car door automation software.
I guess the distinction I'm trying to make is people being forced into a situation vs people voluntarily entering a situation (even if they might not be happy with the situation later). In the former situation, I'd describe that as people not being in control, in the latter I'd describe the people involved as being in control.