[haltist]

A few weeks ago I was taking the train but before boarding I noticed two police officers doing their daily patrol and started chatting with them about a crazy lady at the top of the station's stairs. They said they couldn't do anything because it was not their job to take care of the insane to which I couldn't really say anything other than "I guess that sounds about right". The train I was going to take started to depart but one guy managed to stick his arm out to keep one of the doors open. The conductor saw this and refused to re-open the doors even though the guy seemed to be visibly distraught and maybe even in pain. He was trying to help me catch the train but the conductor had other ideas.

It's not just the machines that are ruthless. The operators also take on attributes of the machines they manage and in the process inflict willful cruelty on others through their control of the machinery. The most obvious example of this is, of course, war and the technology associated with its execution. So this essay is right, machines/algorithms are ruthless but it is the people that use them to inflict pain and suffering on others that makes the whole thing into a grand tragedy.

[ishandotpage]

> The operators also take on attributes of the machines they manage and in the process inflict willful cruelty on others through their control of the machinery. The most obvious example of this is, of course, war and the technology associated with its execution. So this essay is right, machines/algorithms are ruthless but it is the people that use them to inflict pain and suffering on others that makes the whole thing into a grand tragedy.

This mirrors my experience. About six months ago, I had an accident on the metro in my city, where my leg slipped between the train and platform while deboarding. Not only did passers by not help, the "operators" stood idly by. While I am lucky to have escaped with "just" an ACL tear, I would have lost my leg that day if my friend hadn't been there to pull me out.

[haltist]

Glad to hear you managed to get out of the incident alive.

[azornathogron]

> The conductor saw this and refused to re-open the doors even though the guy seemed to be visibly distraught and maybe even in pain.

I'm not generally a litigious person (at least I hope not), but that sounds like a law suit...

It's one thing to refuse to open the doors just to let a latecomer on board, but it's quite another for a person in a position of authority (and I would argue with a duty of care) to harm someone or put them in danger like this.

[galdosdi]

Indeed. And that is why we naturally fear new technology, if we have enough sad experience of human nature or reading of history-- because we fear it will give more power to those who will use it against us, a fear that is very justified by the evidence of what has happened in the wake of new technologies spreading over the last 10,000 years.

[mkii]

Charlie Booker, of Black Mirror fame, said (paraphrasing): it's not technology that sucks -- it's people.

[paulolc]

No it's not. People are great. The problem is that we are not OK. When can't help ourselves, much less others. A lot of us are sick and don't have help. We are silently succumbing to the suffering of an increasingly dehumanizing environment. Machines should be beside us, to help. Not between us and stop us from fully interact with each other.

[fargle]

> The problem is that we are not OK. When can't help ourselves, much less others. A lot of us are sick and don't have help. We are silently succumbing to the suffering of an increasingly dehumanizing environment

ok, maybe? i don't think that's unanimously true

> Machines should be beside us, to help. Not between us and stop us from fully interact with each other.

and who puts them there and uses them as such?

who comes up with things like DRM'd juice packets?

people anthropomorphize machines:

    "the car rolled over and crushed..." or "the train doors closed in his face"

No.

    "the reckless driver rolled his car..."
    "the uncaring conductor closed the doors in his face"
    "the bureaucratic corporation and engineers designed the train leaving no way to override the doors by the operator"

not as romantic, but closer to the truth.

machines, computers included, are simply powerful levers. they amplify forces applied - good or evil or dehumanizing - by their users. nothing more.

not all people are good, and when those people use powerful machines to amplify their intentions, it can have enormous negative effects.

[paulolc]

> ok, maybe? i don't think that's unanimously true

I get your point. Some people seem to be thriving. Yes, but those don't suck. The ones that are thriving and do suck are, in the end, succumbing to the increasingly dehumanizing environment.

> and who puts them there and uses them as such? > who comes up with things like DRM'd juice packets?

We do. People do. Yes. Those people suck. They are not ok and are clearly succumbing to the increasingly dehumanizing environment.

> people anthropomorphize machines:

Oh yes they do. Excelent point! In the end, it's all people. I totally agree. We cannot let responsibility die as an orphan. Those people suck, but ... well, you know, they "suckumb" ;).

> machines, computers included, are simply powerful levers. they amplify forces applied - good or evil or dehumanizing - by their users. nothing more. > not all people are good, and when those people use powerful machines to amplify their intentions, it can have enormous negative effects.

Yes. Without any doubt. We need to counteract that. Let's work together. We can!

"It is inevitable that we face problems, but no particular problem is inevitable." - David Deutsch - The Beginning of the Infinity.

[salawat]

>People are great. The problem is that we are not OK.

Come again? Seems like the latter disproves the former. After all, if people are so great, why would they build a machine that proliferates suffering?

What kind of man builds a machine to kill a girl? A smart one.

"Smart" does not imply good, nor virtuous. Merely capable.

[tweedledot]

To maintain the level of throughput we expect and need, trains have to run to a rigid schedule. If things were re-jigged so that trains could leave a bit late for some reason or other, the resulting reduction in throughput and corresponding passenger miles would outweigh your inconvenience. After all, trains drove the mass adoption of accurate timekeeping.

[haltist]

This is accounted for in my "panoptic computronium cathedral"™ with reconfigurable and individual tube systems for transporting individuals at high speeds [1]. The AGI decides who needs to be where and for what purposes and then reconfigures the tube system to accomplish the task. It is much more efficient and does not require any time keeping devices.

1: https://imgur.com/wxS9FDh

[tweedledot]

Sounds very similar to the existing road infrastructure.

[haltist]

The tubes prevent accidents, that is the main innovation.

[tweedledot]

You’re still going to hold up other people if you stop to chat or stick your arms out of the tube.

[haltist]

The AGI takes care of that as well. The tubes are reconfigurable so you can't be where you're not supposed to be according to the AGI's plan. Even if you're chatting the tube will suck you up and transfer you to the required destination.

[friend_and_foe]

I think this is a phenomenon we observe when people become parts of machines. The cops, the conductor, a bureaucrat at a paperwork filing office, they all take on this position of neutrality, of deference to the system in which they function. Any autonomy they exercise becomes an unpredictability in the smooth operation of the machine, one which they believe is more good than bad and a worthwhile trade off, so in situations where the answer is not clear, the mechanics of the machine must be maintained. Truly they are cogs in a machine.

[ishandotpage]

In a McLuhanistic interpretation,

"We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us"