|
|
|
|
|
by nmitchko
746 days ago
|
|
Tin-foil hat time: 1. First, models will predict pollution. The outcomes will help shape urban policy. But these won't solve crime or stop people from driving. 2. Second, models will predict individual behavior and track person level emissions. The outcomes will force behavior changes, mostly freedom limiting. 3. Third, and finally, models will predict thoughts. The the thought of driving instead of walking might trigger a response. It's a slippery slope and we need to draw a line between prediction and policy. |
|
Even allowing for the ridiculously massive technical leap from 1 to 2 and then 2 to 3, it doesn't make much sense.
For one thing, if states are determined to enforce individual emissions limits, they can do it today with legislation. You don't need a predictive model. What does the model add?
Also, the only difference between 2 and 3 is whether a person acts on a thought.
So are you suggesting with #3 that predicted thoughts (e.g. not literal mind reading) which a person doesn't act upon will prompt state action?