Hacker News Reader

Comment by G_z9 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

> if any country doesn’t allow AIs to do such jobs because of legal or liability reasons, then some other country will

Some other country _might_.

Let's look at the past. Which country has allowed fully autonomous vehicles without the driver being responsible in case of accidents?

There is no such thing as a fully autonomous vehicle. There are only highly autonomous vehicles that require a human to be present in the case of an emergency, ie trains. That will no longer be the case. The AIs will eventually be much better at handling emergencies, driving, everything than humans.

Which country in history had a habit of truly passing up on hugely significant economic or military resources based on some principled idea? None. Because all the ones that did couldn’t survive. You really are going to try to argue that geopolitics is powered by virtue?

That’s not true, there are fully autonomous vehicles. The reason we don’t see it daily — and I doubt we ever will - is that AI will always make mistakes. But you can’t put in jail an AI and the way they make mistakes is unpredictable to humans.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...

You’re contradicting yourself. You say there are fully autonomous vehicles but they aren’t capable of autonomously driving themselves fully. Ie they aren’t fully autonomous. So that aren’t any fully autonomous vehicles.

Ok so now you’re saying that AGI is impossible. That’s a completely different argument. And it’s wrong to reject regulation based on that argument because it can’t be proven. So you can’t reject regulation that way and you can’t reject it with your idea about humans having intrinsic value. So you are forced to support regulation of AI.

They are capable, but society wont allow it because of the legal implications. You are arguing a strawman.

Dude what are you even talking about. If you want to continue this conversation then we have to talk on the phone or twitter spaces or something with higher bandwidth because this is wearing out my thumbs.

He's saying you're arguing in bad faith because you are: Human drivers are fully autonomous and make mistakes - the difference being we accept the risk of human drivers and their mistakes as a society and have not (yet) with self driving cars.

That fact does nothing to disprove the existence of autonomous vehicles.

Go outside, friend.

Maybe they will not not because of virtue, but because it is not desirable.

Deniers of what exactly? I haven't denied anything? Seems like perhaps you are answering another thread.

Statistically, you think that regulating AI is pointless because another country will just push forward. So that’s not true? You think AGI should be prevented?

Where have I said that? Try reading it again.

Answer the question

Why don't you write a proper question? There's this tool you can use to help, it's called ChatGPT.

Please don't break the site guidelines yourself, or perpetuate flamewars, regardless of how badly someone else is behaving. It only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com