Hacker News Reader

Comment by kenjackson | Hacker News Reader

I think you're splitting hairs here.

Most things don't have the ability to moralize, but if they did, probably more would. There are restrictions on watching adult content in some jurisdictions. I've heard that copy machines will do watermarks (or something like that) if you copy currency. Some cars will brake automatically if they determine you're likely to hit something if you continue (maybe I'm trying to drive through the front of a bank!). Some cars are configured with breathalyzers that need to be passed to start. Etc...

View on HN

OK, what the tools might do is different from what they should do.

The point is that it is very inefficient and problematic for morality decisions and boundaries to be embedded all over at every level in tools, because morality is complex. Morality, or whatever our conception of it is, should be enforced at clearly defined boundaries.

I can relate this concept how I corrected Claude Opus in my software projects recently.

For example, once an authorization engine has been created, all authorization decisions should be deferred to it. Confusion would reign if each web server route decided to enforce its own authorization.

Similarly, if I am using a relational database, that is where unique indexes should be enforced. Application code has no business enforcing it.

I wish there was more actual research on those 'moralisms' many of which boil down to public health safety features that have led to dramatic reductions in mortality rates.

On the one hand, I definitely don't agree with the logic of 'don't guardrail me if I don't want it.' I think back on that one video from the late 80s of people talking about how seatbelt mandates were horrible violations of their freedoms (and not like like one second of work and no real discomfort).

On the other, I'd love it if these companies actually produced real research about modern AI-assisted attacks in terms of damage and quantity, and whether or not guardrails even matter when tech like abliteration is in general use.

Seatbelts shouldn't be mandated. People should have the choice, you just have to make the case that it's worth it. In fact some places don't mandate seatbelts (New Hampshire doesn't, aligning with their motto "Live Free or Die").

That said, for those who cannot advocate for themselves, like children, I think it's entirely reasonable to hold someone accountable if they decide to forgo an appropriate safety mechanism that results in harm.

Should folks who don't wear seatbelts be de-prioritized or excluded from government-funded healthcare in the event of injury?

I think there's a spectrum of enforcement. If they're mandated and you go to jail for not wearing one, that's stupid. If they're mandated and you get fined $20 if caught, just to add a little friction, is that still stupid?

I bet cars these days send a flag to the mothership when you drive without one, but the mothership doesn't pay attention to that signal unless it's linked to your insurance.

Not a single US state has jail time for it. Yes, it's still nanny state behavior.

The breathalysers are installed by court order if you have a record of drunk driving - they're not comparable to the other two.

Some copy machines store everything you copy on a hard disk and require a technician visit after you try to copy currency. The technician copies the data from the disk, obviously, before resetting the flag.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com