gliboc

What paranoia are you talking about ? Weird to hear that because it's the safest city I've been to...

It is hilarious to jump that fast to a Godwin point while trying to instill the idea that the person you're adressing is the morally dubious one.

Maybe you could do some research about the totalitarian mindset, and learn about yourself.

Thank you: this conversation was beginning to feel surreal, between the "let's pull the plug on these frenchies!" and the "how dare a sovereign state wants to legiferate on the activities of an American company on its territory"...

I do enjoy the irony of some Americans blaming big data companies when the president of their choice does not get elected, all the while advocating for less power to French news agencies (e.g. death by asphyxiation from Google news, without any recourse).

Or maybe Netflix could say "no this is a service we are providing to our users" and then the big "Hollywood exec" would be like "ok maybe we will not sit on the million dollars we get from our agreement" and that would be it.

You are missing the point, which is that if you can blindly follow the type hints of the compiler and still get a non-stupid function when you're joking around like the author is, then in real-life coding situations the type hints will be all the more relevant and reliable.

By the way, this is literally the most common foldr implementation in functional languages, so I have no idea why you would want to do a code review of it, or talk about performances in such a trivial setting, or pretend that you're confused by it so much that you have to refer to a library...

You're going full circle here. He's not the one advocating for "modern evidence-based research and training", so it's not in his standards. And I'm not blaming him. Not everything is measurable, or at least measurable in ways that would enable researchers to extract meaningful answers or techniques. You said it yourself, productivity is a fuzzy end-goal.

If you do not believe it is possible to empirically derive a way to interview properly, then rationalism is your best choice, i.e. Intuition/Deduction. And contrary to common belief, rationalism is not a prison. It's just a decision process, in which you're perfectly allowed to question yourself using available empiric data.

Do you not mind that your point isn't reflected in the paper you linked?

Yes, and it is well known that Tesla's self-driving program reproduces Elon Musk's reckless driving habits... /s

I'm just intervening to point out that what you're saying is not what the paper you linked implies. Its title is "Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases", and the general conclusion you could derive from it is that AI programs reflect the stereotypes ... of the data they are trained with. This is why they use the right word: stereotype, instead of the charged word you used: prejudice.

It is an interesting metric, thank you for pointing it out. Until now I kept in mind the amount of miles between accidents, but surely both should be considered.

However, I think this metric could be irrelevant in the case of a home/work commute. The 11,000 miles average appears to have been obtained basically by randomly driving Waymo cars on Californian roads. But a usual commute is much less than 11,000 miles, and if your self-driving can do it by itself once then probably it can do it twice. As the article puts it:

"The value of the data is limited, however, as the figures don’t factor in the complexity of environments in which vehicles are tested–dense urban settings, versus low-speed suburbs or less complex highway driving–nor do they show conditions including weather, light or speed."

Nevertheless, you seem to have missed my point : I was arguing that coming up with a specific use-case example that may (or may not, actually) go wrong is an argument that goes both ways.

I'm returning your argument. Imagine your are driving your car on the highway, but you suddenly have a heart attack and become unable to remain conscious. Do you: (a) Die? (b) Die?

Manned vehicles are not coming anytime soon. They are a whole slew of problems etc. -- you got my point.

I think focusing too much on pesky details is very much a fallacy in this case - you do not want an "AI" to react like a human in all situations, you only want it to drive in a way that is conservative enough not to endanger people too much. And we clearly aren't that far from this goal right now.

Damn bisons destroying our fine tracks and bringing Indians with them; let's wipe out their species!