Some cars brake for you as soon as they think you’re going to crash (if you have your foot on the accelerator, or even on the brake if the car doesn’t believe you’ll be able to stop in time). Fords especially will do this, usually in relation to adaptive cruise control, and reverse brake assist. You can turn that setting off, I believe but it is meant to prevent a crash, or collision. In fact, Ford’s Bluecruise assisted driving feature was phantom braking to the point there was a recall about it because it was braking with nothing obstructing the road. I believe they also just updated it so that the accelerator press will override the bluecruise without disengaging it in like the 1.5 update which happened this year.

But I was thinking you were correcting me about autopilot for planes and I was confused.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQJL3htsDyQ

Part of the reason that air travel is as safe as it is is because governments held both airlines and manufacturers accountable for planes crashes or other air travel incidents, especially those leading to death or expensive property damage/mishap. You have to have significant training and flight hours to be a commercial pilot.

In the cases where Boeing has been found (through significant investigation) to be liable for death or injury, they have been held accountable. That’s literally why the 800 maxes were grounded world wide. Literally why they were forced to add further safety measures after the door plug failure which was due to their negligence as a manufacturer.

https://apnews.com/article/boeing-ntsb-door-plug-737-alaska-airlines-721493c5e64081145aab21f2cf3fabcd

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/what-boeings-door-plug-debacle-says-about-the-future-of-aviation-safety/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-max-fraud-conspiracy-and-agrees-pay-over-25-billion

I’m not sure what you’re correcting. The autopilot feature has adaptive cruise control and lane keeping assist, and auto steering.

Adaptive cruise control will brake to maintain a distance with the vehicle in front of it but maintain the set speed otherwise, lane keeping assist will keep the vehicle in it’s lane/prevent it from drifting from its lane, and combined with auto steering will keep it centered in the lane.

I specifically explained that a planes auto pilot does those things (maintain speed, altitude, and heading), and that people don’t know that this is all it does. It doesn’t by itself avoid obstacles or account for weather etc. It’d fly right into another plane if it was occupying that airspace. It won’t react to weather events like windsheer (which could cause the plane to lose altitude extremely quickly), or a hurricane. If there’s an engine problem and an engine loses power? It won’t attempt to restart. It doesn’t brake. It can’t land a plane.

But Musk made some claims that Teslas autopilot would drive the vehicle for you without human interference. And people assume that autopilot (in the pop culture sense) does a lot more than it actually does. This is what I’m trying to point out.

I agree. I hate auto braking features. I’m not a fan of cruise control. I very much dislike adaptable cruise control, lane keeping assist, reverse braking, driving assist, and one pedal mode. I drive a stick shift car from the early 2000’s for this reason. Just enough tech to be useful. Not enough tech to get in the way of me being in control of the car.

But there’s definitely some cruise controls out there even before all the stuff with sensors and such hit the market that doesn’t work the way lots of people in this thread seem to think. Braking absolutely will cancel the set cruise control but doesn’t turn it off. Accelerating in some cars also doesn’t cancel the cruise control, it allows you to override it to accelerate but will go back to the set cruise control speed when you take your foot off the accelerator.

I absolutely recognize that not being able to override the controls has a significant potential to be deadly. All I’m saying is there’s lots of drivers who probably shouldn’t be on the road who these tools are designed for and they don’t understand even the basics of how they work. They think the stuff is a cool gimmick. It makes them overconfident. And when you couple that with the outright lies that Musk has spewed continuously about these products and features, you should be able to see just why Tesla should be held accountable when the public trusts the company’s claims and people die or get seriously injured as a result.

I’ve driven a lot of vehicles with features I absolutely hated. Ones that took agency away from the driver that I felt was extremely dangerous. On the other hand, I have had people just merge into me like I wasn’t there. On several occasions. Happens to me at least every month or so. I’ve had people almost hit me from behind because they were driving distracted. I’ve literally watched people back into their own fences. Watched people wreck because they lost control of their vehicle or weren’t paying attention. Supposedly these “features” are meant to prevent or mitigate the risks of that. And people believe they are more capable of mitigating that risk than they are, due to marketing and outright ridiculous claims from tech enthusiasts who promote these brands.

If I know anything I know that you can’t necessarily make people read the warning label. And it becomes harder to override what they believe if you lied to them first and then try to tell them the truth later.

Nope. I’m correcting you because apparently most people don’t even know how their cruise control works. But feel however you feel.

Because it still basically does what’s they said. The only new advent for the autopilot system besides maintaining speed, heading, and altitude is the ability to use and set a GPS heading, and waypoints (for the purposes of this conversation). It will absolutely still fly into a mountain if not for other collision avoidance systems. Your average 737 or A320 is not going to spontaneously change course just because of the elevation of the ground below it changed. But you can program other systems in the plane to know to avoid a specific flight path because there is a known hazard. I want you to understand that we know a mountain is there. They don’t move around much in short periods of time. Cars and pedestrians are another story entirely.

There’s a reason we still have air traffic controllers and even then pilots and air traffic control aren’t infallible and they have way more systems to make flying safe than the average car (yes even the average Tesla).

No. Press the brake and it turns off. Press the accelerator in lots of cars and it will speed up but return to the cruise control set speed when you release the accelerator. And further, Tesla doesn’t call it cruise control and the founder of Tesla has been pretty heavily misleading about what the system is and what it does. So.

There are other cars on the market that use technology that will literally override your input if they detect that there is a crash imminent. Even those cars do not claim to have autopilot and Tesla has not changed their branding or wording which is a lot of the problem here.

I can’t say for sure that they are responsible or not in this case because I don’t know what the person driving then assumed. But if they assumed that the “safety features” (in particular autopilot) would mitigate their recklessness and Tesla can’t prove they knew about the override of such features, then I’m not sure the court is wrong in this case. The fact that they haven’t changed their wording or branding of autopilot (particularly calling it that), is kind of damning here.

Autopilot maintains speed (edit), altitude (end of edit), and heading or flight path in planes. But the average person doesn’t know or understand that. Tesla has been using the pop culture understanding of what autopilot is and that’s a lot of the problem. Other cars have warning about what their “assisted driving” systems do, and those warnings pop up every time you engage them before you can set any settings etc. But those other car manufacturers also don’t claim the car can drive itself.

We have known this for decades. Maybe don’t buy iPads? I’m just pointing out that Apple’s prices for parts and repair were always high and even though it’s a more recent thing that you can get new parts for repairs (with the rise of right to repair), they have been in the business of all overcharging for oem parts for a long time. Back in the early aughts they used to code parts so that if you repaired something yourself with off the shelf parts (same part just not their branding) the device would reject that part on a software level and still not work.

No. My point is that the “all men” phenomenon is a symptom of the bigger problem which is that one demographic is being victimized by a subset of a second demographic and that second demographic as a whole recognizes that there is a problem and doesn’t do anything to change that status quo in a meaningful way but won’t acknowledge that their continued lack of action may be the reason they are collectively being blamed.

Bigger problem -> overgeneralization -> backlash over the over-generalization while maintaining status quo. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If your point we’re just that “gender bias and the resultant discrimination are bad” you could literally have done that with “Men saying all women are whores/golddiggers are doing the same thing and that is also wrong.”

Instead, what you did was took an entirely unrelated analogy to a bad conclusion in what I’m sure you think is good faith, ignoring the circumstances and particulars of that situation so that you can try to make a point in the most clumsy way possible and when people give you pushback about it and add clarity of their own views in response it’s “moving goal posts”.

You made a hamfisted attempt to relate sexual assault and the over-reaction to it to racism and got called out. Let’s not forget what you were initially responding to which wasn’t ops post but a comment at the beginning of the thread which is context for literally just about everything else I’ve said in subsequent comments which plants the goal posts very much where they started out.

"In the US, of 100 rapes against girls and women reported to the police, 18 will be prosecuted.

Jeffery Epstein and his cohort abused hundreds of girls, and all anybody cares about is what powerful man might be embarrassed.  Has anyone proposed or suggested anything to protect girls from rich perverts?

From the founding till 1951, raping your wife was legal in all 48 states. And that protection extended in several states beyond the federal change. Some states even made common-law husbands immune.

The Christian Bible considers rape to be a property crime. in conservative circles, girls as young as 12 are regularly married off to their rapist."

The leading cause of death for pregnant people in the US is homicide.

I think young women considering men to be a threat is pretty rational.

You are the one who acknowledged that the statistic for African American crime has more nuance but also didn’t not speak at all to the point of using it for the purposes of subjugation (something you conveniently ignored in order to try to validate your point).

You don’t stop over generalization by ignoring the root cause. Stop playing games with me. The root cause of the African Americans are criminals BS is literally that to continue to subjugate them and feed the prison population the institution has to make the general populace believe they deserve to be there. The general cause of “all men are predators” is literally that the patriarchy condoned sexual abuse so ardently for so long and continues to do so that the only way we even have conversations about sexual assault and abuse is in forums like this on topics like this one where the topic isnt even about sexual abuse but is absolutely about blaming women for overgeneralizing about it.

You are the one who once again argued poorly that as you spend more time around a bear the likelihood that the bear will attack you will go up, ignoring how that’s exactly what happens to women. The more time they spend around men the more likely they are to be attacked. The men the spend the most time around are very often the ones who end their lives or commit sexual assault against them.

And if you feel like I’m putting words in your mouth, maybe stop and think about what you mean and just say that. Don’t use analogies about subjects your clearly poorly understand. Don’t try to quote me to refute something I said that you take issue with when you didn’t understand it and your response bears that out. The questions I asked about what you were doing? Rhetorical. They were intended to make you think about the root cause of the situation. And also why more men don’t report sexual assault. You sure took them as an accusation though.

Are you encouraging men to come forward with their sexual assault experiences? Are you supportive of them when they are harmed in this way? Do you go out of your way every day of your life to prevent sexual assault or things that lead to sexual assault?

You’re deliberately using something you know is inflammatory as a poorly thought out analogy. That’s my first problem with what you said.

The second problem is that you’re deliberately ignoring how trauma (which most women have) affects the ability to communicate, and further affects how we as humans perceive threats. That’s the second problem.

Third problem is that as it stands women do all of the heavy lifting when trying to prevent sexual assault. All of it. We’re the ones who pushed for rape and sexual assault to have legal definitions under the law. We’re the ones who pushed to criminalize a lot of the stuff that the original commenter for this thread bought up. We’re the ones who created and implemented strategies to lower the chances of sexual assault. In my experience it is women who go out of there way to look out for other women. Do men go out of their way to look out for other men?

Men have most of the privilege in this situation and do just about nothing to actually help (to prevent sexual assault, or to make sexual assault/worse things unacceptable in society). Now they’re feeling the pressure to do something about it so they don’t get labeled or grouped with “the bad sort” and their response isn’t to blame other men. It’s to blame and shit on women. Their response isn’t to try to help prevent sexual assault or speak up when they see something. It’s to lash out at women for using hyperbole. Which you admit that all human beings do.

You immediately assumed that because I don’t agree with what you said I must think all men are rapists or sexual assaulters, or that I think that it’s okay to accuse all men of this thing. That’s not the case. But what I’m asking you to acknowledge is that this is a story on the internet with scant details about the interaction from a person who’s got every reason to lie by omission.

And you’re so stuck on not wanting to be labeled or grouped with bad actors that you are actively blind to what other people are trying to tell you which is that this is a problem created by a patriarchal society that is enabled by that same society and therefore is a problem created by men for men that men actively can help solve but don’t.

Publishers have been suing libraries for book ban BS. Not for copyright infringement.

Nah. Don’t play the word games this way. Women and girls have to operate under the assumption that “all men” specifically because to do otherwise puts them at significant disadvantage and in significant danger. Unknown unknown - I don’t know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men and 1 in 6 women will experience rape. There’s a sexual assault every 68 seconds.

So while it may seem unfair to say “all men” because obviously not all men, I have a lot of questions about how op wrote this post.

All bears aren’t gonna try to eat you. There’s lots of circumstance where that’s not going to happen. But the question is do you assume you are in danger from every bear you run across?

The thing about the statistics for African American crime is that a lot of them are deliberately misleading and weaponized against that demographic. You acknowledge how bad of an analogy this is but I i don’t really think you understand just how flawed the argument is. Rape and sexual assault are about exerting power and control. The statistic you used is an example of using statistics to exert power and control over a narrative specifically to keep the demographic in question oppressed or subjugated.

If we’re strictly arguing against weaponizing statistics against a demographic I can understand. But if op is questioning a woman or women being cautious of him because they have a reasonable fear of being assaulted that’s not the same thing.

Women take extra precautions as a matter of course in their daily every day lives to avoid sexual assault and worse. This is something they do both consciously and unconsciously. And still the most likely person to kill a woman is their male significant other or someone they know. Someone they probably trust.

There is a possibility that the person who told op this has trauma related to this. Maybe they lack the ability to communicate nuance. Maybe they are just an asshole. Maybe this was a specific attempt to get op specifically to leave them alone. We don’t know the context.

Yes they wanted it. If they’re legally considered a library, copyright holders can’t sue them for copyright infringement.

There have been a couple of lawsuits against the internet archive in this vein.

“The Internet Archive, a 501©(3) non-profit, is building a digital library of Internet sites and other cultural artifacts in digital form. Like a paper library, we provide free access to researchers, historians, scholars, people with print disabilities, and the general public. Our mission is to provide Universal Access to All Knowledge.” - from their About page.

Most of what I watch on YouTube are science videos, history videos, and cooking videos. I don’t get the “jailbait click bait” and I have never gotten that. My biggest problem with YouTube besides their ad BS is the random right wing propaganda videos that creep in.

I don’t watch a lot of shorts but if I happen to see one it’s most definitely not “jailbait”.

I mean. Let’s be real here Vine did it before Tik Tok was even a sperm in Bytedance’s ballsac. And it’s not like YouTube didn’t start out with short form videos. It’s just that they didn’t make it a separate video feed until 2020.

I can certainly understand not liking shorts (I often don’t have that kind of attention/need something more substantial than a 60 second clip). And yeah. Hatred for YouTube. I hear you. I get that too. But like this isn’t a new phenomenon.

This is me quoting my own comments on this article from another post on Lemmy:

I don’t like the way this article is written. There are concepts that it tries to convey that have major caveats it glosses over. Additionally it posits some ideas for alternatives that aren’t new currencies and doesn’t explain how most of them would work. It also seems to ignore the fact that content creators very often get paid in ad revenue by the very same companies that are exacerbating this problem with their GenAI models, as well as companies that are being hit hard by the lack of actual ad generated revenue due to loss of clickthroughs and impressions.

That being said it does actually somewhat explain a lot of the problem with the internet being sustained via ad revenue and ads.

Several of the companies who’s business model is built around ad aggregation are either investing in or developing/have launched GenAI products that are in opposition with their current business model.

They seem content at the moment to starve other places on the internet of the very ad revenue they rely on to make money. This will hurt them in the long run but they are focused on the short term profits they will make in the meantime and they do not seem concerned about the future so long as they can be seen to be on the cutting edge of the new technology.

I don’t really know if this will lead to a downturn in creator made content. A lot of paid creators are so invested in that eco system that they’d rather hop from one service to the next forever than give it up and go get a 9-5.

The pay as you crawl system is going to be difficult to implement, especially when crawlers already ignore the .txt file. The startups are not in a position to necessarily pay to license data and I question if they’d be able to pay as they crawl either. Meaning there will be big conglomerate gate keepers like Meta and Google and MS. The pay as you crawl system also only works if it’s regulated in some way so that normal users and small creators don’t get caught up in being victimized by bots/crawlers ignoring such rules or laws, with those victims unable to have their case taken seriously or heard at all.

As for determining where the information came from and providing attribution. Most people still aren’t going to click through to those pages. This is in part because a lot of them don’t want to see ads in the first place (for security reasons and because ads are an imposition on their increasingly limited time, energy, and attention). It’s also because they already have the information they need. You don’t care if Wikipedia gets your ad revenue so long as you can prove you were right about Brad Pitt’s height or his first job to your friend you made that bet with at the bar last night.

They say sources would be compensated. By who? And how? We have already established that people don’t think there’s a lot of value in paying for chatbots. The vast majority of Gen AI LLM users have shown (through polling, and introductory costs that go up in price later) that they aren’t interested in and don’t find value in pay for them. So conglomerates (many of whom run chatbots at a loss) would be on the hook both for paying for their crawlers and for providing such services to their consumers (corporate or not)? That most definitely is not sustainable.

The other option is licensing but a lot of data has already been crawled and continues to be crawled without licensing or compensation.

I’m not sure that changing this business model will lead to anything good.

Edit: There’s also the problem with DDOS attacks for smaller websites that get crawled. Lemmy has seen this first hand. It’s not the intention of the crawlers to overload the servers but there’s so many of them and the number keeps growing. There’s a whole lot of other issues besides the ones in this comment too.

I read the article and it conveniently glosses over the fact that this will be a problem in the fairly near future for those who are using AI because the use of AI keeps a person on the page longer but doesn’t generally encourage them to view ads or actually click through to products or services. Those businesses are ad aggregation companies by default for the most part, and they aren’t gonna to survive without clickthroughs, nor can they survive off ad revenue that doesn’t exist because people aren’t looking at the ads or clicking through to the products. The AI summary is the same problem that they already gave themselves once when they were trying to make search results more efficient in like 2018. You’d Google, and they would answer the query without you having to click a link at all. You’d get your answer and close the page.

Also, once they’ve starved themselves of user created data (as is posited by the article), they won’t have anything to keep feeding these models.

You know that’s not what I’m saying. They would have been content to leave this woman without her account except that the threat of them looking worse in the media was held over their head. That’s the part that shouldn’t have happened. No company should be allowed to terminate an account used in the professional sphere while leaving no recourse to reclaim the account or appeal the decision in a straightforward and relatively low effort way.

I don’t like the way this article is written. There are concepts that it tries to convey that have major caveats it glosses over. Additionally it posits some ideas for alternatives that aren’t new currencies and doesn’t explain how most of them would work. It also seems to ignore the fact that content creators very often get paid in ad revenue by the very same companies that are exacerbating this problem with their GenAI models, as well as companies that are being hit hard by the lack of actual ad generated revenue due to loss of clickthroughs and impressions.

That being said it does actually somewhat explain a lot of the problem with the internet being sustained via ad revenue and ads.

Several of the companies who’s business model is built around ad aggregation are either investing in or developing/have launched GenAI products that are in opposition with their current business model.

They seem content at the moment to starve other places on the internet of the very ad revenue they rely on to make money. This will hurt them in the long run but they are focused on the short term profits they will make in the meantime and they do not seem concerned about the future so long as they can be seen to be on the cutting edge of the new technology.

I don’t really know if this will lead to a downturn in creator made content. A lot of paid creators are so invested in that eco system that they’d rather hop from one service to the next forever than give it up and go get a 9-5.

The pay as you crawl system is going to be difficult to implement, especially when crawlers already ignore the .txt file. The startups are not in a position to necessarily pay to license data and I question if they’d be able to pay as they crawl either. Meaning there will be big conglomerate gate keepers like Meta and Google and MS. The pay as you crawl system also only works if it’s regulated in some way so that normal users and small creators don’t get caught up in being victimized by bots/crawlers ignoring such rules or laws, with those victims unable to have their case taken seriously or heard at all.

As for determining where the information came from and providing attribution. Most people still aren’t going to click through to those pages. This is in part because a lot of them don’t want to see ads in the first place (for security reasons and because ads are an imposition on their increasingly limited time, energy, and attention). It’s also because they already have the information they need. You don’t care if Wikipedia gets your ad revenue so long as you can prove you were right about Brad Pitt’s height or his first job to your friend you made that bet with at the bar last night.

They say sources would be compensated. By who? And how? We have already established that people don’t think there’s a lot of value in pay for chatbots. The vast majority of Gen AI LLM users have shown (through polling, and introductory costs that go up in price later) that they aren’t interested in and don’t find value in pay for them. So conglomerates (many of whom run chatbots at a loss) would be on the hook both for paying for their crawlers and for providing such services to their consumers (corporate or not)? That most definitely not sustainable.

The other option is licensing but a lot of data has already been crawled and continues to be crawled without licensing or compensation.

I’m not sure that changing this business model will lead to anything good.