Comment by akersten
1 day ago
Foisting the responsibility of the extremely risky transport industry onto the road developers would certainly prevent all undesirable uses of those carriageways. Once they are at last responsible for the risky uses of their technology, like bank robberies and car crashes, the incentive to build these dangerous freeways evaporates.
I think this is meant to show that moving the responsibility this way would be absurd because we don't do it for cars but... yeah, we probably should've done that for cars? Maybe then we'd have safe roads that don't encourage reckless driving.
But I think you're missing their "like bank robberies" point. Punishing the avenue of transport for illegal activity that's unrelated to the transport itself is problematic. I.e. people that are driving safely, but using the roads to carry out bad non-driving-related activities.
It's a stretched metaphor at this point, but I hope that makes sense (:
It is definitely getting stretchy at this point, but there is the point to be made that a lot of roads are built in a way which not only enables but encourages driving much faster than may be desired in the area where they're located. This, among other things, makes these roads more interesting as getaway routes for bank robbers.
If these roads had been designed differently, to naturally enforce the desired speeds, it would be a safer road in general and as a side effect be a less desirable getaway route.
Again I agree we're really stretching here, but there is a real common problem where badly designed roads don't just enable but encourage illegal and potentially unsafe driving. Wide, straight, flat roads are fast roads, no matter what the posted speed limit is. If you want low traffic speeds you need roads to be designed to be hostile to high speeds.
1 reply →
We wouldn't have roads at all is my point, because no contractor in their right mind would take on unbounded risk for limited gain.
Which in case of digital replicas that can feign real people, may be worth considering. Not a blanket legislation as proposed here, but something that signals the downstream risks to the developer to prevent undesired uses.
5 replies →
Selling anything takes on unbounded risk for limited gain. That’s why the limited liability company exists.
Risk becomes bound to the total value of the company and you can start acting rationally.
1 reply →
> then we'd have safe roads that don't encourage reckless driving.
You mean like speed limits, drivers licenses, seat belts, vehicle fitness and specific police for the roads?
I still can't see a legitimate use for anyone cloning anyone else's voice. Yes, satire and fun, but also a bunch of malicious uses as well. The same goes with non-fingerprinted video gen. Its already having a corrosive effect on public trust. Great memes, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure thats worth it.
Creative work has obvious applications. e.g. AISIS - The Lost Tapes[0] was a sort of Oasis AI tribute album (the songs are all human written and performed, and then the band used a model of Liam Gallagher's mid 90s voice. Liam approved of the album after hearing it, saying he sounded "mega"). Some people have really unique voices and energy, and even the same artist might lose it over time (e.g. 90s vs 00s Oasis), so you could imagine voice cloning becoming just a standard part of media production.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whB21dr2Hlc
2 replies →
And I am talking about user-facing app development specifically, which has a different risk profile compared to automative or civil engineering.
Well it would also apply to bike lanes.