The overreaction to online death threats is so stupid. An anonymous 0 follower Twitter account allows organizations and people to instantly turn the PR situation around and become the victims and act like they are personally being hunted down by Mossad.
I wasn't asking about the car's logic algorithm; we all know that the SDC made an error, since it [checks notes] hit another car. We already know it didn't do the correct thing. I was asking how else you think the developers should be working on the software other than one thing at a time. That seemed like a weird criticism.
Ideally they don’t need actual accidents to find errors, but discover said issues in QA and automated testing. Not hitting anything sounds like a manageable goal to be honest.
Honestly, I’m pragmatic, if less people die in accidents involving autonomous car, then yes.
The thing is we shouldn’t be trusting the manufacturers for these stats. It has to be reported by a government agency or something.
Similarly Autonomous car software should have to be certified by an independent organization before being deployed. Same thing for updates to the software. Otherwise we would get deadly updates from time to time.
If we deploy and handle autonomous car with the same safety approach as in aviation I’m sure this transition can be done fairly safely.
Rules are written in blood. Once you figure out all the standard cases, you can only try and predict as many edge cases that you can think of. You can’t make something fool proof because there will always be a greater fool that will come by.
Unexpected or not, it should do its best to stop or avoid the obstacle, not drive into it.
An autonomous vehicle shouldn’t ever be able to actively drive forward into anything. It’s basic collision detection that ought to brake the car here. If something is in the position the car wants to drive to, it simply shouldn’t drive there. There’s no reason to blame the obstacle for being towed incorrectly…
Same thing applies to a human driver. Most accidents happen because the driver makes a wrong assumption. The key to safe driving is not getting in situations where driving is based on assumptions.
Trajectory calculation is definitely an assumption and shouldn’t be allowed to override whatever sensor is checking for obstructions ahead of the car.
The car can’t move without trajectory calculations though.
If the car ahead of you pulls forward when the light goes green, your car can start moving forward as well keeping in mind the lead cars trajectory and speed.
If it was just don’t hit an object in its path, the car wouldn’t move forward until the lead was half way down the block.
The car knew the truck was there in this case, it wasn’t a failure to detect. Due to a programming failure it thought it was safe to move because the truck wouldn’t be there.
If you’re following a vehicle with proper distance and it slams the brakes you should be able to stop in time as you’ve calculated their trajectory and a safe speed behind. But if that same vehicle slams on the brakes and goes into reverse, well… Goodluck.
It’s all assumptions assuming the detection is accurate in the first place.
If you’re following a vehicle with proper distance and it slams the brakes you should be able to stop in time as you’ve calculated their trajectory and a safe speed behind.
You dont need to calculate their trajectory. It’s enough to know your own.
If a heavy box falls off a truck and stops dead in front of you, you need to be able to stop. That box has no trajectory, so it’s an error to include other vehicles trajectories in the safe distance calculation.
Traffic can move through an intersection closely by calculating a safe distance, which may be smaller than the legal definition, but still large enough to stop for anything suddenly appearing on the road. The only thing needed is that the distance is calculated based on your own speed and a visually confirmed position of other things. It can absolutely be done regardless of the speed or direction of other vehicles.
Anyway. A backwards facing truck is a weird thing to misinterpret. Trucks sometimes face backwards for whatever reasons.
It would be interesting to know how the self driving car would react to a ghost driver.
You dont need to calculate their trajectory. It’s enough to know your own.
This doesn’t make sense. It’s why I was saying the car won’t move at a stop light when it goes green until the car is half way down the street.
If the car is 2.5 seconds ahead of me at 60mph on the highway, it’s only 2.5 seconds ahead of me if the other car is doing 60 mph. If the car is doing 0mph then I’m going to crash into it.
It needs to know how fast and what direction the obstacle is going, and how to calculate the rate of acceleration/deceleration and extrapolate from there.
2.5 seconds at 60 mph is more than enough to come to a full stop. If the car in front of you dropped an anvil (traveling at 0 mph) on the road, you could stop before crashing into the anvil. You do not need to drive into the other cars trajectory path.
Yes you can. It is a stopping distance. 2.5 seconds at 60 mph is 220 feet. A car can brake from 60 to 0 in less than 220 feet. It will take longer than 2.5 seconds to do, but it won’t hit the object which originally was 2.5 seconds ahead.
Maybe a straight behind isn’t as good an example, although it is calculating the likelihood of it continuing to go straight.
An oncoming car, drifting out of the lane towards your lane.
It’s not going to hit you until it’s in your path, but the trajectory of it coming towards you is in your path.
If you don’t consider where it’s going and how fast it’s going, you won’t know if it’s going to enter your lane before you pass it.
If you’re only trying to avoid hitting objects and its not in your path until the last quarter second, you won’t take appropriate actions because you don’t know it’s coming at you.
All these measurements are taken as time between you and them and it uses that info to calculate the trajectories.
Yes I know and it should. What I am saying is that the trajectory calculations should never be allowed to override the basic collision calculations, like it did in this case.
It does not matter if the towed truck appeared to have a different trajectory than it actually had, because it was very obviously in the range of collision.
Do you have a reverse sensor in your car that beeps when you’re close to stuff?
It was the self driving car that drove into the tow truck. All it’s sensors must’ve been beeping, and it still decided to keep driving.
If you believe Elron didn’t just make up whatever results he wanted. I watched it and the ratio didn’t change at all in the last 800,000 votes, which seems a little weird.
Musk’s posts go to everyone I’m pretty sure. Many people unfollowed him and he didn’t like that, so now you get his excretes whether you want to or not.
Yeah it makes total sense. It’s a fantastic way to make sure you only get the most gullible, hardcore idiots that are easy to make money off.
It’s like those longer running scams. They have built in mechanisms to find the best marks, by disqualifying anyone who might not be easy to convince early.
Same here. If you cultivate a crowd of conspiracy theorists, that have a proven track record of being easily swayed not by evidence but by lack of evidence, then you got the full-day morons eating from your hand.
Does Whatsapp connect to messenger like Instagram does? Not sure it’s any better though, since it’s still owned by Meta. I wish I could get everyone on signal
Of course it does? That’s like one of the main headlining features of both Signal and Telegram, and why people were looking at either instead of Whatsapp. And it was even louder than Telegram about it, since telegram uses (or used) a closed source encryption, while Signal was vocally using an Open Source encryption standard if I remember correctly.
Yeah, encryption and security is signal’s whole thing. They even removed the ability to send SMS a while back because they were prioritizing security over all else. Def check it out
i saw one person do something like this: messages JOIN ME ON SIGNAL(or anything not owned by Facebook and amazon) IF YOU DON’T WANT TO WELL WILL LOSE CONTACT SO PLEASE JOIN ME
im not sure on how well this will work but maybe exclude you’re family but try to get them to atleast WhatsApp but even better a private messager also consider xmpp/jabber and matrix for jabber i recommend calyx institute jabber server
Yeah but that doesn’t prevent them from snooping directly on the app. For example they can look at who you’re talking to the most, or extract topics of interest from your conversations (“talking about cats? let’s sell them cat food”)
Nope, you’re not. That’s a choice. I have no shortage of people using privacy invading messengers, crazy thing, when I send them a SMS/MMS… they get it, like everybody does.
You’re not stuck. Just leave, and make people talk to you over Signal. If they’re not trying to talk to me on Signal or Matrix, I will never see it. This not only got me off of services like Messenger, but also showed who gave enough of a shit about me to go through Signal’s simple setup.
Two way street indeed, I didn’t say all of them followed me or anything like that. I lost contact with many doing this, as expected and intended. But I got much closer to those who did move over. Most of them moved over without me even doing anything because they cared about their own data privacy and realized that it’s easier to setup Signal than it is to setup an entire Facebook account anyway.
Man… What happened to just texting your circle of friends?? I get by pretty well doing that. About half are on signal. The other half just text regular, which I’m cool with.
Probably not, but used with sufficient invective I think you could make people feel like they’ve been insulted with out actually doing so. ‘You blasted multicellular mammal! What have you done this time? What are you, bipedal or something? Eukaryote!’
So, if we do some sloppy rounding and say that the subscriptions make them 3 million a year . . . it’ll only take a bit more than 330 years for anyone buying Humane at the asking price to break even. My cat could figure out that wasn’t a good buy. (Of course, he’d prefer to invest in a tuna cannery . . .)
Poor reporting, as ever. As people have pointed out, you cannot disclaim away the Law. No one can.
If you did a bungee jump, and you sign any kind of waiver, it might protect the company if your glasses fall off and smash. It will not protect them if the rope snaps and break your head.
My understanding is that when signing a liability waiver, first the acknowledgement of risk happens, and then the release of liability. State by state it can be a little bit different for releasing liability, depending on the interpretation. I looked up where I live, and that liability waiver isn’t upheld if one can prove damages (possibly death, in which case someone has to sue upon my lifeless corpse) caused by intentional recklessness, not simply neglect.
Lawyer here: this isn’t necessarily correct and in America it’s state dependent. There are absolutely parts of the law you can waive, including negligence of a party which is likely your bungee jumping scenario with the rope snapping.
Are T&Cs retroactive? I would think any new T&Cs could only apply from that point forward, not that they could retroactively absolve themselves of liability or how you could pursue it.
Like all good lawyer answers: maybe. I don’t know enough about the specific amended terms or their data breach. Courts sometimes enforce adhesion contacts and sometimes don’t. But retroactive in and of itself isn’t illegal; for example, if you could edit NOT retroactively settle a dispute, you’d have no settlement agreements.
But settling a dispute requires compensation for the party that was damaged. That’s what a settlement is.
You can’t say “If you don’t do A, B, and C you can’t sue me! Nah nah nah!” Without compensation courts are not going to believe that anyone knowingly agreed to the settlement.
Now if they gave everyone like $5 and said “Sign here where it says you can’t sue,” that would be different.
You’re referring to the contract concept of “consideration” which sometimes is the same as compensation but can also do doing/ not doing an action. Sometimes consideration isn’t required either, particularly if the original contract had adequate consideration and says future amendments don’t have to have it. (Depends a lot on which state). That may or may not matter here. It really depends on the specific terms at dispute and you can’t just assume it fixes this issue.
IANAL and I don’t claim to fully understand the case, but it looks to me like the reason they might be able to get away with it is that they’re not trying to change anyone’s rights or obligations; they are “merely” changing the mechanism by which disputes are to be resolved. It is of course a pure coincidence that the new mechanism makes it a lot harder to find 23andMe liable for any infractions.
I think it would be a pretty solid case to argue that the change to the TOS, considering the timing and combined with the breach, would be outrageously unreasonable enough to invalidate the “meeting of the minds” requirement.
For those interested. This is similar to Aduhelm in that it is an amyloid binding drug. Amyloids proteins have long been thought to be central to Alzheimer's disease since it was first described by Dr. Alois Alzheimer in 1906, where during his autopsy of a 50-year who died while suffering memory loss, disorientation, and other classical symptoms of the disease noticed "senile plaque" had accumulated on the brain which is usually found in much older patients. In the 1980s chemical analysis of the plaque indicated that it was made of beta-amyloids and from there we've been attempting to target that in order to prevent Alzheimer's disease.
The statement that the drug "will" slow Alzheimer's is editorial so to say. After their third phase trail, the results were sobering.
27% decrease in the rate of progression for patients treated with Leqembi, compared to those receiving a placebo.
Which 27% is still 27%. But this drug is looking to go for a price of $23,000 to $27,000 per year (drug cost alone, infusion and doctor's office visits may shoot this price upward towards $90,000/year). Strangely the article says:
Current rules mean that it’s unlikely to be covered by Medicare.
Which there was Senate hearing where the exact opposite was indicated. Medicaid will likely have the 20% co-pay for patients. That said, for the United States, this drug will be outside of the reach of many not 65 or older.
Additionally, we're still at the nexus of this topic and not knowing full well where to go for the treatment in Alzheimer's. Many competing ideas of the full scope of Alzheimer's disease still exist from tau tangles to neuron degeneration. It's indisputable that beta-amyloids do have a part in Alzheimer's the question remains as to how large a role it plays in mental decline and the low positive outcomes of beta-amyloids has served as fuel for discussion of other ideas. That said, penicillin failed twice in clinical trials, but today nobody would question antibiotic theory, so take the failures with a grain of salt perhaps? But this all does indeed go to show, this area of research is dizzily complex and fluid to say the least.
As for the "first" distinction and that Aduhelm has been FDA approved since 2021. Leqembi is the FIRST to receive the full FDA approval. Aduhelm still operates under the accelerated approval and is still pending a full review. Much like how we had COVID vaccines approved under the accelerated program first and then in 2022 the FDA gave many of them full approval.
It's good this drug has received the first full approval for the treatment of beta-amyloids. But suffice to say, based on the approval material, we still have yet a LONG way to go in Alzheimer's research.
This is the first time I’ve opened a post on Lemmy and seen such a valuable response. Thanks for being here and taking the time to post this. Super interesting and informative stuff.
My ex wife’s dad is in the middle stages of early onset dementia (he’s in his mid-60’s) and I’m thinking it’s a bit too late for this to be helpful. But seeing this progress gives me hope for my ex-wife and her brother who both have very high risk of dementia (grandma, their dad, and their uncle all suffer(ed) from it, dad and uncle are both in similar stages with dad a couple years behind uncle… really sad shit).
I really hope we get this figured out in the next 20 years.
We are starting to see the first drugs on the market that utilize the amyloid beta pathway in some fashion because research in the 90’s and 2000’s were absolutely convinced that this pathway was the lynchpin to the disease. My understanding of the disease (I studied biotech but not Alzheimer’s specifically) is that amyloid beta plaques are more of a side effect of whatever is really going on than the main show. And unfortunately the mechanism of dementia in general is not really well understood, Alzheimer’s included.
These sobering results are not really that surprising because treating the amyloid beta plaques after they have formed is sort of like trying to prevent spoiled meat by removing the maggots that have accumulated on it.
Privacy protections are built in for users who access ChatGPT — their IP addresses are obscured, and OpenAI won’t store requests. ChatGPT’s data-use policies apply for users who choose to connect their account.
Yeah there’s definitely a contract, but open ai could determine it’s more profitable to void the contract and pay for lawyers and a settlement. Probably unlikely though to be fair.
As noted above, we call model providers on your behalf so your personal information (for example, IP address) is not exposed to them. In addition, we have agreements in place with all model providers that further limit how they can use data from these anonymous requests that includes not using Prompts and Outputs to develop or improve their models as well as deleting all information received once it is no longer necessary to provide Outputs (at most within 30 days with limited exceptions for safety and legal compliance).
With the sheer amount of money that the rich are throwing at OpenAI via investment firms, they don’t need nor want to charge imo. The fact that they’re being built into Apple’s ecosystem and are getting name-dropped to people inside of iOS is kinda what their investors want.
It’s the age old “walmart opens and operates at a loss for 2 years to force others out of business, then jacks the price” model.
Investors want them to cement this as The AI company & brand so that once it gets giant and starts to be profitable just by being the biggest gorilla in the room, the shares they bought are worth more.
So what I’m trying to say is that our version of capitalism is perfect and makes lots of sense and is in no way insane and degenerate.
That might be their internal reasoning but Apple will very quickly move to have these capabilities in house. Apple has been working on machine learning for a while but they don’t collect data so they are unable to build these LLMs.
For now it makes sense for Apple to leave the liability of basing these LLMs on copyrighted data. If OpenAI losses those court battles, they take the hit for services rendered to Apple. None of that liability transfers to Apple.
Meanwhile, Apple is going about this the Apple way by encouraging developers to integrate their apps into new frameworks being added. This gives them access to user data directly from the source allowing them to build personalized models.
These models will likely be far more useful to the day to day mundanity of life than the hallucinogenic encyclopedia that is ChatGPT.
Will we also have to go to a time where we’ll have to buy physical newspapers so that journalists can make a living? Or do we expect them to also share information just for the sake of sharing information?
Part of the compromise was supposed to be that we get functional or entertainment value in return for some amount of ads, but enshittification broke that long ago with ever more intrusive ads and a sense of overwhelming entitlement by advertisers. The current web is useless and aggravating without adblocking, and only preys on the elderly and least technical. Yeah, it’s already broken
This seems like an excellent idea because it’s my app as a tool summarizing information for me. That seems a lot more legitimate than Google profitting from that
The hard part is finding someone still doing good journalism that’s relevant. My local paper is long gone and the nearby major city newspaper is a shadow of its former illustrious self. I do pay a news aggregator but have no idea how much of that goes all the way back
That never left. We’re still buying our local newspaper concerning 60000 people. It is way more relevant than any piece of news you might find on the web.
engadget.com
Top