I can't imagine how filthy the port would get on mine. Industrial work places and open ports are notconductive conducive to the healthy life of electronics.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 814
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 814
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yep. That's a web ring.
I'm gonna be honest here. I don't think it would be that difficult for a kid to get both from their parent.
So what you're telling me is you don't think an 11/13/14 yo could use an LLM to age up a selfie to gain access to subreddits they shouldn't be accessing (legally or morally). But you do think that same age group of children is going to gain root access to a device in order to flash some software to circumvent a device specific toggle limiting their device by hard coding it as a child's device.
I agree with the sentiment that shareholders should stand up to the CEO's and boards of the companies but this is literally about them wanting to be reimbursed for the legal costs of users suing Meta companies.
They were cool with these actions up until they felt that it started costing them money and guess what? Zuck is still CEO.
It's already got ai summaries of the news articles that show up there for me and I'm about to disable it just because of that.
Also, I don't want the trending BS.
Because not everyone has a bank account. Some people get paid via a cash card or similar (as an alternative to paper checks or direct deposit if they don't have a bank account). This allows them to pay in alternate ways. But additionally all trouble calls/maintenance requests are done through that same portal. I signed my lease through it.
My new rent portal is one of these sites. Can't just not pay rent because I don't like chromium browsers.
Cars do have that in what amounts to a TCU or Telematics Control Unit. The main problem here isn't whether or not cars have that technology. It's about the relevant government agency forcing companies like Tesla (and other automakers) to produce that data not just when there's a crash, but as a matter of course.
I have a lot of questions about why Tesla's are allowed on public roads when some of the models haven't been crash tested. I have a lot of questions about why a company wouldn't hand over data in the event of a crash without the requirement of a court order. I don't necessarily agree that cars should be able to track us (if I buy it I own it and nobody should have that kind of data without my say so). But since we already have cars that do phone this data home, local, state, and federal government should have access to it. Especially when insurance companies are happy to use it to place blame in the event of a crash so they don't have to pay out an insurance policy.
Yeah. That makes it splash resistant, not water and grime proof. I have a pair of bone conduction headphones I wear at work with that flap and I still have to use contact cleaner on that port like at least once every couple of weeks.