Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: On the contrary (Score 1) 392

Shit happens, but my point is that this accident wasn't "Tesla's autopilot screwed up" as is being reported. It's "(1) transport truck made an illegal and dangerous turn, (2) Tesla driver was watching Harry Potter instead of driving, (3) Tesla autopilot failed to prevent accident caused by these two chuckleheads."

Point 1 is not relevant, because all these systems must be judged on how well they respond to situations without regard to cause: as you say, shit happens. Point 2 might be relevant if this wasn't entirely predictable behavior.

The real issue is that beta software with real safety concerns is being put into the hands of people who predictably (statistically speaking) can not or will not treat it as such - that alone is a major WTF. The only thing Tesla can justifiably complain about is that this is being reported as a Tesla-only issue, when the other manufacturers are being equally irresponsible (if not worse - my understanding is that Tesla's system is better than most, if not all.)

Comment Re: On the contrary (Score 1) 392

"The truck probably didn't see the car either."

That seems to be an overlooked bit of this case.

It is not being overlooked; it is irrelevant. the issue is whether people in general are capable of operating these systems safely, given their limitations (both the people and the technology.) The case has not been adequately made so far, IMHO. Tesla's insistence that this is beta software is both an acknowledgement that this is so and an attempt to get around the fact (irresponsibly so, IMHO.)

I look forward to autonomous cars, but I am opposed to the practice of pretending that the state of the art is more advanced than it is.

Comment Re:My favorite quote (Score 1, Insightful) 76

Heard it from a teacher who had heard it from Minsky, but it's probably not literal anymore, after all those years: consciousness is just a feedback loop.

He was truly one of the greats.

Calling consciousness 'just' a feedback loop is just a way of avoiding saying 'I don't understand what it is.'

Comment Re:Jeering From the Sidelines (Score 1) 383

That is a very good point in your second paragraph - the history of science and its methods (and also of philosophy) was not perceived by its participants in the way the story is now told, and the claims being made in this thread about the invention of the scientific method are a simplistic and self-serving reading of that history. I also take your point that one can argue that most of the 'fathers' of the scientific method were also practitioners, but making a big deal over what you call them is part of PopeRatzo et. als' fallacious argument. The interesting part of the history is what the players thought and did, not what labels we give them (some people might think I am joining in the same fallacy, but I am only participating in this thread to offer some counter-arguments.)

Comment Re:Jeering From the Sidelines (Score 1) 383

That's not at all what I said.

Then you jump on the coattails in your next sentence! You have also been straining mightily to imply it in the rest of your posts here, falling back on an undisputed but narrow factual claim when pressed - a near-perfect example of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. Your frequent invocation of the origins of the scientific method only underscores by contrast how little a role contemporary academic philosophy played through the scientific revolution - as I said in my reply to your 'architects' post, scientists were not waiting around for Popper et. al. to show them the way; the philosophers merely described what science was doing. And if you keep on insinuating that science is forever in the thrall of philosophy because of the origins of the scientific method, I will have to look up the name of that fallacy.

Slashdot Top Deals

If God is perfect, why did He create discontinuous functions?