I’ll add that such statistics are very much a moving target, since AVs are still “getting better every day”. The software is (and will be) under constant development, and there will likely be tradeoffs between safety for pedestrians and convenience for passagers (e.g. how sensitive is the trigger for an emergency break?)

Looking at it as an ongoing relationship between AV operators, regulators and people makes a lot of sense to me. I agree with the points of the video, that operators will likely push for a “just safe enough” standard and try to offload responsibilities onto bystanders.

Dear god, my ribs are hurting after 2 paragraphs already.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

The countersuit went so far as to ask the court to force Altman to “change its deceptive and misleading name to ClosedAI or a different more appropriate name.”

top kek

The guy (pun not intended) seems honestly as decent as you might hope for in a serial entrepreneur. Maybe a bit naive for expecting better from the players involved, but to me he comes off as endearingly earnest.

Doesn’t even mention the one use case I have a moderate amount of respect for, automatically generating image descriptions for blind people.

And even those should always be labeled, since AI is categorically inferior to intentional communication.

They seem focused on the use case “I don’t have the ability to communicate with intention, but I want to pretend I do.”