Just this morning I was almost killed twice on my bike ride to work by two separate drivers, one of whom looked to be 80 and could barely see over the dashboard, and one who was on their phone. I didn’t even bother trying to remember the plate numbers, knowing that the odds of any kind of consequences are absolute zero.
No, we can’t go back to driving our own vehicles. Waymo everywhere and human driving outlawed, ASAP.
Agree. Multiple people I know have bought Teslas because they don’t trust themselves or their spouses to drive safely, and want them to use FSD. There should be incentives to get people onto self driving.
"Failure to follow all warnings and instructions can result in property damage, serious injury or death."
"Driver intervention may be required in certain situations, such as on narrow roads with oncoming cars, in construction zones, or while going through complex intersections."
"Always remember that Full Self-Driving (Supervised) (also known as Autosteer on City Streets) does not make Model S autonomous and requires a fully attentive driver who is ready to take immediate action at all times."
Different states have different rules about what sort of things insurers are allowed to charge different rates for. In the states that allow it, Tesla does offer insurance discounts for FSD usage.[1] Lemonade also offers discounts for FSD usage.[2]
Culture is often set top down. Look at the current US administration for a public example. People at the top will choose people who agree with them or who are sycophants. Top execs also chose this job and zuck because they have no moral issues with what the company does... Often if you closely associate with someone creepy or immoral it's because you care more about money and power.
That's really only limited to political appointees as far as the US government is concerned. Career civil servants hang around for a long time while their bosses change every 4 to 8 years.
In my experience, a LOT of company culture trickles down from the top. Some of this is by design e.g. CEO consciously and publicly rewards certain traits/behaviors. Some of this is accidental in the sense that CEOs, like many humans, have both stated and expressed preferences.
There is also this effect:
- CEO says "the lights are a bit dim in here"
- that turns into "We need to change all of the lightbulbs in here immediately!"
(this is especially true in firms where the CEO cares a lot about being proactive).
2. In Michael Crichton's book Disclosure there is a great line: "Why did you dress casually instead of wearing a suit? Is it b/c you wanted to do that or b/c the CEO did it and you wanted to show you were part of the team??"
There are lots of leaked emails showing Zuck is creepy. Recent one I saw where he is directly in the conversations about targeting teens/children. There's a twitter account [1] that posts emails from tech execs that have come out in legal proceedings - it shows the people at the top are very much informed and driving what happens in their companies.
Thank that 'Super'AILab supervisor from ScaleAI, Alexander Wang; this guy is really hilarious. He directly turned Meta into a Chinese company (just like how ScaleAI exploits its employees), and so far, I haven't seen him deliver anything that matches his annual salary. Considering that what he does is AI infrastructure, even cheap-to-the-point-of-ridiculous cheap labor for training data annotation. I don't think he's suitable for this kind of big-picture AI research.
I suspect most employees know better, but Meta pays very well and they just want to maximize their salary and their tenure in the company. Also it seems Zuckerberg has became more creepy lately, very much in phase with the current Zeigweist.
It's hard to get excited about an organization spending ?? on a pointless mission that's happening because of organizational inertia when kids don't have functional textbooks at school.
Good article. What I've found disappointing as I age is the extent that people I know treat friendship as a zero sum game. I feel like I'm always being looked at in the context of the value I provide, rather than basic camaraderie between two people. This is basically the norm.
I read a book on the Anthropology of friendship in the past year, and it said that some people have the ability to be 'true' friends. That is they extend goodwill regardless of circumstances or who you are. Most people don't have the ability to do this, which is why I think everyone always feels disappointed by their relationships.
It goes away over time and with experience. As you become more situated in your current company your confidence will grow and you'll become more productive.
'Are you contributing enough' is a less important question than 'are you passionate about the field and do you like what you're doing'. If you're just in it for the money and uninterested in learning that'll make it much harder to reach a higher level of productivity.
They aren't incentivized to become inefficient, but once they grow large enough you get into a situation where everyone is playing a political game to minimize their own risk and effort.
And worse, the only people with motivation to fill the top tiers of the company are usually a little off. You essentially have to be a bit nuts to want to be C-level or above in a large corporation. I've seen it, there are employees who will ruthlessly seek out more money. Usually their competence levels aren't quite there, but they are the only people who want the job.
I did the same on my laptop and PC. Unfortunately, my sound system receiver doesn't support Linux but I'll survive. And the speed of my machines more than makes up for it.
Deliberately misinforming hundreds of millions of people during the most critical juncture in human history isn't what I'd call disciplined. There are other words for it.
From Jonathan Haidt on social media's impact on mental health:
"In the last few years, however, a flood of new research has altered the landscape of the debate, in two ways. First, there is now a lot more work revealing a wide range of direct harms caused by social media that extends beyond mental health (e.g., cyberbullying, sextortion, and exposure to algorithmically amplified content promoting suicide, eating-disorders, and self-harm). These direct harms are not correlations; they are harms reported by millions of young people each year. Second, recent research — including experiments conducted by Meta itself — provides increasingly strong causal evidence linking heavy social media use to depression, anxiety, and other internalizing disorders. (We refer to these as indirect harms because they appear over time rather than right away).
Meta’s own research on the effects of social media reduction confirms those from academic researchers. Both sets of researchers find evidence of causation, not mere correlation"
