What scares me about AI is the omnipresence it can give small groups. Imagine that you are a government keen on preventing a particular argument from gaining traction in the media. AI gives you a tool that can listen for the argument becoming developed in chatrooms, forums, comment threads, etc. Once detected, AI also gives you a strategy to attack the credibility of the argument. Governments apparently do something similar to this today, although it seems like a much more manual process [1]. Society will continue to see benefits from developments in AI through software like Google' Search, Apple's Siri, Spam Detection, Network Security, just to name a few. Although certain uses of AI will only be available to small and elite groups, and the fear probably stems from the one-sidedness of this powerful technology.
Slightly related, but what are thoughts on using internet harassment for extortion purposes or personal attacks. In many ways, the technology and policies we'd use to prevent this harassment could be frightfully similar to technology that allows censorship.
I'd like to completely retract my statement! Reading the Senator's letter (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8633683) put things in perspective for me. Forget bad for business, it's bad for human rights. Ethical grey area is an understatement.
I agree. The policy issue is between Taxis and existing legislation. The ethics issue is between Lyft. Taking a step back, this is one of the craziest market competitions that can exist, and it's going to be interesting to see how it plays out. Remember, Taxis didn't have nearly as fierce competition between themselves it reminds me of cable companies. Perhaps they'll eventually have to settle for different territories to manage.
It really seems like your points were towards legislation that prevents Uber from operating as business where Taxis are the main competition, not other similar services like Lyft. Journalists cover lots of stories, and I think the one that I linked in the Verge is a great example of something Uber would not want released. $1M is also nothing compared to what they pay their lawyers to fight legal battles against Taxi incumbents.
I think you've misinterpreted what Thiel meant about Uber's ethical problem. It seems like Thiel was actually talking about the competition between Uber and Lyft rather than Taxis.
The points you bring up are actually no longer huge problems for Uber. Some airports legally allow Uber to stop by. Uber is incredibly better than the previous Taxi service for both the employee (read about Healthcare), and for the consumer (this is obvious). Congress people use Uber all the time. Ordering and canceling rides is just one example how Uber might be overly aggressive (read more http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/26/6067663/this-is-ubers-play...).
What is the justification of this law? Seems arbitrary to me. Another question. Is not providing ample security the same as explicitly granting a backdoor?
Really silly request, but could someone provide an implementation where I can just drop in an svg and it would have this effect? Please, and thank you.
What can legally be done to prevent something like this? It's worth noting that this is not nearly as bad as the kind of stuff that ISPs do in some other countries...
[1] http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/world-cracks-internet