Recent comments in /f/gadgets

Flextt t1_j6pcpqt wrote

I mean, maybe? Some day? Using your industrial capabilities to mass manufacture robotic combat drones however is much more likely to happen soon. Democracies don't unlikely to fight wars and when they do, public support can be tenuous. Drones potentially eliminate most of the human cost of warfare for the side deploying them.

1

ConciselyVerbose t1_j6p3jlu wrote

Let’s say, hypothetically, that it was as bad as 50% false calls, 50% calls that wouldn’t have been made, and that every false call is missing a real call. That’s break even. That means 1 person loses access to emergency services and 1 person gains.

Any better than that and you’re helping more people than you hurt. Obviously the ideal is perfection, and not having any false calls, especially ones that take resources from real people. But it doesn’t take amazing accuracy to improve the net outcome.

If you get data that they’re more likely to be incorrect than a normal call, you can change your prioritization to prioritize a human speaking. Apple can continue to improve their accuracy to minimize false positives. But those improvements are from a situation that’s already better than it not existing.

1

EsotericAbstractIdea t1_j6opywx wrote

I'd be ok with it if it didn't also text me a lie when it did a false call for my mom.

"CRASH DETECTED SOS

Your Mom called emergency services from this approximate location after iPhone detected a crash."

​

No... the iPhone called 911 on its own after it fell on the ground. I sped across town because of that.

1

ProbablyGayingOnYou t1_j6nl4wr wrote

This seems like one of those features where it's probably intentionally designed to err on the side of false positives rather than false negatives. Although as other commenters have noted, then you have to contend with the "boy who cried wolf" effect of those detections being ignored.

2