| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 12 2016 13:58 Sent. wrote: Murder them I think this is the only way unfortunately. Knocking them into a coma may be a temporary solution. Can also be benefits in limiting communication, such as cutting tongues and fingers off, but they'll probably still commit them in their thoughts. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
See the pictures in this article to understand a bit more: www.theverge.com ![[image loading]](https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Y4m_hl4JB4Kw27jXPNVaGQO3S8E=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6912205/Screen%20Shot%202016-08-09%20at%2011.43.01%20AM.png) Now, my question. Can you use this to kill people? 1) take a group of people, position yourself next to a pedestrian crossing. 2) your target (a single person) starts crossing the road. 3) a self driving car is passing by, about to pass behind your target. 4) Everyone in your group throws themselves into the road just in front of the self driving car. 5) The car can't break. Going too fast. 6) It now has to choose between hitting everyone in your group, or the single person ahead of you: your target. 7) The self driving car will most likely make the call to swerve and hit your target. Could we be sentenced in court for a murder like that? Does the car or drivier (well, passanger...) hold any responsibility? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 12 2016 14:06 Cascade wrote: I think this is the only way unfortunately. Knocking them into a coma may be a temporary solution. Can also be benefits in limiting communication, such as cutting tongues and fingers off, but they'll probably still commit them in their thoughts. I don't think someone's thoughts are complex enough to be fallacious when they're getting their tongue and fingers cut off. On October 12 2016 14:15 Cascade wrote: There has been some discussion about self driving cars lately. Specially, how they sometimes will have to chose between killing one or another person by swerving or not swerving in panic situations. See the pictures in this article to understand a bit more: www.theverge.com Now, my question. Can you use this to kill people? 1) take a group of people, position yourself next to a pedestrian crossing. 2) your target (a single person) starts crossing the road. 3) a self driving car is passing by, about to pass behind your target. 4) Everyone in your group throws themselves into the road just in front of the self driving car. 5) The car can't break. Going too fast. 6) It now has to choose between hitting everyone in your group, or the single person ahead of you: your target. 7) The self driving car will most likely make the call to swerve and hit your target. Could we be sentenced in court for a murder like that? Does the car or drivier (well, passanger...) hold any responsibility? First of all I think that moral machine is completely useless as anything more than a psychological game, and not at all representative of problems that a self driving car would face. Second of all it's clearly murder. The self-driving car doesn't change anything. It's basically the same thing as pushing someone in front of a car (proving intent to harm might be harder). | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 12 2016 14:17 ZigguratOfUr wrote: I don't think someone's thoughts are complex enough to be fallacious when they're getting their tongue and fingers cut off. Are you arguing that a thought has to be complex to be wrong? | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On October 12 2016 14:19 Cascade wrote: Are you arguing that a thought has to be complex to be wrong? No. I'm arguing that it has to have a degree of complexity to be considered logical. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On October 12 2016 14:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote: No. I'm arguing that it has to have a degree of complexity to be considered logical. Ok, that's a fair point. What goes on in someones head while being mutilated probably shouldn't be classified as logical fallacies. Not because of lack of fallacies, but because of lack of logic. Maybe it will help contain them afterwards though? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
Nothing. Yay for math education. It got 2 people who understands Pythagoras on a website populated by nerds. I think we should take epishade's math problem to r/the_donald and watch their heads implode. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 12 2016 14:15 Cascade wrote: There has been some discussion about self driving cars lately. Specially, how they sometimes will have to chose between killing one or another person by swerving or not swerving in panic situations. See the pictures in this article to understand a bit more: www.theverge.com Now, my question. Can you use this to kill people? 1) take a group of people, position yourself next to a pedestrian crossing. 2) your target (a single person) starts crossing the road. 3) a self driving car is passing by, about to pass behind your target. 4) Everyone in your group throws themselves into the road just in front of the self driving car. 5) The car can't break. Going too fast. 6) It now has to choose between hitting everyone in your group, or the single person ahead of you: your target. 7) The self driving car will most likely make the call to swerve and hit your target. Could we be sentenced in court for a murder like that? Does the car or drivier (well, passanger...) hold any responsibility? there's a reason why we should be avoiding senseless AI to handle life and death situations, as well as emergencies. push the logic to the extreme: why not have a robot doctor? he can be programmed to do all that the doctor does, no problem. are you ok with being healed by silicon without any humanity? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On October 12 2016 21:48 Incognoto wrote: there's a reason why we should be avoiding senseless AI to handle life and death situations, as well as emergencies. push the logic to the extreme: why not have a robot doctor? he can be programmed to do all that the doctor does, no problem. are you ok with being healed by silicon without any humanity? If the robot doctor is at least as good as a human doctor in all aspects or distinctly better in some while not being a lot worse in the rest, yes. Currently robot doctors are not as good, and thus they are only assisting human doctors. The same is true with self-driving cars. If self-driving cars are safer than human-driven cars (which isn't that hard), i am fine with self-driving cars. They should also be a lot more comfortable and effectively win you a lot of time every day that you can now use for doing other stuff while driving. And in the above example, the problem isn't the self-driving car, it is the people who conspire to murder another person by self-driving car. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22488 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:05 Simberto wrote: If the robot doctor is at least as good as a human doctor in all aspects or distinctly better in some while not being a lot worse in the rest, yes. Currently robot doctors are not as good, and thus they are only assisting human doctors. The same is true with self-driving cars. If self-driving cars are safer than human-driven cars (which isn't that hard), i am fine with self-driving cars. They should also be a lot more comfortable and effectively win you a lot of time every day that you can now use for doing other stuff while driving. And in the above example, the problem isn't the self-driving car, it is the people who conspire to murder another person by self-driving car. What? .... A self driving car at some point needs to make life/death decisions. That has to be handled. Where are you getting murder conspiracies from? | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:08 Gorsameth wrote: What? .... A self driving car at some point needs to make life/death decisions. That has to be handled. Where are you getting murder conspiracies from? Read the quote chain. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5195 Posts
I also think before they let these things loose in massive amounts on the streets, the technology behind it will be alot better in the sense that it'll be able to analyze motion on the sidewalks as well and change its driving behaviour according to that. So it's kind of a false dichotomy here. Also, what difference is there with a self driving car and a human driven car in this example? The human will have to make the same choice :S Edit for the legal part: I think the group should be held accountable for exploiting the car's software thereby killing the person in front of you. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:05 Simberto wrote: If the robot doctor is at least as good as a human doctor in all aspects or distinctly better in some while not being a lot worse in the rest, yes. Currently robot doctors are not as good, and thus they are only assisting human doctors. The same is true with self-driving cars. If self-driving cars are safer than human-driven cars (which isn't that hard), i am fine with self-driving cars. They should also be a lot more comfortable and effectively win you a lot of time every day that you can now use for doing other stuff while driving. And in the above example, the problem isn't the self-driving car, it is the people who conspire to murder another person by self-driving car. you underestimate the amount of psychological help you get from a warm doctor who is there to listen to your concerns and help you. furthermore, what humans have is the ability to make assumptions/speculations based on loose evidence (in the "grey" area), which is something of a quality in a good doctor. machinery can't do that nor can it make moral or ethical decisions. doctors can. human drivers can. machinery cannot | ||
|
Hryul
Austria2609 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:05 Simberto wrote: If the robot doctor is at least as good as a human doctor in all aspects or distinctly better in some while not being a lot worse in the rest, yes. Currently robot doctors are not as good, and thus they are only assisting human doctors. The same is true with self-driving cars. If self-driving cars are safer than human-driven cars (which isn't that hard), i am fine with self-driving cars. They should also be a lot more comfortable and effectively win you a lot of time every day that you can now use for doing other stuff while driving. And in the above example, the problem isn't the self-driving car, it is the people who conspire to murder another person by self-driving car. robot doctors are just as good as the data they put into it. that being said: robot doctors have one distinct advantage: it's easier for them to remember every update and every cross side-effects of your drugs might have. the problem is also clear: if you have them big moneys, throw it at the commitee updating your personal doctor pushing your drug to the forefront. it's side-effect free - really! | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11941 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:46 Incognoto wrote: you underestimate the amount of psychological help you get from a warm doctor who is there to listen to your concerns and help you. furthermore, what humans have is the ability to make assumptions/speculations based on loose evidence (in the "grey" area), which is something of a quality in a good doctor. machinery can't do that nor can it make moral or ethical decisions. doctors can. human drivers can. machinery cannot I think you are greatly overestimating humans and greatly underestimating machines. I see no reason why it would be impossible for a machine to make speculations based on evidence. Isn't that exactly what googles ad algorithms already do? I take a look at a starcraft site for nerds and some porn, and it guesses that might mean i might like asian mail order brides. Humans do that stuff based on experience. Which works quite well. But a global network of mechanical doctors can have A LOT more experience, and thus calculate that the current symptoms have x chance to be related to y illness, and thus you should have z diagnostic procedure done to make sure. | ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On October 12 2016 23:36 KwarK wrote: AI doctors can also look at macro trends, pulling together large numbers of cases to aid both diagnostics and prevention. If there's an AIDS outbreak among drug addicts in a region then the public health organization in the area can immediately respond with a public information campaign and a needle exchange, for example. By anonymizing data and presenting it in aggregate the efficiency of public health planning can be vastly improved. Hell, with a good enough computer it'd spit out "by the way, everyone is showing symptoms of low level lead poisoning, it doesn't look like much in any individual case but I compared the entire population to the population a decade ago and it's definitely there" in Flint years ago. They are also excellent for away missions in the Delta Quadrant. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
| ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
Judging self-driving cars shouldn't be made through single examples, because that's about as intelligent as saying "hey, drug X can't be given to pregnant women because of its side effects. Even though it is a very useful drug for literally everyone else, we really shouldn't consider it as a legit drug, right?" On October 12 2016 22:08 Gorsameth wrote: What? .... A self driving car at some point needs to make life/death decisions. That has to be handled. Where are you getting murder conspiracies from? Regular drivers have to make life/death decisions more often than not. Do we handle that? Judging by the number of people who drive 2 meters behind you even though you're doing 130 km/h, I don't think so. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
With self driving cars it's a completely different situation. There needs to be a system created that values different scenarios and decides upon the correct action and in doing so that system accepts liability for the outcome. If you have a tenth of a second to decide to hit a child or their grandpa you're not going to get judged, that's not even enough time to consider the choice. But the AI in the car isn't reacting on instinct, it's following programming coded by humans that had plenty of time to consider exactly how to resolve this situation. The programmers have to make a conscious choice, telling it which one to hit. There are various different moral strategies the design could employ, from maximum good to protect the driver at all costs and everything in between. But in any of them you remove the element of accident from it, there is a conscious choice of who lives and who dies being made by the people creating the strategy, and that's very difficult terrain. If there were two cars for sale with different self driving programming, one that was programmed to kill you if it was the least bad option, one programmed to always try to save you, which one would you buy? And if you bought the one that saved you are you accepting responsibility for the potential to mow down a family because they're softer than a wall, should that happen? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby3223 Beastyqt733 Mlord463 C9.Mang0201 ArmadaUGS165 ROOTCatZ103 Livibee91 Mew2King44 SteadfastSC4 |
|
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
Patches Events
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
