EPTThe question isn't whether AI is safe. The question is whether AI is safer than the average human.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 514
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
The question isn't whether AI is safe. The question is whether AI is safer than the average human. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On October 16 2016 02:34 Acrofales wrote: My girlfriend has a driver's license. She is a complete disaster on the road and subsequently never drives. My aunt was also a disaster (not quite as bad as my gf), but drove everywhere. My grandpa was really really upset when the doctor told him he was unfit to drive at age 85, despite my grandmother and everybody else telling him he was incredibly unsafe. The question isn't whether AI is safe. The question is whether AI is safer than the average human. Thank you. The real reason people don't want AI cars is that they would be forced to admit they suck at driving, like 99% of the population. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
i don't think it would give a shit if you gave it life. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 02:41 OtherWorld wrote: Thank you. The real reason people don't want AI cars is that they would be forced to admit they suck at driving, like 99% of the population. I absolutely fucking hate this arbitrary line that defines what's good or not. 100% of chess players are god awful (compared to Stockfish 7), 100% of people are weaklings (compared to a fork lift), 99% of drivers are bad, 99.9% of players are bad at Starcraft, 100% of people are stupid at 95% of brain intensive tasks out there (compared to a computer). Anyway, I hate that kind of pessimistic, trying to put people down posting. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 03:22 xM(Z wrote: nope, the question is how do you punish an AI?; to punish in a way that would satisfy a human. i don't think it would give a shit if you gave it life. You don't punish an AI, and that's never been an argument, it all comes down to who to assign blame to. Do you blame the "operator" as he needs to perform upkeep of the car, do you call it an unforeseen circumstance (tough luck), or do you put blame on the AI manufacturer (good luck having a company interested, since people can just sabotage the car and Google or whoever will have to pay). The ethical AI dilemma or whatever people want to call it is a load of poop. People like to come up with this contrived situation where a car has to choose whether to kill you inside, or 5 other people outside, and what to decide. Naturally it'd be done the way that a driver would respond in a current situation, where he'd save his ass... Or simply give it varying options for ethical operating modes. | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On October 16 2016 03:47 FiWiFaKi wrote: You don't punish an AI, and that's never been an argument, it all comes down to who to assign blame to. Do you blame the "operator" as he needs to perform upkeep of the car, do you call it an unforeseen circumstance (tough luck), or do you put blame on the AI manufacturer (good luck having a company interested, since people can just sabotage the car and Google or whoever will have to pay). The ethical AI dilemma or whatever people want to call it is a load of poop. People like to come up with this contrived situation where a car has to choose whether to kill you inside, or 5 other people outside, and what to decide. Naturally it'd be done the way that a driver would respond in a current situation, where he'd save his ass... Or simply give it varying options for ethical operating modes. that was a metaphor of sorts ... but you went all the way around it, so: your <insert family member here> is killed by an AI driven car; what do you do?. i care nothing about a 3rd person speech or inquiry on this issue, on its ifs and buts. i'm interested in the victims view, because even if you set the/some rules for this kind of scenario, people are people ... i don't see them pointing at the AI(car) and saying: the toaster did it, get it!, get it now!!. or worse, there'll be a standardized pay per victim of such an accident: - here, take your 15k. next! where's the revenge, the payback, the eye for an eye, the forgiveness, the looking the murderer in the eyes ... it will never exist. | ||
|
Blisse
Canada3710 Posts
On October 16 2016 03:40 FiWiFaKi wrote: I absolutely fucking hate this arbitrary line that defines what's good or not. 100% of chess players are god awful (compared to Stockfish 7), 100% of people are weaklings (compared to a fork lift), 99% of drivers are bad, 99.9% of players are bad at Starcraft, 100% of people are stupid at 95% of brain intensive tasks out there (compared to a computer). Anyway, I hate that kind of pessimistic, trying to put people down posting. But it's not arbitrary? AI drivers are safer. No one gets hurt from being bad at chess and StarCraft. 30K people die in the US to motor accidents. Everything points to that figure being less with AI drivers. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 06:18 Blisse wrote: But it's not arbitrary? AI drivers are safer. No one gets hurt from being bad at chess and StarCraft. 30K people die in the US to motor accidents. Everything points to that figure being less with AI drivers. Is your only aim to reduce motor accident fatalities? I think if our goal was to have the fewest non-natural deaths as possible, our policy would have looked very different. Assuming you drive 20,000 miles per year, and using the rate of 1.1 deaths per 100 million miles travelled, that's a 1 in 5,500 death rate/year for people who drive all the time everywhere. Compare that to the 1 in 10,000 figure most industries aim for work related accidental deaths. Cycling deaths are 3x as much per distance travelled, and cyclists travel on average 30-50% the speed of cars. Anyway, I guess my argument is it's really not that bad, and pursuing a policy that is going to significantly piss off a lot of people just to lower this number by a bit isn't a good idea imo (same reason why I support gun legalization in the US). I'd rather see continuous enforcement through police, more higher quality cameras to record traffic. With this logic, I can't see cars requiring a driver being banned from public roads for a long long time (50-100 years+), while I can see civilian driverless cars hitting the roads somewhere in the 10-20 year range. Also, on an unrelated note, for the countries that have universal healthcare, the sooner we get to a point where 80-95% is covered through universal healthcare, and the rest is out of pocket, the better off we'll be. edit: Anyway, I just dislike things that really start to infringe on other people's rights, I know it's a subjective thing to say since what rights do these people have. But stuff like like breathalyzers to start your car, a camera in your car that tracks your eye position... Is this a society anyone really wants to live in? Use technology to make life better, not to serve it. edit2: If we were to ban cars requiring a driver from public roads, I think we would have already banned cyclists from using the road. | ||
|
killa_robot
Canada1884 Posts
On October 16 2016 04:55 Deleuze wrote: Given how abysmal IoT security it (DDOS from a washing machine anyone?) the risk from AI cars isn't the AI per se, it's the terrible security. I will never sit inside a computer capable of moving at 120+miles per hr. If you've ever flown before you already have. But agreed about the IoT security. If anything is going to ruin autonomous vehicles, it will be that (or people refusing to use the cars because muh driving rights). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 10:06 JimmiC wrote: Speaking of breathalizers why not have them in every car? Sometimes TL makes me feel like I'm from some alternate reality, smh. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 11:07 JimmiC wrote: Why not, you would basically eliminate drunk driving. The technology would get cheaper if it was in every car. Would make sense Yeah no, can't discuss with this one dimensional thinking that doesn't consider their surrounding at all, and the implications of said decisions. People like killa_robot can mock people like me all they want with "muh driving rights", but these things are completely justified (and you choose to veil an insult on this viewpoint with a laugh)... You're just getting to the point of big brother government, and the fundamental question of society, and the role of government "what is the ideal balance between private and public interests?" Or in other words, where on the spectrum of personal freedoms to social obligations do we lie on... You seem to be advocating for a life where public good is held above all else, the exact force that we've been fighting against for decades in communism. I guess it's the common trend that we've seen from the end of WW2, and history is bound to repeat - as times getting tough due to the economy or other reasons, people head towards a more socialist regime and collective movement. edit: To directly respond to your question, the cost of this technology is not whether it gets utilized or not, it's easily within reach already, among others as eye-scanners to ensure someone stays focused on the road. The reason it's not used is because it's a gigantic fuck you to everyone living in society. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
Is this about some sort of freedom restriction that you won't be able to perform certain things anymore because there's a string attached to it? Is this actually a slippery slope? I seriously don't get why people not being able to cheat their way onto the road any more would be a bad thing. I find every human operated vehicle to be extremely dangerous just because they are in the hands of humans. Taking away another parameter for enhancing safety on the road should be welcomed, not shied away from. What if the breathalizer was optional in the sense that you may or may not use it before driving, just like you have the option of using your seat belt, but if you get caught not having used it, or not having a negative state on it as you started your car, you get penalized? What could be possibly so horrible about regulating the way you operate a death machine to take you from point A to B? Is it your fears of the 1984 scenario? Edit: so I guess it is about that. Even though a whopping 4 countries were/are communist, I still believe it's a possible societal structure that might be at least as good as what we have now. The setting and framework of what history shows us is definitely not what we have going on today. Everything potentially deadly towards someone else needs as much control as humanly tolerable, big fuck you or not. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 12:10 Uldridge wrote: So what are the implications? Is this about some sort of freedom restriction that you won't be able to perform certain things anymore because there's a string attached to it? Is this actually a slippery slope? I seriously don't get why people not being able to cheat their way onto the road any more would be a bad thing. I find every human operated vehicle to be extremely dangerous just because they are in the hands of humans. Taking away another parameter for enhancing safety on the road should be welcomed, not shied away from. What if the breathalizer was optional in the sense that you may or may not use it before driving, just like you have the option of using your seat belt, but if you get caught not having used it, or not having a negative state on it as you started your car, you get penalized? What could be possibly so horrible about regulating the way you operate a death machine to take you from point A to B? Is it your fears of the 1984 scenario? Edit: so I guess it is about that. Even though a whopping 4 countries were/are communist, I still believe it's a possible societal structure that might be at least as good as what we have now. The setting and framework of what history shows us is definitely not what we have going on today. Everything potentially deadly towards someone else needs as much control as humanly tolerable, big fuck you or not. I support punishing the consequence, and I don't agree with you that you should regulate all "death machines". I can imagine that the average person with a kitchen knife can get away with killing 2-3 strangers before they are stopped, probably not too different compared to your typical driving incident. We don't tell people how they have to dress, how they have to move, etc when using a knife... If you threaten someone with it (or kill someone with it), yes, you'll get punished, and that's how we punish the consequence. Just a btw, 31% of car related deaths are from drunk driving, just to put a number to it. The seatbelt example isn't a very good one imo, since I don't think they should be mandatory (you pay with it for your life), and not wearing a seatbelt doesn't endanger anyone's life. What we have in Canada, and most European countries is somewhat special though, which makes this argument of "do what you want as you aren't hurting anyone else" extremely stupid. And that's universal healthcare. It's very good in so many ways, but the issue is that technically, anything you want to do with your life that can be seen as somewhat dangerous to you (whether it's sky-diving, skiing, driving, climbing a tree) is a cost to society, as our collective taxes will pay for healthcare, and so you can argue that anything is a detriment to society. Safety is good, I support it, if we can make both systems coexist on the road, I'm all for it. The idea of driverless cars is great, I can chill on my laptop while I get to my destination, it's fantastic, but don't "ban" other modes of transport because they are more dangerous. A more logical thing to do, is draw a line of what we consider safe enough, and then ban everything that's below that line, that would be things like cars without lights, formulas, etc. I didn't know much of the 1984 scenario, my idea is simple, I can live my life in a simple manner, where I worry about myself and what matters to me, I follow the law and don't create undue hardship for other people, I pay money to some collective union (government) to keep this peace, and voila. I don't want my life to work the same as if I was working for Facebook, PWC, or Shell. In my eyes the ideal society is one that works like a team. You know, you've worked in a group, there's no written rules, nobody enforcing anything, you just do what's expected, do your part, balance everything, and act like a person. If you fall below expectations on something, people will know, and if they don't like you enough, they'll kick you out. I think of a good society as one that works like a family business, or at least tries to. A bad society is one that is mechanistic in nature, like a big multinational corporation - it might lead to effective results, but it doesn't equal a happy human experience. So whenever we can, to as reasonable an extent as possible, we don't want to micromanage people's lives, let them do as they will, and punish the consequences. Of course some things are too extreme, like allowing civilians to have nuclear weapons, as being able to wipe out the country wont really have a fitting punishment, and will be too disruptive, but handling crimes with a couple deaths, I think is reasonable... If you have to, create larger deterrent, bigger sentences, possibly even dissuade people of very heinous crimes with torture (if we ever change our minds). There's not much I want to say here about the validity of socialism. What's clear is Europe and Canada have been moving towards a social democracy, and I don't support that movement, or at least in it's current form because it's very blind. I think there are plenty of ideas that are fine, and can be worthwhile to look at, but I think just like JimmyC posted, people make poor arguments like that (exaggeration), and other perspectives get neglected... For that reason, I often find myself arguing why it's not good, instead of engaging in discussion of the best implementation - because so much isn't considered, or isn't given proper weight imo. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 12:43 JimmiC wrote: Your actually making a ton of assumptions I got bored of the so convo long ago and was hoping to change the subject I have idea why your pissy at me and don't care. It's not like communism any more then seat belts or aitlr bags take your personal freedom. Your arguing people deserve the right to drive drunk? Edit: I guess they shouldnt do check stops since that also steals that freedom. Come on man. People don't deserve to drive drunk, as they aren't in a "natural" state of mind. I can very easily get behind the idea that someone who is under the influence of anything that significantly alters cognitive function loses some privileges a normal person might have, including the right to drive. (simplified argument, but with more words I'd reach the same conclusion) As not wearing seatbelts and airbags don't endanger other people, I do think they take away some of your freedoms, and that's a bit questionable, but the argument is a bit more iffy, so I am fine to live with it. I'm a huge believer in the quote: "government of the people, by the people, for the people" Which making seatbelts legal, not in-line with this quote imo. The issue is that people can sometimes make decisions that don't align with what they actual want, for example people are notoriously bad at saving for their retirement - the question is "how far should the government go to push people in the right direction?"... You quickly get to a slippery slope, because you begin to start claiming that you know what is better for the people than they do themselves. I like to call it majority totalitarianism, because you reach a point, where you might have the majority of people who support you, say 60%, so you win the representative democracy, and then the other 40% brings up an argument, and you just say, we know what's better than you, so we will just discard your opinion - it's something that's frequently done on TL (just last page by Jimmy for example), where he claims how can anyone think that more guns make the world safer, as he was looking down on them. And this is the issue I see with a lot of people on the internet, I'm not sure why, if it's the modern culture that makes people view racists as someone with zero worth... Maybe this spilled over to other people with opinions that are seen as a bit less mainstream, such as what I'm proposing now. So they view these opinions with zero value, and yeah, it's just dangerous. Anyway, this should've been in the politics thread, I apologize, I did get a bit more agitated than I'd like to admit to that one dumb post, but I dislike when people jump to conclusions without thinking, especially about how the world should be. I'm all for having whatever opinion you want, but please have a reason grounded in logic, reason, spirituality, tradition, just something. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
It's clear you find reducing the possibility of being a hazard behind the wheel an infringement of personal freedom. I do not, because I don't feel like being run over by a drunk driver that was too careless to think about the people he shares a planet with. Prevention is (almost) always better than medicating and in this sense it's no different. Why would you punish a drunk driver when you can stop them from getting behind the wheel drunk? And you're giving a death statistic, not a total accident statistic, so it's completely missing the big picture, but almost 1/3 of all car related deaths is still a significant amount imo. And no, I don't think seat belts should be mandatory either, but perhaps the breathalizer should be handled the same way, where it's in your car and if you care about yourself and your fellow human, you blow in the fucking thing so you can know if you're fit enough to drive or not. And if technology allows it, your personal physiology will be set in the thing so it accounts for tolerance and other shit so you can at least enjoy a glass of wine or 2 before you'll be prohibited of driving or something. For me it's just an extremely inconsiderate, asshole thing to do, when you actively choose to drive when you're deactivating your central nervous system. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On October 16 2016 13:10 Uldridge wrote: It's the same old, tried and tired argument made: intent is not the same as purpose. You don't intend to kill other people with a knife or a car, however, cars are way more ingrained in situations where they can easily take a life (everyone driving at 60+ km/h), and if you wanted to, you could drive over 100 humans or more before being stopped with a car so your comparison completely fall flat with the knife example. Cars are much more like guns than knives in that regard. It's clear you find reducing the possibility of being a hazard behind the wheel an infringement of personal freedom. I do not, because I don't feel like being run over by a drunk driver that was too careless to think about the people he shares a planet with. Prevention is (almost) always better than medicating and in this sense it's no different. Why would you punish a drunk driver when you can stop them from getting behind the wheel drunk? And you're giving a death statistic, not a total accident statistic, so it's completely missing the big picture, but almost 1/3 of all car related deaths is still a significant amount imo. And no, I don't think seat belts should be mandatory either, but perhaps the breathalizer should be handled the same way, where it's in your car and if you care about yourself and your fellow human, you blow in the fucking thing so you can know if you're fit enough to drive or not. And if technology allows it, your personal physiology will be set in the thing so it accounts for tolerance and other shit so you can at least enjoy a glass of wine or 2 before you'll be prohibited of driving or something. For me it's just an extremely inconsiderate, asshole thing to do, when you actively choose to drive when you're deactivating your central nervous system. I agree that it's inconsiderate, and not in the best interests of society, but people imo should not have to do what's in the best interest of society. Someone calling someone fat, or a group of friends cracking a racost joke isnt in the best interests of society... But we allow that I hope, not because it's hard to enforce, but because people should have that freedom. We have the constitution or charter of rights and freedoms, or whatever else where you live... I don't necessarily think this should be treated as the bare minimum, and nothing is stopping us from going above that, especially in an age where it appears to me more and more things are being regulated. So of you want to opt in for a voluntary breathalizer in your car, in case you don't trust yourself when you drink, then that's fine. My only objection would be that once this is commonly done, some parties would try to push it further (same reason why imo Republicans are so against anything to do with gun regulation), but alas. Edit: Typed on my phone, apologies if anything is incoherent. Edit2: If lie detectors were 100% accurate would you support them for being allowed to do job interviews? Once again, this is a case where there is only benefit to be had for society, but we don't allow it outside of extremely security sensitive positions (at least here in Canada). | ||
| ||
