Slashdot Mirror
Ethical Killing Machines
ubermiester writes "The New York Times reports on research to develop autonomous battlefield robots that would 'behave more ethically in the battlefield than humans.' The researchers claim that these real-life terminators 'can be designed without an instinct for self-preservation and, as a result, no tendency to lash out in fear. They can be built without anger or recklessness ... and they can be made invulnerable to ... "scenario fulfillment," which causes people to absorb new information more easily if it agrees with their pre-existing ideas.' Based on a recent report stating that 'fewer than half of soldiers and marines serving in Iraq said that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect, and 17 percent said all civilians should be treated as insurgents,' this might not be all that dumb an idea."
Look, if I'm going to have an argument with you, then I'm going to have to take up a contradictory position.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
"Wikipedia's entry on cataract surgery still has no mention of acommodating lenses. Any time someone adds the CrystaLens to wikipedia, somebody edits it out. Too newfangled for wikipedia I guess, they only just came out five years ago (there's one in my eye right now)."
That's because an article on a medical condition doesn't require an advertisement for a related product to be complete. I'm assuming since you are closely watching the article, you are the one who keeps slipping the CrystaLens brandname into the encyclopedia article. It's people like you that make Wikipedia an unreliable resource, even after 5 years.
You really should read that article on morality, or at least the sources it references, because it clearly shows that neuromanc3r is correct, regardless of your opinion of the Wikimedia foundation.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);