Whoops, I should have written "harm". Read damage as "damage to human beings." I can imagine scenarios where those diverge, as can the article's summary's author.
Establishing the similarity is something computers excel at, though. Just because I can work out by hand what 4565 * 2349 equals doesn't mean a computer can't do it much faster and with a lot less hassle.
Because ethicists like making work for themselves -- it's unethical to wait for another disaster or human rights violation just so you can do more work!
ate" -- Not at all! In fact, it does the exact opposite. By implementing every possible position on the software level and allowing the vehicle's owner to choose, no one needs to debate anything. A utilitarian can choose "minimize overall damage", a randroid "protect me at all costs", and a lawyer "minimize liability", without any of them having to agree about anything. I wish all philosophical debates were this easy to solve.
I started thinking about Escher too when I read this, and maybe it's because my knowledge of art history is simply inadequate, but I couldn't think of any artist influenced by Escher other than the creator of the Berserk manga, Kentaro Miura. And even there "influence" may be too strong, as it's more that Miura visually references Escher a couple of times.
What the computer can do is point out what is similar. Whether the similarity is an example of influence then needs to be established with further evidence.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is sometimes irrational, otherwise it would be rational to believe that because day is followed by night day causes night, while in fact it is the rotation of the earth while being located near the sun that causes both. The specific example I mentioned in my post (people going to facilities end up dead, therefore the facilities are killing them) is also irrational, because it assumes causation where there is only correlation. Assuming causation when faced with correlation is really easy to do, but that doesn't make it rational. In fact, it's how we ended up with superstition, and contagious and sympathetic magic.
Or perhaps it is you who should google "reductio ad absurdum". Just because I claim that believing invalid arguments are valid is irrational does not mean that to behave rationally means having to know all the laws of logic. It is perfectly rational to believe in inductive arguments, but it is not rational to believe in logical fallacies.
If I ignore this it won't end up killing people I care about. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I am saying I'm willing to bet against those odds, much like I'm willing to bet that we're not in the matrix, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that I have hands, that solipsism is false, and that there is no god.
No, it's fear mongers like you who are the problem. Ebola is spread by coming into contact with bodily fluids of an infected person. I don't know how you interact with people on the bus, but rarely do I get bled on on my way to work. Furthermore, people in 1st world countries are also less inclined to break people out of quarantine, think doctors are evil killers, or think that black magic is involved. On top of that, most of the people in the affected countries lack the wealth to transport themselves here, and I'm sure that people from infected countries are treated with all possible precautions when they arrive at the airport of a 1st world country.
You say they act rationally based on what they see, and then describe them engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc logic (people going to facilities end up dead, therefore the facilities are killing them), and being prejudiced against white people and doctors. I am unsure if you are clear on what "rational" means. Hint: it's not acting based on what you 'feel' is right or true, because feelings are notoriously bad at ferreting out either.
It's probably easier to let these people die of ebola than it is to change the mind of someone who stubbornly believes in things that are false. There have been many information campaigns about the causes and prevention of transmission of ebola, up to and including rap songs, and yet they can't help themselves.
What the dad is doing is trying to influence his kid's decision to engage with a fictional version of war by taking them to an actual war. What I meant is that the experience of the reality of war has nothing to do with the experience of playing a war video game, because one is an experience of something fictional and the other isn't. It's the difference between having sex and looking at porn, between watching the food network and eating, between watching CSI and being murdered. When you watch CSI, you know that no one has actually died, because it's fictional. When you're shooting someone in Call of Duty, all of the aspects that make that a serious crime in the real world are not present, and so using the context of the real world to judge it is moronic, because it's fictional.
Therefore, what this dad is doing is not so much teaching the difference between reality and fiction, but rather conflating the two. He wants the experiences of actual war to influence the relation of his sons to fictional war.
According to the CIA factbook, 23% of the 127 million people in Japan are 65 or older. That's significantly less than 100 million, but still a significant amount.
You already mention signatures in your post, but there is no significant difference between a unique stamp and a unique signature in relation to (physical) documents. We sign things, they stamp things. Both are taken as unique identifiers of individuals; the only difference between them is the way in which they are produced. Meanwhile, we have moved away from faxes, while they have not. It's obviously due to an aspect of their culture, but that aspect is not the fact that they use stamps instead of signatures.
No, it looks successful when you assume that companies that make a lot of money also pay a lot of taxes, as they do where I live. I'd temporarily forgotten the strange relation that exists between companies, the government, the populace, and taxes in the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoops, I should have written "harm". Read damage as "damage to human beings." I can imagine scenarios where those diverge, as can the article's summary's author.
Establishing the similarity is something computers excel at, though. Just because I can work out by hand what 4565 * 2349 equals doesn't mean a computer can't do it much faster and with a lot less hassle.
Because ethicists like making work for themselves -- it's unethical to wait for another disaster or human rights violation just so you can do more work!
ate" -- Not at all! In fact, it does the exact opposite. By implementing every possible position on the software level and allowing the vehicle's owner to choose, no one needs to debate anything. A utilitarian can choose "minimize overall damage", a randroid "protect me at all costs", and a lawyer "minimize liability", without any of them having to agree about anything. I wish all philosophical debates were this easy to solve.
I started thinking about Escher too when I read this, and maybe it's because my knowledge of art history is simply inadequate, but I couldn't think of any artist influenced by Escher other than the creator of the Berserk manga, Kentaro Miura. And even there "influence" may be too strong, as it's more that Miura visually references Escher a couple of times.
What the computer can do is point out what is similar. Whether the similarity is an example of influence then needs to be established with further evidence.
There's probably a free firefox extension that disables comment sections.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is sometimes irrational, otherwise it would be rational to believe that because day is followed by night day causes night, while in fact it is the rotation of the earth while being located near the sun that causes both. The specific example I mentioned in my post (people going to facilities end up dead, therefore the facilities are killing them) is also irrational, because it assumes causation where there is only correlation. Assuming causation when faced with correlation is really easy to do, but that doesn't make it rational. In fact, it's how we ended up with superstition, and contagious and sympathetic magic.
Or perhaps it is you who should google "reductio ad absurdum". Just because I claim that believing invalid arguments are valid is irrational does not mean that to behave rationally means having to know all the laws of logic. It is perfectly rational to believe in inductive arguments, but it is not rational to believe in logical fallacies.
If I ignore this it won't end up killing people I care about. I'm not saying it can't happen, but I am saying I'm willing to bet against those odds, much like I'm willing to bet that we're not in the matrix, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that I have hands, that solipsism is false, and that there is no god.
No, it's fear mongers like you who are the problem. Ebola is spread by coming into contact with bodily fluids of an infected person. I don't know how you interact with people on the bus, but rarely do I get bled on on my way to work. Furthermore, people in 1st world countries are also less inclined to break people out of quarantine, think doctors are evil killers, or think that black magic is involved. On top of that, most of the people in the affected countries lack the wealth to transport themselves here, and I'm sure that people from infected countries are treated with all possible precautions when they arrive at the airport of a 1st world country.
You say they act rationally based on what they see, and then describe them engaging in post hoc ergo propter hoc logic (people going to facilities end up dead, therefore the facilities are killing them), and being prejudiced against white people and doctors. I am unsure if you are clear on what "rational" means. Hint: it's not acting based on what you 'feel' is right or true, because feelings are notoriously bad at ferreting out either.
It's probably easier to let these people die of ebola than it is to change the mind of someone who stubbornly believes in things that are false. There have been many information campaigns about the causes and prevention of transmission of ebola, up to and including rap songs, and yet they can't help themselves.
Did anyone see the Perseids a couple of days ago? Did they look a bit green to anyone else, or was that just me?
What the dad is doing is trying to influence his kid's decision to engage with a fictional version of war by taking them to an actual war. What I meant is that the experience of the reality of war has nothing to do with the experience of playing a war video game, because one is an experience of something fictional and the other isn't. It's the difference between having sex and looking at porn, between watching the food network and eating, between watching CSI and being murdered. When you watch CSI, you know that no one has actually died, because it's fictional. When you're shooting someone in Call of Duty, all of the aspects that make that a serious crime in the real world are not present, and so using the context of the real world to judge it is moronic, because it's fictional.
Therefore, what this dad is doing is not so much teaching the difference between reality and fiction, but rather conflating the two. He wants the experiences of actual war to influence the relation of his sons to fictional war.
I would just teach my children the difference between reality and fiction. This might be a useful lesson for the dad as well.
What about basket weavers, you insensitive clod!
boots don't have hands or fine motor skills.
The only way this could've been closer is if the game they were developing was Starcraft, but they missed that window by about 16 years.
According to the CIA factbook, 23% of the 127 million people in Japan are 65 or older. That's significantly less than 100 million, but still a significant amount.
You already mention signatures in your post, but there is no significant difference between a unique stamp and a unique signature in relation to (physical) documents. We sign things, they stamp things. Both are taken as unique identifiers of individuals; the only difference between them is the way in which they are produced. Meanwhile, we have moved away from faxes, while they have not. It's obviously due to an aspect of their culture, but that aspect is not the fact that they use stamps instead of signatures.
No, it looks successful when you assume that companies that make a lot of money also pay a lot of taxes, as they do where I live. I'd temporarily forgotten the strange relation that exists between companies, the government, the populace, and taxes in the US.
They also still use faxes for similar reasons impenetrable and unfathomable.
This is why I specified a benevolent AI in my solution.
Doesn't California have both silicon valley and hollywood? How is it sliding into the "economic toilet"?