Every single one comes down to "do I value rule X or rule Y more highly?" Who gives a shit. Morals are things we've created ourselves, you can't dig them up or pluck them off trees, so it all comes down to opinion, and opinions are like assholes: everyone's asshole is a product of the culture it grew up in.
This is going to come down to a committee deciding how a robot should respond in which situation, and depending on who on the committee has the most clout it's going to implement a system of ethics that already exists, whether it's utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Christianity, Taoism, whatever.
Please enlighten me. How do you search for information on the internet without a search engine? Make sure not to include any search engines in your answer.
"'Merica is doing it so everyone must be doing it" is a really dumb defense mechanism. In the case of the US we now all have the facts, in the case of everyone else you just have your paranoia.
That's not identification. Identification entails a differentiated response to a stimulus (in the case of mines, the pressure plate being triggered). When a mine is triggered, it can only explode, it cannot differentially not explode.
The scientific progress lies in the identification of targets for energy transfer. That they can or will be used to kill people is completely irrelevant because pretty much every scientific advancement of the last hundred years can be used to kill people, whether that means flying a plane into a skyscraper or dying from chemo therapy and radiation before the cancer kills you.
Then they would have the ability to discriminate, but I would still hesitate to call them robots, because they don't exhibit agency. They passively trigger, they don't actively kill the way RoboCop does.
The three laws of robotics are something Asimov thought up once to present a reasonable system of non-humanoid governance in, and this is key, a fictional world. We shouldn't hold the world we actually live in to standards developed for something meant to entertain, and thus referring to Asimov's three laws of robotics as if they're some authoritative source of "should-be" is unproductive in any discussion involving how we should interact with robots in the real world.
Not according to the definition used in the summary, which specifies that fully autonomous weapons have the ability to identify targets. Mines fire indiscriminately whenever they're triggered, whether they're stepped on, something falls on them, they fall on something else, whatever.
When I read things like this I wonder how these people even function in daily life without eating pebbles and glue sandwiches. The fact that the law is not currently equipped to assign guilt in the case of the malfunction of an autonomous robot is not a good enough incentive to stop scientific progress. First of all, robots can't kill arbitrarily, they can only kill who their programming specifies they should kill, even if that programming encounters a bug or operates in a manner unforeseen by its programmers. Arbitrarily would be without reference to a standard, randomly, like an earthquake or lightning. Second, banning killer robots will not prevent an arms race. It will simply hamper the combat effectiveness of the side who holds itself to the treaty. Third, it would be much more effective if the money spent on ethicists worrying about how scary science is to them went to the scientists instead, so that it could go into development and research of the very thing the ethicists are so afraid of, to make it better understood and less scary.
Compared to someone making decisions while barrelling down the highway in an uncontrollable vehicle, programmers have all the time in the world to make the right decision. To be correctly interpreted, sentences should be considered in the context in which they are embedded. Taken out of context, anything can be made to seem foolish or incorrect.
Have the computer calculate an equilibrium that prioritizes minimizing damage to the driver, then minimizing damage to the environment, and then minimizing costs. Ethics became useless the moment game theory came about.
Well, I mean, we never see people make significant life changes after traumatic events. That's why no one converts to Christianity in prison, why middle-easterners don't radicalize after their family is blown up, and why the term "near-death experience" is meaningless.
I was going to post something like this but less involved. This dude is being called a savant for no reason, as he does not actually inhibit any savant-like skills, or really any skills at all. The only concrete detail I was able to find is that he once drew a pattern of triangles in a circle.
Slashdot Mirror
Every single one comes down to "do I value rule X or rule Y more highly?" Who gives a shit. Morals are things we've created ourselves, you can't dig them up or pluck them off trees, so it all comes down to opinion, and opinions are like assholes: everyone's asshole is a product of the culture it grew up in.
This is going to come down to a committee deciding how a robot should respond in which situation, and depending on who on the committee has the most clout it's going to implement a system of ethics that already exists, whether it's utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Christianity, Taoism, whatever.
Please enlighten me. How do you search for information on the internet without a search engine? Make sure not to include any search engines in your answer.
Points!
Would be more surprising if they shipped live body parts.
it only happens when pork prices are lowest.
Tough talk coming from the country that invented spray-on cheese, "think of the children", and super-sizing.
Given the size of the internet that's effectively the same thing.
The twitter stream
a frog tumblr
the sound of retweets
Imply the opposite of what is expected, without regard for reality, truth or common sense. Ex:
"'Is all the technologic dependency, and the data that fuels it, making us more resilient or more fragile?"
Look at this amazing thinker. Didn't he just blow your fucking mind?
"'Merica is doing it so everyone must be doing it" is a really dumb defense mechanism. In the case of the US we now all have the facts, in the case of everyone else you just have your paranoia.
That's not identification. Identification entails a differentiated response to a stimulus (in the case of mines, the pressure plate being triggered). When a mine is triggered, it can only explode, it cannot differentially not explode.
The scientific progress lies in the identification of targets for energy transfer. That they can or will be used to kill people is completely irrelevant because pretty much every scientific advancement of the last hundred years can be used to kill people, whether that means flying a plane into a skyscraper or dying from chemo therapy and radiation before the cancer kills you.
Then they would have the ability to discriminate, but I would still hesitate to call them robots, because they don't exhibit agency. They passively trigger, they don't actively kill the way RoboCop does.
The three laws of robotics are something Asimov thought up once to present a reasonable system of non-humanoid governance in, and this is key, a fictional world. We shouldn't hold the world we actually live in to standards developed for something meant to entertain, and thus referring to Asimov's three laws of robotics as if they're some authoritative source of "should-be" is unproductive in any discussion involving how we should interact with robots in the real world.
Not according to the definition used in the summary, which specifies that fully autonomous weapons have the ability to identify targets. Mines fire indiscriminately whenever they're triggered, whether they're stepped on, something falls on them, they fall on something else, whatever.
c development!"
When I read things like this I wonder how these people even function in daily life without eating pebbles and glue sandwiches. The fact that the law is not currently equipped to assign guilt in the case of the malfunction of an autonomous robot is not a good enough incentive to stop scientific progress. First of all, robots can't kill arbitrarily, they can only kill who their programming specifies they should kill, even if that programming encounters a bug or operates in a manner unforeseen by its programmers. Arbitrarily would be without reference to a standard, randomly, like an earthquake or lightning. Second, banning killer robots will not prevent an arms race. It will simply hamper the combat effectiveness of the side who holds itself to the treaty. Third, it would be much more effective if the money spent on ethicists worrying about how scary science is to them went to the scientists instead, so that it could go into development and research of the very thing the ethicists are so afraid of, to make it better understood and less scary.
They will be lucky if they're not bankrupt by next year. To quote the venerable Gilderoy Lockhart: "Fame is a fickle friend, Harry."
Money can't buy you lungs that convert CO2 to oxygen, so I would say they are in fact acting in the best interests of their beneficiaries.
Compared to someone making decisions while barrelling down the highway in an uncontrollable vehicle, programmers have all the time in the world to make the right decision. To be correctly interpreted, sentences should be considered in the context in which they are embedded. Taken out of context, anything can be made to seem foolish or incorrect.
Even better: allow the driver to choose what should be prioritized.
Have the computer calculate an equilibrium that prioritizes minimizing damage to the driver, then minimizing damage to the environment, and then minimizing costs. Ethics became useless the moment game theory came about.
Well, I mean, we never see people make significant life changes after traumatic events. That's why no one converts to Christianity in prison, why middle-easterners don't radicalize after their family is blown up, and why the term "near-death experience" is meaningless.
wait
I was going to post something like this but less involved. This dude is being called a savant for no reason, as he does not actually inhibit any savant-like skills, or really any skills at all. The only concrete detail I was able to find is that he once drew a pattern of triangles in a circle.
Ironically, they don't make vaccines for idiocy.
How did they obtain a record of which genes were in which village at which time?