Put liability for any civilian deaths onto the manufacturer. The manufacturer won't want that, so fully autonomous killing won't be an available option, and there will always be a person in the loop to 'pull the trigger'.
Or it'll be the military who manufactures the minor add-on that upgrades it to fully autonomous and the liability will then be on the military for any civilian deaths, and they will just invoke sovereign immunity.
A country that is being invaded will turn on the fully autonomous mode because they won't give a shit about the ICC when their very existence is at stake.
That's exactly what I came here to say. Though they could use the data usefully even then to train an AI to distinguish between a person watching and a recording (since the recording won't be able to do face and eye motion in reaction to the ad.)
I followed the basic rules that I would expect a machine to follow. a) Protect the passengers. b) Try to avoid collisions if possible. c) If not possible, then stay in lane.
Following those 3 rules, according to MIT, I hate grannies.
I went to school when phones were the size of bricks. I wasn't allowed to read a book after I'd finished because that was 'disruptive' to the other students. I'd have to doodle in the margins so that I appeared to be working.
There's no NEW money. Almost all the existing benefits are cancelled. The ordinary worker and the rich will have the UBI taxed away again. Some savings will be made in not having to employ lots of people to decide who deserves what benefits.
The people that it's intended to help are already receiving a bunch of benefits in one form or another with various strings attached. This just removes the strings and paperwork and just gives them a weekly amount to spend however they like.
People seem to be imagining that UBI will be enough to support a middle class lifestyle without working. It's not. It's enough to have a bed for the night, food and clothing. Enough that people aren't sleeping on the streets, starving or freezing to death, which is what any decent society would be trying to prevent in any case.
Sure, it'll be given to the rich as well. And promptly taxed away again. The ordinary working guy to the rich won't see much difference in net income. There would be savings in not having to employ lots of people to decide who is deserving of what benefits.
What Rosa Parks did was a crime, but it shouldn't have been a crime at all.
The anti-copyright people are trying hard to bring the copyright laws back to reasonable levels, but they have a hard fight because the pro-copyright people have made lots of money off prolonging copyright protection.
It's almost as if you make it easy to buy/use something legally, people will be more likely to use it.
That said, every few years, I check to see if I can buy my favourite J/KPop tunes...nope, they don't want to sell them to me. I guess I'll keep ripping them from Youtube then.
Not _currently_ under copyright. If a large number of people followed your advice, they soon would be. They've done retrospective copyright before and they'll probably do it again. Hell, they'd like to copyright the Bible, but it would be a huge catfight as to who owns it.
Slashdot Mirror
But their parents/guardians can for them.
We just had a bunch of men making decisions about rights for women that everyone made an outcry about.
And yet now we have proposals for ALL HUMAN board to make decisions about the rights of AIs.
Rights for every color except silver and grey apparently.
Put liability for any civilian deaths onto the manufacturer.
The manufacturer won't want that, so fully autonomous killing won't be an available option, and there will always be a person in the loop to 'pull the trigger'.
Or it'll be the military who manufactures the minor add-on that upgrades it to fully autonomous and the liability will then be on the military for any civilian deaths, and they will just invoke sovereign immunity.
A country that is being invaded will turn on the fully autonomous mode because they won't give a shit about the ICC when their very existence is at stake.
That's exactly what I came here to say.
Though they could use the data usefully even then to train an AI to distinguish between a person watching and a recording (since the recording won't be able to do face and eye motion in reaction to the ad.)
I followed the basic rules that I would expect a machine to follow.
a) Protect the passengers.
b) Try to avoid collisions if possible.
c) If not possible, then stay in lane.
Following those 3 rules, according to MIT, I hate grannies.
Alita isn't Japanese? She's from Mars. And the city she was dropped down into isn't in Japan? She could be any nationality and it would be fine.
Whereas Major Kusanagi in GitS is a Japanese person living in Japan in a Japanese shell.
I went to school when phones were the size of bricks.
I wasn't allowed to read a book after I'd finished because that was 'disruptive' to the other students.
I'd have to doodle in the margins so that I appeared to be working.
It's more efficient because you don't have to employ lots of people to decide who is worthy to get what benefits.
It works if you increase tax by $12,000 on average for everyone.
For most people, the 'extra' money is simply taxed away again.
There's no NEW money.
Almost all the existing benefits are cancelled.
The ordinary worker and the rich will have the UBI taxed away again.
Some savings will be made in not having to employ lots of people to decide who deserves what benefits.
The people that it's intended to help are already receiving a bunch of benefits in one form or another with various strings attached. This just removes the strings and paperwork and just gives them a weekly amount to spend however they like.
People seem to be imagining that UBI will be enough to support a middle class lifestyle without working. It's not. It's enough to have a bed for the night, food and clothing. Enough that people aren't sleeping on the streets, starving or freezing to death, which is what any decent society would be trying to prevent in any case.
Sure, it'll be given to the rich as well.
And promptly taxed away again.
The ordinary working guy to the rich won't see much difference in net income.
There would be savings in not having to employ lots of people to decide who is deserving of what benefits.
If you can smell the chlorine, then the water isn't clean.
And things that shouldn't be a crime at all?
What Rosa Parks did was a crime, but it shouldn't have been a crime at all.
The anti-copyright people are trying hard to bring the copyright laws back to reasonable levels, but they have a hard fight because the pro-copyright people have made lots of money off prolonging copyright protection.
We'll get quantum decryption before then?
And then we'll be back to One-Time-Pads for unbreakable encryption (transferred in couriers heads like Johnny Mnemonic?)
Reminds of the time when I had to introduce the concept of 'iteration' instead of 5 pages of X1=0; X2=0; X3=0...
There's some people who must enjoy looking at this stuff (otherwise it wouldn't get posted), so why not just hire them?
Psychopaths need jobs too you know.
Okay, you have 2million kids now using e-cigs.
How does that compare to before e-cigs were available? How many kids were cig smokers in the past?
Probably never. They want to be able to blame people for them dying.
It's the ultimate 'blame the victim'. "That person died because they did something wrong."
Eventually it'll be 'They inhaled too much oxygen in their lives. Oxygen is a known factor in premature death.'
Or a prison camp for the mutants and vigilantes who break the Sokovia Accords.
It's almost as if you make it easy to buy/use something legally, people will be more likely to use it.
That said, every few years, I check to see if I can buy my favourite J/KPop tunes...nope, they don't want to sell them to me. I guess I'll keep ripping them from Youtube then.
It's like the Channel Tunnel. It'll bankrupt lots of companies who try to do it, but eventually it'll get there.
Sometimes the job _does_ exist. But only to those people who have double the expertise and will accept half the pay
So they just keep the ad out in the hopes they catch the unicorn.
It's even worse when it's near, but not near enough to see or touch.
Noisy sex is fun when both you and your flatmates are getting it on like dueling saxes.
Not so much when it's just them, and you are trying to drown it out with the headphones on.
Not _currently_ under copyright.
If a large number of people followed your advice, they soon would be. They've done retrospective copyright before and they'll probably do it again.
Hell, they'd like to copyright the Bible, but it would be a huge catfight as to who owns it.
Have the system send nudes directly to the police.
If they aren't over 18, they can be charged with creating child porn and no one wants to risk that.
If they send someone elses nudes then they can be charged with revenge porn or copyright infringement and again, no one wants to risk that.
Hey, if FB wants peoples nudes, why not join the club?!