Car must swerve left or right - Swerve to hit three 95-year-olds, or two 5-year-olds?
The car has a retired fighter pilot AI, which quickly performs a partial barrel roll, sliding between both on two wheels. It also automatically shares the video on Youtube.
Nothing immoral about having the car minimize injury to the driver, and fuck everyone else.
There are far more cars carrying other people than me on the roads. As a rational person I'm therefore voting for forcing the self-driving cars to minimize total casualties with no particular preference for or against its passengers.
Also, "and fuck everyone else" is pretty much the definition of immoral.
They probably thought they would survive hitting the tree or building. Hitting people means going to jail.
Or they were simply evading the immediate obstacle and didn't have the time to check whether there was anything there.
OTOH, it I have no control of my car (it being self-driving and all), then I would prefer these outcomes (in order of preference):
We have regulations so the actual ruleset ends up being whatever minimizes damage.
But from a purely technical viewpoint, I wonder if programming the AI with a zillion odd if-then cases based on Philosophy 101 is actually a good idea. It's much harder to tie people to asphalt than to railroad tracks, and complexity can lead to unforseen interactions.
Now decrease the Shannon entropy of that chunk of information, say setting all the vectors to the same value, the average of them all.
Now make your model of the gas reflect those changes. Look: all your molecules are comoving now, the temperature of the gas has dropped dramatically (and its overall velocity increased as necessary to conserve energy), and the thermodynamic entropy has gone down just like the Shannon entropy has.
Um, no. The overall velocity of the gas is the same. Setting all of the velocity vectors to their average conserves momentum but not energy.
Even the billion dollar monopoly has to justify its spending to its shareholders.
The government has to justify its spending to its voters; I think everyone can agree that doesn't stop it from wasting money. You simply aren't going to get enough other shareholders to focus on where a particular 0.001% of the budget has gone.
See, this country was supposed to be all about justice and rights for the individual, not social justice for groups. That's how far it has devolved.
US, as well as the rest of the West and in fact the world, respects individual rights today far more than ever before in history, precisely because it's slowly starting to sink in that social justice for groups is a necessary precondition for individuals having justice or rights.
If I was a hidden autocracy in control of massive oil wealth that controlled the world through a nation I would certainly want to have weapons available that would take orders and not have any loyalty to fellow citizens.
Would you? Because I'd use that massive wealth to provide people with bread and circuses and invest the rest to developing promising new technologies, such as renewables, AI and space travel, so I'd keep my grip on power and have a population base necessary for decent culture and science production.
But I guess living in a fortress somewhere, a practical prisoner since there's nowhere to go since everything else is a slum or has been bombed to ruins by your robot army, and endlessly watching the same movies since nothing new is being made or invented anymore because everyone else is too busy catching rats to eat, is a good plan too.
Not at all the same thing as a real world fight in conditions where the rules of engagement are unclear, the political situation is fraught, and the decision to fire is difficult.
Isn't that even more reason to use AI planes? They are, after all, expendable. You can afford to lose them at whatever rate the factories can manufacture them without having to worry about lost lives or grieving families.
Predicting the demise of humans in yet another field where nobody actually wants that.
You might not want to replace humans with computers even if computers are superior at the task, but if you don't, your fighters have a disadvantage against any enemy who will - and that disadvantage is only going to get larger with time since computers advance faster than humans evolve. The "god of war" makes the decisions, you obey or die. That's the true nature of a world driven by competition: everyone has their choices constrained to what the game wants.
Besides, why would you want to risk your soldiers coming home in caskets if you don't need to?
Countermeasures to things will always exist and the fun part about countermeasures to 'artificial intelligence' is that when you have one the entirety of the enemy's systems are cooked.
So somebody figures out how to outmaneuver a particular tactical AI, and then that AI is updated, possibly automatically. That happens all the time to humans, you know. When was the last time you saw a Greek Phalanx used in a battle?
Maybe, and here's a concept, we can outfit piloted planes with systems to blow this lab environment victor out of the real skies. Or any of many things that can totally screw over what is ultimately going to be a predictable response mechanism since 'artificial intelligence' doesn't really exist.
It is unwise to base you military doctrine on bad philosophy. Random number generators unquestionably do exist, and are used to add randomness to AIs competing against humans all the time. Chess, for example, is dominated by computers nowadays, and dogfighting should be even more suited to them due to the importance of reacting fast, being able to keep track of lots of things at once, and being basically immune to G-forces.
So it will be that the dreams of getting rid of humans will die a cold death in the various parents' basements where these futurists live.
You do realize humans are currently being outcompeted and replaced by machines in pretty much every occupation? That's pretty much the root reason for our economic and social problems.
A lack of self-discipline has nothing to do with using a simulation game as a prop for teaching.
If a teaching prop requires the student to have a certain amount of self-discipline, and the student does not have it, then using that prop with that student is counter-productive.
Had they tied that in with history it might actually have led to an understanding of WHY our world is the way it is.
The problem is, the forces which shaped our present are still around, Capitalism most notably. It's not possible to examine their past without commenting on their nature, which will always step on some entrenched interest's toes.
For example, how do you propose explaining WHY French Revolution happened without mentioning wealth concentration? It started as a bread riot, after all. Explaining the raise of Communism isn't really possible without examining the working conditions and overall economic effects of unregulated Capitalism. Then there's religion, leading to such non-controversional subjects like its overall role in human history, the rise of Christianity, Orthodox/Catholic split, Catholic/Protestant split, rise of Islam, etc.
In other words, school can't teach WHY our world is as it is because people don't agree on what the answer is.
No one really wants to be free. It's much safer to have your betters make decisions for you.
Indeed. Most people follow their society's laws and norms because they're sheeple, unlike you who do your own thing which only happens to be indistinguishable from following regulations someone else made by pure, amazing coincidence.
The idea that a decision once made is locked in for ever and ever just because StillAnonymous happens to like it is absurd.
Decisions that involve other entities tend to have a pretty short window of changing your mind, if they have one at all, and it's rarely free. Do you think all the people and institutions who have to adapt to Britexit will wait "just in case" UK changes its mind, or sacrifice even more resources to cancel those adaptations once committed, all just to accomodate a country which has just demonstrated its lack of commitment and will thus likely pull this again in a few years?
I don't see why we would start pissing the Russians off
Russia hates EU because EU is a potential superpower, and as such can stop Russia from reconquering eastern Europe. The only way EU could avoid pissing the Russians off would be by ceasing to exist. But then we'd all join the NATO and get Russians pissed off for that, or stay on our own and go the way of Ukraine.
A bear doesn't growl at you because you've done it harm, it growls at you because it's a carnivore and you're meat.
I think the only thing the UK can do at this point is disband parliament instantly, have new elections, and have the representatives take a vote on what they want to do with the EU.
Or we could just say "fine", kick the UK out and be done with it. That'll cause short-term damage but the alternative is constantly catering to the demands of a country which doesn't actually want a united Europe.
A far away government is better than local government at dealing with some issues, like defence, standards, disaster relief, etc. And local government is better at some things, like deciding where local roads are build. It's a good thing we can have multiple levels of structure.
So they have a **VOTING** army at their disposal - and that is the power they use to control politicians who want to keep their jobs instead of doing them.
An elected officials job is to represent the people who elected them. That's why they're elected rather than appointed.
I can hardly believe they didn't just print the money to "accidently" miscount the vote.
So are you now going to adjust your beliefs due to predictions based on them contradicting observed events? Or are you going to continue believing whatever you will, evidence be damned?
I'm asking because it more and more seems that most problems plaguing our democracies nowadays can be traced to voters taking the second option too many times.
So to your point: if California wants to be the next socialist utopia with a massive welfare state and useless state-funded high-speed trains, have at it! Likewise, New Hampshire can go full libertarian. It's the whole "laboratories of democracy" concept â" different ideas for different groups of people.
What happens when one of these collapses under the insanity of its economic idealism and the population takes refuge on the other?
The problem with the "laboratories of democracy" concept is that humans aren't lab rats and won't just quietly die in their cage if the experiment fails.
The problem in the Western World is the rolling disaster that's political and economic centralization.
First centralization ended feudalism. Then it ended the cycle of European wars that had been going on ever since Rome fell. Now the growing international economic institutions have made it all but impossible for the Great Powers to fight wars with each other, while political ones are busy closing the ozone hole and trying to deal with global warming. If this continues we'll have peace, prosperity and clean air! Oh the humanity!
Humanity has been building larger and more complex societies ever since the dawn of history. It's not a "rolling disaster", it's what lets me sit in front of my computer in a lazy Sunday morning, sipping coffee and writing this message, rather than trying to eat my maggots quietly so I'll hear when the neighbouring tribe comes to kill me for them. As far as I'm concerned, we need more, not less, centralization, since it enables life to be more than just a constant struggle for survival.
Among other ills, they create massive economic distortions (see the current college education bubble)
Education is an ill now? Perhaps you're referring to the college debt crisis caused by college education in the US being handled by for-profit private institutions rather than the state?
Slashdot Mirror
The car has a retired fighter pilot AI, which quickly performs a partial barrel roll, sliding between both on two wheels. It also automatically shares the video on Youtube.
There are far more cars carrying other people than me on the roads. As a rational person I'm therefore voting for forcing the self-driving cars to minimize total casualties with no particular preference for or against its passengers.
Also, "and fuck everyone else" is pretty much the definition of immoral.
You do realize that's already the case?
Or they were simply evading the immediate obstacle and didn't have the time to check whether there was anything there.
We have regulations so the actual ruleset ends up being whatever minimizes damage.
But from a purely technical viewpoint, I wonder if programming the AI with a zillion odd if-then cases based on Philosophy 101 is actually a good idea. It's much harder to tie people to asphalt than to railroad tracks, and complexity can lead to unforseen interactions.
Um, no. The overall velocity of the gas is the same. Setting all of the velocity vectors to their average conserves momentum but not energy.
Sue FTDI? Whatever issues they have with the company who made your hardware, surely it does not give them the right to destroy your property?
The government has to justify its spending to its voters; I think everyone can agree that doesn't stop it from wasting money. You simply aren't going to get enough other shareholders to focus on where a particular 0.001% of the budget has gone.
US, as well as the rest of the West and in fact the world, respects individual rights today far more than ever before in history, precisely because it's slowly starting to sink in that social justice for groups is a necessary precondition for individuals having justice or rights.
Well... you can ask to be let back in. But you'll probably have to lubricate a piston.
Would you? Because I'd use that massive wealth to provide people with bread and circuses and invest the rest to developing promising new technologies, such as renewables, AI and space travel, so I'd keep my grip on power and have a population base necessary for decent culture and science production.
But I guess living in a fortress somewhere, a practical prisoner since there's nowhere to go since everything else is a slum or has been bombed to ruins by your robot army, and endlessly watching the same movies since nothing new is being made or invented anymore because everyone else is too busy catching rats to eat, is a good plan too.
Isn't that even more reason to use AI planes? They are, after all, expendable. You can afford to lose them at whatever rate the factories can manufacture them without having to worry about lost lives or grieving families.
You might not want to replace humans with computers even if computers are superior at the task, but if you don't, your fighters have a disadvantage against any enemy who will - and that disadvantage is only going to get larger with time since computers advance faster than humans evolve. The "god of war" makes the decisions, you obey or die. That's the true nature of a world driven by competition: everyone has their choices constrained to what the game wants.
Besides, why would you want to risk your soldiers coming home in caskets if you don't need to?
So somebody figures out how to outmaneuver a particular tactical AI, and then that AI is updated, possibly automatically. That happens all the time to humans, you know. When was the last time you saw a Greek Phalanx used in a battle?
It is unwise to base you military doctrine on bad philosophy. Random number generators unquestionably do exist, and are used to add randomness to AIs competing against humans all the time. Chess, for example, is dominated by computers nowadays, and dogfighting should be even more suited to them due to the importance of reacting fast, being able to keep track of lots of things at once, and being basically immune to G-forces.
You do realize humans are currently being outcompeted and replaced by machines in pretty much every occupation? That's pretty much the root reason for our economic and social problems.
What's wrong with Typing of the Dead? "Type faster or the zombies will eat you" is a great motivator :).
If a teaching prop requires the student to have a certain amount of self-discipline, and the student does not have it, then using that prop with that student is counter-productive.
The problem is, the forces which shaped our present are still around, Capitalism most notably. It's not possible to examine their past without commenting on their nature, which will always step on some entrenched interest's toes.
For example, how do you propose explaining WHY French Revolution happened without mentioning wealth concentration? It started as a bread riot, after all. Explaining the raise of Communism isn't really possible without examining the working conditions and overall economic effects of unregulated Capitalism. Then there's religion, leading to such non-controversional subjects like its overall role in human history, the rise of Christianity, Orthodox/Catholic split, Catholic/Protestant split, rise of Islam, etc.
In other words, school can't teach WHY our world is as it is because people don't agree on what the answer is.
Indeed. Most people follow their society's laws and norms because they're sheeple, unlike you who do your own thing which only happens to be indistinguishable from following regulations someone else made by pure, amazing coincidence.
Why should the 2nd largest economy worry about "pissing off" the 5th, especially when that 5th is likely to be heading down and possibly splintering?
Because discontinuing an ex-member's access to the club facilities and events is the same as kneecapping them?
Decisions that involve other entities tend to have a pretty short window of changing your mind, if they have one at all, and it's rarely free. Do you think all the people and institutions who have to adapt to Britexit will wait "just in case" UK changes its mind, or sacrifice even more resources to cancel those adaptations once committed, all just to accomodate a country which has just demonstrated its lack of commitment and will thus likely pull this again in a few years?
Russia hates EU because EU is a potential superpower, and as such can stop Russia from reconquering eastern Europe. The only way EU could avoid pissing the Russians off would be by ceasing to exist. But then we'd all join the NATO and get Russians pissed off for that, or stay on our own and go the way of Ukraine.
A bear doesn't growl at you because you've done it harm, it growls at you because it's a carnivore and you're meat.
Or we could just say "fine", kick the UK out and be done with it. That'll cause short-term damage but the alternative is constantly catering to the demands of a country which doesn't actually want a united Europe.
A far away government is better than local government at dealing with some issues, like defence, standards, disaster relief, etc. And local government is better at some things, like deciding where local roads are build. It's a good thing we can have multiple levels of structure.
An elected officials job is to represent the people who elected them. That's why they're elected rather than appointed.
So are you now going to adjust your beliefs due to predictions based on them contradicting observed events? Or are you going to continue believing whatever you will, evidence be damned?
I'm asking because it more and more seems that most problems plaguing our democracies nowadays can be traced to voters taking the second option too many times.
What happens when one of these collapses under the insanity of its economic idealism and the population takes refuge on the other?
The problem with the "laboratories of democracy" concept is that humans aren't lab rats and won't just quietly die in their cage if the experiment fails.
First centralization ended feudalism. Then it ended the cycle of European wars that had been going on ever since Rome fell. Now the growing international economic institutions have made it all but impossible for the Great Powers to fight wars with each other, while political ones are busy closing the ozone hole and trying to deal with global warming. If this continues we'll have peace, prosperity and clean air! Oh the humanity!
Humanity has been building larger and more complex societies ever since the dawn of history. It's not a "rolling disaster", it's what lets me sit in front of my computer in a lazy Sunday morning, sipping coffee and writing this message, rather than trying to eat my maggots quietly so I'll hear when the neighbouring tribe comes to kill me for them. As far as I'm concerned, we need more, not less, centralization, since it enables life to be more than just a constant struggle for survival.
Education is an ill now? Perhaps you're referring to the college debt crisis caused by college education in the US being handled by for-profit private institutions rather than the state?