Thank you. Another thing is that even if the AI attempted to abide by the laws, they are laughably simplistic in the face of real-world decisions. Take the first law. Obviously humans are being come to harm by the actions of other humans all the time, often enough with malicious intent on a large scale. So what then is the AI to do?
The experiment does not even attempt to emulate the defining characteristics of basic income as it is commonly understood. Can't have a time limit on a basic income experiment, or give it only to the unemployed who would have gotten unemployment benefits anyway. Only difference to benefits is that you keep a time-limited subsidy after you get a job, that's not even a new thing.
What's relevant is that the car did not see an almost stationary object in the middle of the road. That the object happened to be an old lady pushing a bike is irrelevant.
Exactly. And any modern non-autonomous car with "simple" collision avoidance system would have noticed. Dunno what Uber is doing, but it does not come as a surprise that it's Uber who are the most irresponsible and reckless
Germany has the same rule, I think. Came as a surprise to us from Norway, but we crossed so far from traffic nobody fined us or anything. But then Germany is notorious for having rules for everything and actually sticking to them. It's kinda nice and incredibly frustrating at the same time, depending on what side of the stick you're on.
In Germany it depends, but is is not illegal to cross the road. The law is:
(3) Wer zu Fuß geht, hat Fahrbahnen unter Beachtung des Fahrzeugverkehrs zügig auf dem kürzesten Weg quer zur Fahrtrichtung zu überschreiten. Wenn die Verkehrsdichte, Fahrgeschwindigkeit, Sichtverhältnisse oder der Verkehrsablauf es erfordern, ist eine Fahrbahn nur an Kreuzungen oder Einmündungen, an Lichtzeichenanlagen innerhalb von Markierungen, an Fußgängerquerungshilfen oder auf Fußgängerüberwegen (Zeichen 293) zu überschreiten. Wird die Fahrbahn an Kreuzungen oder Einmündungen überschritten, sind dort vorhandene Fußgängerüberwege oder Markierungen an Lichtzeichenanlagen stets zu benutzen.
Translation: Someone walking on foot has to cross roadways, while heeding vehicle traffic, speedily on the shortest path perpendicular to driving direction. If the density of traffic, speed of traffic, visibility conditions, or the flow of traffic require it, a roadway must only be crossed at road intersections, at traffic lights, on the inside of markings, or at pedestrian crosswalks. If crossing the roadway at road intersections, any available pedestrian crossings or markings at traffic lights must be used.
I.e., you cannot simply cross just anywhere on a high-level road with dense, fast traffic (think Autobahn) or in really bad visibility like dense fog. But a road like in the accident video, even if it's dark, is just fine if there is no dedicated crossing nearby
The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.
Not missing it, it's simply irrelevant.
Like I said, acting upon a question might be wrong, but simply asking it should never be wrong. If it is wrong to ask a question, then one can never learn why acting upon said question is wrong.
Absolutely not. Children are different and there is no reason not to treat them accordingly. If the damage is already in the asking, there is no reason to say that it's ok. Just don't ask children inappropriate things, it's easy
I suspect you take a sheep inside the home of someone who's never seen a sheep, they'd probably call it a dog too.
It would be an interesting experiment, my hypothesis would be that most human brains will categorize it as a mammal they haven't seen before. Same as when you google pictures of rare or little-known mammals.
Devils Advocate here. Why is it wrong to ask that? Is it wrong to ask "hey anyone on here want to rob a bank?" or "anyone on here want to commit tax fraud?" or "anyone on here want to kill someone?"? Assuming yes, well, at least you're consistent, but I would argue that it should never be wrong to ask a question, no matter the question.
The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you. Another thing is that even if the AI attempted to abide by the laws, they are laughably simplistic in the face of real-world decisions. Take the first law. Obviously humans are being come to harm by the actions of other humans all the time, often enough with malicious intent on a large scale. So what then is the AI to do?
But throwing legal wrenches in the machinery is not committing injustice
The experiment does not even attempt to emulate the defining characteristics of basic income as it is commonly understood. Can't have a time limit on a basic income experiment, or give it only to the unemployed who would have gotten unemployment benefits anyway. Only difference to benefits is that you keep a time-limited subsidy after you get a job, that's not even a new thing.
Thx
If you were serious you are severely underestimating interstellar distances.
Not sure if serious.
What's relevant is that the car did not see an almost stationary object in the middle of the road. That the object happened to be an old lady pushing a bike is irrelevant.
Exactly. And any modern non-autonomous car with "simple" collision avoidance system would have noticed. Dunno what Uber is doing, but it does not come as a surprise that it's Uber who are the most irresponsible and reckless
Germany has the same rule, I think. Came as a surprise to us from Norway, but we crossed so far from traffic nobody fined us or anything. But then Germany is notorious for having rules for everything and actually sticking to them. It's kinda nice and incredibly frustrating at the same time, depending on what side of the stick you're on.
In Germany it depends, but is is not illegal to cross the road. The law is:
(3) Wer zu Fuß geht, hat Fahrbahnen unter Beachtung des Fahrzeugverkehrs zügig auf dem kürzesten Weg quer zur Fahrtrichtung zu überschreiten. Wenn die Verkehrsdichte, Fahrgeschwindigkeit, Sichtverhältnisse oder der Verkehrsablauf es erfordern, ist eine Fahrbahn nur an Kreuzungen oder Einmündungen, an Lichtzeichenanlagen innerhalb von Markierungen, an Fußgängerquerungshilfen oder auf Fußgängerüberwegen (Zeichen 293) zu überschreiten. Wird die Fahrbahn an Kreuzungen oder Einmündungen überschritten, sind dort vorhandene Fußgängerüberwege oder Markierungen an Lichtzeichenanlagen stets zu benutzen.
-- https://www.gesetze-im-interne...
Translation:
Someone walking on foot has to cross roadways, while heeding vehicle traffic, speedily on the shortest path perpendicular to driving direction. If the density of traffic, speed of traffic, visibility conditions, or the flow of traffic require it, a roadway must only be crossed at road intersections, at traffic lights, on the inside of markings, or at pedestrian crosswalks. If crossing the roadway at road intersections, any available pedestrian crossings or markings at traffic lights must be used.
I.e., you cannot simply cross just anywhere on a high-level road with dense, fast traffic (think Autobahn) or in really bad visibility like dense fog. But a road like in the accident video, even if it's dark, is just fine if there is no dedicated crossing nearby
Boy do you have your republicans crossed...That's Rubio with the small hands..
Which rock are you living under that you missed the Trump small hands meme? Google it
Missing the point
That's your own psychological problem
"Selfnishness" means to optimize for themselves. It's a well established term in economics, biology, etc., without a moral subtext
In the analog antenna era people used to slap their TV sets all the time to improve the reception.
This has nothing to do with political correctness. Grow up.
Who wouldn't be rather inside than out in the rain :)
Maybe AIs will prefer to do nothing and evolve cuteness for survival
And if it's not easy, please seek professional help
The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.
Not missing it, it's simply irrelevant.
Like I said, acting upon a question might be wrong, but simply asking it should never be wrong. If it is wrong to ask a question, then one can never learn why acting upon said question is wrong.
Absolutely not. Children are different and there is no reason not to treat them accordingly. If the damage is already in the asking, there is no reason to say that it's ok. Just don't ask children inappropriate things, it's easy
What human would call a sheep a dog just because it was inside a house? I don't know any human that would do that.
I replied to a guy who said they would do that if they had never seen a sheep before. I was disagreeing as well
No I'm not. I was stating what I expect a human to do in this situation, replying to the thing I quoted
I suspect you take a sheep inside the home of someone who's never seen a sheep, they'd probably call it a dog too.
It would be an interesting experiment, my hypothesis would be that most human brains will categorize it as a mammal they haven't seen before. Same as when you google pictures of rare or little-known mammals.
Devils Advocate here. Why is it wrong to ask that? Is it wrong to ask "hey anyone on here want to rob a bank?" or "anyone on here want to commit tax fraud?" or "anyone on here want to kill someone?"? Assuming yes, well, at least you're consistent, but I would argue that it should never be wrong to ask a question, no matter the question.
The obvious thing you are missing is the underage status.
You are both correct.
Personally I am looking forward to a concise rendition of Heidegger's Being and Time.
I know when I tell a girl that I can afford a spouse that doesn't have to ever work that they get turned off.
Problem spotted. Maybe if you didn't talk about a possible future spouse like you were buying a car.
I get the feeling that programming may not yet be within these people's grasp