|
mark merrens wrote: for a nano-second.
Which is like 1 human hour. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
You have programed the bot to make the value judgement that killing 2 people is always better than killing 6.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a value judgment: it's simple arithmetic.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
Not making a choice is a choice as well.
But what if the computer has two options:
-Keep driving ahead and kill x pedestrians. ('do nothing')
-Steer the car into the nearest tree and kill y passengers.
All other possibilities have been evaluated and determined to be physically impossible.
(speed too high, braking distance too short, trees on both sides of the road, etc)
What should the computer do when there is no 'do nothing'?
If the decision of who is killed cannot be made by a computer then it must be escalated to a human.
But to which human?
-The passengers?
-The pedestrians?
Both have a personal interest in the decision so neither can be trusted to be fair.
Maybe the decision should be deferred to an impartial referee?
The computer could warn a government official, present him with all relevant data and then let him make a choice.
Or make the decision through a democratic process.
Ask a large number of responsible citizens what action hould be taken and then take the most popular course of action.
This can be done with modern technology.
Just get a notification on your smartphone with a small animation of each option and then tap the one you favor.
You could even disguise it as a game.
|
|
|
|
|
jeroen1304 wrote: But what if the computer has two options:
-Keep driving ahead and kill x pedestrians. ('do nothing')
-Steer the car into the nearest tree and kill y passengers.
Exactly this was the question in the article ...
Quote: jeroen1304 wrote: All other possibilities have been evaluated and determined to be physically impossible.
(speed too high, braking distance too short, trees on both sides of the road, etc)
jeroen1304 wrote: make the decision through a democratic process.
Ask a large number of responsible citizens what action hould be taken and then take the most popular
course of action.
You cannot take this route, 'cause there is no time for it. The decision has to be made in fractions of the next second.
|
|
|
|
|
I think that's a fascinating scenario to think about, Mark. Consider the robot-in-the-car detects loss of consciousness in the driver somehow and is able to evaluate, given the flow of traffic, that any sudden stop will result in a multi-car pile-up with major loss of life while it is also able to conclude that a sudden sharp turn will take the vehicle off the roadway, but almost certainly kill the occupant.
Medical personnel in war, given an overflow of casualties, make rapid decisions (triage) about who gets treatment priority based on intuitive mortality assessments as well as, of course, whatever medical stats they can get. It would be interesting, to me, to know to what extent the current state-of-the-art triage strategies in war and natural disasters are using computer programs to assist evaluation.
Equally frightening is the idea of a "loyal" robot programmed to put the preservation of its owner above everyone/everything else. I observe that my mind associates the terms "loyal robot" with the typical spin-minions and henchmen/women of ... politicians.
cheers, Bill
“I speak in a poem of the ancient food of heroes: humiliation, unhappiness, discord. Those things are given to us to transform, so that we may make from the miserable circumstances of our lives things that are eternal, or aspire to be so.” Jorge Luis Borges
modified 13-May-14 18:58pm.
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I think that's a fascinating scenario to think about, Mark. Consider the robot-in-the-car detects loss of consciousness in the driver somehow and is able to evaluate, given the flow of traffic, that any sudden stop will result in a multi-car pile-up with major loss of life while it is also able to conclude that a sudden sharp turn will take the vehicle off the roadway, but almost certainly kill the occupant.
Sounds rather unrealistic to me:
1. If the car is robot-controlled to start with, why can't it just go on driving?
2. If stopping your car could potentially cause lifes, what the hell were the other drivers/robot cars thinking?
3. If the other cars are also robot-controlled, why can't they collaborate to ensure a safe mutual slowdown?
4. Can't think of any reason why a sharp turn would be less dangerous to the rest of the traffic
BillWoodruff wrote: Equally frightening is the idea of a "loyal" robot programmed to put the preservation of its owner above everyone/everything else. I observe that my mind associates the terms "loyal robot" with the typical spin-minions and henchmen/women of ... politicians.
That could indeed be a problem, and car makers could in fact promote cars with 'improved survivability' for those who are willing to shell out the cash. Politicians could try to prevent that, but, realistically, by the time they can agree on a workable legislation the market will already be brimming with such discriminating cars that are hard to tone down or remove.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe people die when their "time has come" and not at any other time. That's why people sometimes miraculously survive accidents where all odds seem to be against them. Like someone being disturbed by something on their way to catch a plane that crashes. Such "coincidences" have happened to myself a few times, and I've seen it happen to many others as well.
So from that perspective, no matter what you do to manipulate the outcome of a situation it's pointless - unless it's meant to facilitate the enevitable outcome. It's not magic, just a question of probabilities in the total scheme of energetic processes which stretch beyond the level of plain physical probabilities. Mind over matter, if you like... 
|
|
|
|
|
cosmogon wrote: I believe people die when their "time has come" and not at any other time. That's why people sometimes miraculously survive accidents where all odds seem to be against them. Like someone being disturbed by something on their way to catch a plane that crashes. Such "coincidences" have happened to myself a few times, and I've seen it happen to many others as well.
What a load of drivel.
If it were pre-ordained, then why would the pre-ordinance allow you to buy a plane ticket for a plane that is going to crash in the first place? And the other 237 people who do make the plane - their time was pre-ordained to be at exactly the same time?
This sort of rot comes from the selective memory of humans;
Miss a train because of traffic, and the train is bombed by the IRA (happened to me) - good dinner story.
Miss a train and the train goes to its destination more or less on time - not really a good story at all.
|
|
|
|
|
"If it were pre-ordained, then why would the pre-ordinance allow you to buy a plane ticket for a plane that is going to crash in the first place?"
It could happen that way also - you just need one event to stop you from entering that plane. There are many possible to choose from. The main goal is your survival, whatever means it takes to reach that goal are taken into consideration. It's a dynamic process, just as with all other events in life, it just involves some factors that we usually are not aware of. Some call it "Framework 2" - a dimension of reality where all events are coordinated in order to fulfil all individual desires. It's the opposite of pre-ordained - all events are a consequence on free will and individual choice. On the other hand, a choice does itself create some kind of pre-ordination within it's own context, you can however change the outcome if the probabilities allows for it. I.e. you can still change your mind before you jump from that cliff, however, as soon as you have jumped there's usually no way back (unless it's not your time yet).
"And the other 237 people who do make the plane - their time was pre-ordained to be at exactly the same time?"
What's the difference between 237 people choosing to die together on a plane and 10.000 choosing to gather at a stadion to see a game of football? In both cases it's an individual choice that makes you go there, it's just the purpose that's different. Suicide however is generally a taboo so choosing (usually on a subconsciious level) to die in a plane crash or some other accident is an alternative and "legitimate way" to leave the planet.
And it's not always all passengers at a plane crash that die. Often some survive - and often in ways that you may call miraculous. Why then choose to get on the plane in the first place? Maybe they want that experience for some subconscious reason. Why do people do skydiving? It's dangerous like hell, but it's probably an incredible experience. Surviving death can be a great wake-up call - it can make you feel like being reborn and make you look at life in a completely new way. I know from personal experience... 
|
|
|
|
|
I can't respond here, lest it become Soapbox material.
Suffice to say, "what a load of old codswallop"
|
|
|
|
|
If you truly believe the time of your death is predetermined, would you mind jumping off a cliff? I mean, doing it or not wouldn't make a difference, no? 
|
|
|
|
|
One could always jump off the cliff, and then manage to miss the ground.
Just don't forget to take a towel!
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't that kind of the idea behind the "Final Destination" movies?
|
|
|
|
|
I guess it is, kinda, with the added ridiculousness of them actually cheating their pre-ordained demise - which is obviously complete drivel as, if something is pre-ordained, that means it's going to happen, not that it might happen!
|
|
|
|
|
Many movies (or other story-like media) play with the idea of preordained destinies, but most often it's only a certain aspect that's preordained, and the details are left in the open - leaving room for the heroes to find a 'loophole' that somehow still fulfills the letter of the destiny, but doesn't end in catastrophe.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think so. The universe is random. You die because your body wears out, you get killed or, like my grandpa, in his sleep. Unfortunately, his passengers on the bus weren't that lucky.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
I think if the robotic choose to do so, the car maker won't sell much of these....
Commercial imperative trumps ethic! 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't see why anyone would be upset about this unless they simply reacted without thinking.
Firstly, if bots drove all cars only freak accidents would ever occur.
Secondly, what is the difference between a bot deciding your fate and, well, fate? If you die you'll never know the difference and if you are the survivor you'll be extolling the virtues of robotic vehicles until you do die!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I don't see why anyone would be upset about this unless they simply reacted without thinking.
Well you can be their beta tester. Have fun!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: Surely the lives of the many outweigh the lives of the one?
Not always, and giving a car the power of God, when a car can't feel compassion or anything for that matter is a bad idea. I'd rather have one person saved that actually did something useful for the world than 5 that were freeloaders. Acting like the issue is so cut and dry is a very primitive way of looking at life.
mark merrens wrote: "If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur."
Hey at least we agree on this!
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I think you're being a luddite. I can't see what difference it makes: would you rather leave it to chance?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I think you're being a luddite. I can't see what difference it makes: would you rather leave it to chance?
And I know you're being blind and shortsighted. Might want to go experience more life then try again.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: And I know you're being blind and shortsighted. Might want to go experience more life then try again.
What? Have you not understood any of this? Apparently not!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
