It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: JD163
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN
These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.
Sensors and inter vehicle communication, link up to a local traffic network, computers that can calculate billions of factors in micro seconds and respond faster then then your brain neurons firing off,...of course this is just a hypothetical future situation....the attention span of humans vary,get distracted, mental tiredness .....in such a situation,.....which would you prefer?
originally posted by: JD163
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.
Its a hypothetical situation, in an ideal world, we all would have perfect knowledge, but in the real world, that is a luxury, ...time to think and analyse each situation and consider the outcome for each possibility,....a real world example would be a child falling on to the tracks of an on coming train,...instant reaction is required
Taking no action is of course also a valid choice,...but if you were to pick that choice, what you are saying is I rather not be responsible for the death of 1, then to save the lives of 5,....yes, its no fault of yours,....but would you ever question yourself later,...would the thought cross your mind that you could have save the lives of 5?.........lets say instead of 5, its 50 lives at stake,....would you have done the same? not be guilty of 1 death,....and let 50 perish?
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: JD163
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.
Its a hypothetical situation, in an ideal world, we all would have perfect knowledge, but in the real world, that is a luxury, ...time to think and analyse each situation and consider the outcome for each possibility,....a real world example would be a child falling on to the tracks of an on coming train,...instant reaction is required
Taking no action is of course also a valid choice,...but if you were to pick that choice, what you are saying is I rather not be responsible for the death of 1, then to save the lives of 5,....yes, its no fault of yours,....but would you ever question yourself later,...would the thought cross your mind that you could have save the lives of 5?.........lets say instead of 5, its 50 lives at stake,....would you have done the same? not be guilty of 1 death,....and let 50 perish?
A child on the tracks is a far more likely scenario, yes. What we would do would be, to some extent, determined by what we could do. Able to maybe move them, even if close, I think, I hope, most of us would try. I am protective when it comes to kids! Risking myself to save one, no contest! Hypotheticals such as the one presented, though, aren't realistic, and are, as far as I am concerned, worse than a waste of time. They push people to make choices they would never have to make, and set up some sort of "moral" ambiguity, and that undermines sensible morals, as far as I am concerned. The ideas behind a lot of the "utilitarian" ethics people re seriously disturbing, too! Some take things to extremes, and would happily kill off anyone they deemed to be to big of a "waste of resources". That sort of dilemma also gives us some of the absolute worst of movies ever made.
originally posted by: Plutron
originally posted by: JD163
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN
These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.
Sensors and inter vehicle communication, link up to a local traffic network, computers that can calculate billions of factors in micro seconds and respond faster then then your brain neurons firing off,...of course this is just a hypothetical future situation....the attention span of humans vary,get distracted, mental tiredness .....in such a situation,.....which would you prefer?
Not that far in the future. I read almost every week in industry magazines about some new intra-vehical standard that is being developed or a modification of the Car-Area-Network protocol, using some version of 802.xx wireless layer. The electronics industry and the automobile manufacturing conglomerates see vehical electronics as a huge new juicy market place. Auto-driving cars are just the tip of the future electronics applications that are being planned, right now. Daily.
Is it good? Seems all the corporations and the feds in EVERY country want to know what their public does, where they go, how fast they get there (insurance statistical profiling), what they buy, how much they paid for something, what they look at, how long they look at something, what foods are eaten, how many times they flush a toilet, how many phone calls, to who, when, where....it goes on and on. Its the Mark of the Beast, soul-less thinking for us, spying on us, regulating when and how we receive our money, how much the guv takes, how much to charge for fuels...computers never forget (unless it happens to be the IRS computers or Hilary Clinton's computers). Government + InterNet (aka 'computers') = Mark of the Beast.
Is it good?
Who is protecting our digital civil-liberties? It aint the guv.
plutron
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: JD163
What do you choose when you are faced with no good choice?
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: JD163
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.
Its a hypothetical situation, in an ideal world, we all would have perfect knowledge, but in the real world, that is a luxury, ...time to think and analyse each situation and consider the outcome for each possibility,....a real world example would be a child falling on to the tracks of an on coming train,...instant reaction is required
Taking no action is of course also a valid choice,...but if you were to pick that choice, what you are saying is I rather not be responsible for the death of 1, then to save the lives of 5,....yes, its no fault of yours,....but would you ever question yourself later,...would the thought cross your mind that you could have save the lives of 5?.........lets say instead of 5, its 50 lives at stake,....would you have done the same? not be guilty of 1 death,....and let 50 perish?
A child on the tracks is a far more likely scenario, yes. What we would do would be, to some extent, determined by what we could do. Able to maybe move them, even if close, I think, I hope, most of us would try. I am protective when it comes to kids! Risking myself to save one, no contest! Hypotheticals such as the one presented, though, aren't realistic, and are, as far as I am concerned, worse than a waste of time. They push people to make choices they would never have to make, and set up some sort of "moral" ambiguity, and that undermines sensible morals, as far as I am concerned. The ideas behind a lot of the "utilitarian" ethics people re seriously disturbing, too! Some take things to extremes, and would happily kill off anyone they deemed to be to big of a "waste of resources". That sort of dilemma also gives us some of the absolute worst of movies ever made.
originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: JD163
What do you choose when you are faced with no good choice?
The situations they describe are actually the same; in both cases, a person has to choose to kill someone, to save others. Doing nothing is a valid choice, too, because the person being asked to act didn't cause the dilemma, and isn't responsible for the deaths of the five, but would be asked to be responsible for the death of the one. Plus, who are the five? Who is the one? Unrealistic situation, really.
I don't think the choices were meant to be realistic. I believe they were meant to make you think of possible scenarios were a robotic car would be left to make the choices.
The video discussed that computer controlled cars may need to be programmed to make life or death decisions, the dilemma becomes more complex when the decision have moral complications. Programming a computer to make choices that may result is death, when we don't have an answer for how to make that choice is the problem.
originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
DP. This one was creepy. No lag. No blink. No one posting at the same time. No statement that it was being formatted for posting. Just boom and there it was. Two of them.
originally posted by: LuXTeN
Would you trust your life to a handful of strangers? A hunk of metal that drives itself? Is it worth it or do you live your life in the fast lane tempting fate?
All valid questions we must consider here. Would cars like these be used for unbecoming means to further population control? No doubt in my mind that they would.
Trust is a sacred thing, so do you think lack of control over your well being, is it worth the risk of possible injury or death?
uk.businessinsider.com...
Autonomous vehicles are already making profound choices about whose lives matter, according to experts, so we might want to pay attention.
"On one hand, the algorithms that control the car may have an explicit set of rules to make moral tradeoffs," Rahwan wrote. "On the other hand, the decision made by a car in the case of unavoidable harm may emerge from the interaction of various software components, none of which has explicit programming to handle moral tradeoffs."
Tesla already has full self-driving hardware on all cars.
How are AV companies actually handling these ethical issues? In many cases, they’re trying to dodge the question.
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN
These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.
originally posted by: LuXTeN
originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: LuXTeN
These car are a bad idea. I like the idea of KITT as much as the next person, but let's be realistic here! When we drive, we can pick up clues from pedestrians, and anticipate a likely problem, such as them stetting into traffic, from not paying attention, or for whatever reason. A car cannot possibly be programmed to interpret signals we can't even name out loud, and only sense.
Yes i think that's it right there. This type of convenience is more glamour than reality. Now if KITT was real and the guy behind the wheel drove us everywhere i might go for it lol. Other than that though, it's not going to happen, too many programming flaws and inhuman responses.
originally posted by: LuXTeN
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
haha i know right?! Yep the car for sure lol, have you seen that guy lately ugh.