Random Stuff

[UltimateGalvatron]

Do not grieve...soon, they will become one with the container...

That sucks man

[M-bot]

Do not grieve...soon, they will become one with the container...

That sucks man

You REALLY like the '86 movie, don't you?

(Me too lol)

[UltimateGalvatron]

Hehe, yep

[AJ_Prime]

Do not grieve...soon, they will become one with the container...

Haha, nice reference.

[lancalot]

Finally i found out where you buy them hologram display for your figures , i think everyone seen hologram overlay of the dragonball one and the ironman ones...


now i got to save up for one ....

https://3dshk.myshopify.com/

[drifand]

Finally i found out where you buy them hologram display for your figures , i think everyone seen hologram overlay of the dragonball one and the ironman ones...


now i got to save up for one ....

https://3dshk.myshopify.com/

Holy crap on the price.

[Trent]

Finally i found out where you buy them hologram display for your figures , i think everyone seen hologram overlay of the dragonball one and the ironman ones...


now i got to save up for one ....

https://3dshk.myshopify.com/

Awesome. Do it. Buy one.

[lancalot]

Awesome. Do it. Buy one.

lol... you got to buy the vf11b off me first before i could afford it

[GoktimusPrime]

The moral dilemma of robot cars

Here's the thing; robot cars are safer than human operated cars. They are cleaner, more fuel efficient, never get road rage or tired etc. Road injuries and fatalities are likely to be drastically reduced with more robot cars on the road. But what happens when a fatal emergency is about to occur? Should robot cars be programmed to act upon the idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Or otherwise make 'logical' life saving decisions which would mean sacrificing other lives.

This is a question which science fiction has long debated, particularly among science fiction writers, including Isaac Asimov who of course created the 3 Laws of Robotics:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

But of course, there may be situations where the robot cannot save every human around it. What then? The film I, Robot touched upon this question with the flashback scene where Spooner (Smith) is involved in a car crash, and a nearby robot jumps into the water and saves him instead of a young girl, despite Spooner ordering the robot to sacrifice him and save the girl. The robot only calculated likelihood of survival and determined that it only had an 11% chance of success if it attempted to save the girl vs. a much higher chance of success if it tried to save Spooner; and its calculations proved correct as Spooner was saved, but the girl drowned. But if the robot had attempted the save the girl instead, there would've been a higher probability that both parties would have perished, thus violating the First Law of Robotics.

So what do you guys think? Should robot cars be programmed to consider the needs of the many over the needs of the few, even if it means sacrificing its owner/occupants, or should they be programmed to protect their owners/occupants, even if it means sacrificing a greater number of people outside the vehicle?

[Trent]

The moral dilemma of robot cars

Here's the thing; robot cars are safer than human operated cars. They are cleaner, more fuel efficient, never get road rage or tired etc. Road injuries and fatalities are likely to be drastically reduced with more robot cars on the road. But what happens when a fatal emergency is about to occur? Should robot cars be programmed to act upon the idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? Or otherwise make 'logical' life saving decisions which would mean sacrificing other lives.

This is a question which science fiction has long debated, particularly among science fiction writers, including Isaac Asimov who of course created the 3 Laws of Robotics:
1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws

But of course, there may be situations where the robot cannot save every human around it. What then? The film I, Robot touched upon this question with the flashback scene where Spooner (Smith) is involved in a car crash, and a nearby robot jumps into the water and saves him instead of a young girl, despite Spooner ordering the robot to sacrifice him and save the girl. The robot only calculated likelihood of survival and determined that it only had an 11% chance of success if it attempted to save the girl vs. a much higher chance of success if it tried to save Spooner; and its calculations proved correct as Spooner was saved, but the girl drowned. But if the robot had attempted the save the girl instead, there would've been a higher probability that both parties would have perished, thus violating the First Law of Robotics.

So what do you guys think? Should robot cars be programmed to consider the needs of the many over the needs of the few, even if it means sacrificing its owner/occupants, or should they be programmed to protect their owners/occupants, even if it means sacrificing a greater number of people outside the vehicle?

it's a poor question. Who are the few? Who are the many? Are you referring to the occupant/s of the vehicle as the few? What if they are the many? What if both parties are equal in number?

It's too complicated a thing to program. The car, just like the autopilot on a commercial airliner, should be programmed to protect the occupants. It would naturally do so by obeying the road rules and scanning for hazards to avoid safely.

I can't say I'd be at ease with a car that was programmed to, in the event that 2 people (unintentionally) disobey the road rules and step out in front of me, potentially sacrifice me to save those 2 people. What if to avoid those 2 people the car made a decision to plow into the lounge room of a house and killed the single occupant? What if it turns out that there was a children's birthday party in that lounge room and your car just made a pre-programmed decision that resulted in the death of 6 children, all to save 2 people that were at fault?


Imagine the law suits.