Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by imwjl, Mar 5, 2021.
I'm guessing military drones don't have the Three Laws of Robotics coded into their ROM.
Or bad guys.
Or tech corporations like Amazon or Google.
Or mischievious teenage geniuses (somewhere on the web is a video of a drone with a handgun mounted on it that sucessfully flew to a preprogrammed GPS coordinate, fired at a target, and flew home. Youtube took it down quickly.).
The three laws are not laws at all. They're just sweet sentiments best expressed in science fiction. Sort of like the idea of a "peace keeping force." Science has never mastered restraint, or shown a distaste for sin.
Yep, that's the problem. If the Three Laws were hardcoded into robot operating systems all would be well, but that's not going to happen in reality.
Reality - Robot Law
A robot must obey orders from it's master.
Some robots are a bit on the crude and crusty side. It was just bound to happen.
Until it doesn't.
Then it needs a 12-gauge adjustment.
Here's a pic of my lunch box:
The buckshot-proof drone gives a cold robotic laugh,and does a victory backflip as it terminates with extreme prejudice.
I don't trust any robots, they're all machines.
We hear lots of big talk about freedom, but we see so much predictions of how we are about to lose our freedom coming from a small corner of business that sells dangerous recreation products.
Freedom for the users of dangerous fun stuff is great, but the vocal fear mongering insisting that we're going to lose our right to have fun is well funded. While the rights of folks crossing the street or going to school lacks big funding to promote sloganist warnings that the man is coming for our fun.
Car companies seem fine with regulating vehicle movement though, they are not warning us that next they will take away our right to enjoy our joy rides.
I have no opinion on the tech, my preference is generally no ABS or automatic transmission but computer controlled engines are a legit superior tech.
Idiots driving and using their phones or eating fried chicken etc, their right to endanger families while multi task driving is just not really impressively inalienable.
And I'm not worrying that auto safety tech is going after my right to take a drive.
People seem to get dumber and dumber, less and less aware of the realities of the physical world, or I'm really not sure what the lack of awareness is exactly but the disconnect and irresponsibility seems significant.
Just today an oncoming 5000lb pickup swerved out of my lane, driver with a phone in front of their face.
Siri will give you the wrong answer, because the media has subverted the original definition of the term. Drone used to be a synonym for automaton and robot. When unmanned military aircraft were developed, the term drone was assigned because the technology is extremely high tech; it was a simple way to sensationalize the concept. Webster has adopted it because it's now in common usage.
Even cheap little quadcopters you can buy at the mall are called drones--especially those with a camera mounted. These can be programmed to automatically fly specific routes based on GPS and gyro stabilization, but they are most often controlled my a human with a remote joystick transmitter.
Funny how RC aircraft had been around for a good 50 years or so (many had cameras) and nobody called those drones.
Unmanned military aircraft that are weaponized such as the RQ-1 Predator and RQ-9 Reaper are not autonomous. They are not unpiloted. They're unmanned. To many people, this is the same thing...but there is quite a difference between the two terms.
Each aircraft is launched and recovered by a 20-person team and always controlled in flight by a crew of two. The pilot in command drives the plane according to the flight plan, monitors flight systems and the health of the plane, and is the one with the trigger. The sensor operator works the camera and other sensor systems on the aircraft to detect, identify, and track targets according to the flight plan. There are at least five imagery analysts watching the aircraft's sensor feeds to provide the QC necessary to ensure targets are properly identified and the use of weapons is correct. The pilot, sensor operator, and analysts are all on the same radio channel when the mission is underway. Everything is tightly controlled; it's no different than a two-man crew aboard an EA-6B or F-14 Tomcat--except there are many more humans involved in operating the aircraft.
I was in the business for more than 15 years.
It really seems like most scenarios fighting progress and innovation are aiding someone else's lead. Just how most of us survive - trade and commerce - drives innovation and progress.
I have no idea where car companies regulating movement comes from beyond the micro scale movements to avoid accidents. Other changes they're up to look like good solutions for the lots of people who live where population density is higher or work commutes cause more problems.
Sure the car companies promote new and next generation ideas but I recall news from the car companies also saying they did innovations and improvements with petrol engines and conventional vehicles for the long time and large amount of earth not in more densely populated and developed areas.
GM for example has two new BEVs coming also shipping with their well regarded AI - perfect for where our main home is. They also made significant investments to improve ICE and larger vehicles - especially light truck type - perfect for where our second home is where the whole county has about as many people as the suburb we live in.
Because of the stupidity of others we all suffer?
I often ask myself "Why aren't penalties for using a phone while driving more severe" after all studies have shown it's more dangerous than drunk driving.
Where exactly these commonly stated worries "come from" was my point.
I think the common dialogue is so indoctrinated into fear mongering warnings of impending dystopian future outcomes that it's hard to have a sensible conversation about basic tech advancements and how they might fit into society.
To a large degree, our chosen opinions are often pre worded or conceptualized in board rooms, like laundry soap ad copy, to make basic stuff sound really compelling.
If "they" put tech in cars that prevents us from running over children when driving distracted, soon "they" will come to our homes and throw us into chains!!!!
Well your second line seems to negate your first line?
You suggested we will "give up our freedom" if we are prevented from running people down when distracted driving, but then suggest penalties should be more severe for distracted driving?
Are you saying it's wrong to have a car brake automatically when we are texting and don't notice the folks in the crosswalk, but a cop sees us using our phone while driving we should go to jail?
To me, if the cameras at intersections taking pics of distracted drivers, leads to raids during dinner where we are dragged off to jail in handcuffs, that's more of the loss of freedom you warn of.
I'm not understanding how you feel we will suffer if our cars brake when they detect a human body right in front of the vehicle?
Again, there are groups warning that our freedom is in grave danger.
Youtube and FB promote many false scenarios, and rile up susceptible groups into believing some odd ideas.
What I see is that most of the suffering is in the minds of those who suffer from dystopian fantasy anxiety.
It's literally administered by traceable chains of custody, created push fear, and afflicting people who are prone to believe there are secret agents snooping in the proverbial bushes, plotting to hurt and harm us.
Where is the suffering you warn of?
I'm not seeing it coming from regulation tech that prevents harm.
I do see it from unregulated freedom to drive drunk after leaving the bar, or freedom to text while driving etc, resulting in suffering of innocent victims hit by cars.
It's a curious debate in society today, where a small group has big fears that they are going to be horribly oppressed, any minute now.
I'm not sure if that's where you're coming from though?
Maybe you're idea is that we will "suffer" if safety tech glitches start killing pedestrians?
That has also been suggested, that hackers will start murdering pedestrians for fun, if we get tech that brakes for pedestrians.
Not at all, and I'm done talking to you when you start start playing Reductio ad absurdum.
Sorry for misunderstanding, I keep reading warnings similar to your suggestion we may soon be giving up our freedom, and none who say that seem to be willing to explain exactly how that will work?
You comments about not being allowed to drive into neighborhoods we don't belong in, or not being allowed to drive off the highway to get to a nice scenic nature spot, those ideas or warnings make me curious.
Because no good explanations of how that will happen have made it to me, I find those ideas seem a bit absurd.
Now and then I offer a warning to others when I see a mishap or bad outcome headed their way, but I try to explain it in ways they can consider and make their own choice around.
Warnings that include no clear explanation of how we would get from point A to point B make me wonder why such stern warnings lack such details?
I think sort of like an engineer, I like to know how stuff works.
Your post # 114 is confusing, to me at least, in terms of any suffering these braking systems impose on us, compared to your idea that answering the phone while driving is comparable to drunk driving, and should carry similar penalties?
Again, trying to understand how this would work?
Freedom requires eternal vigilance because it can go away in a single generation. I'm glad there are people watching and worrying.
"freedom's just a nother word..."