Dubstepforum.com

if _human (doing stupid shit)
{
judgement (of_stupid_shit);
kill _human;
}
else
_human = live;
;

robotsll be the next step in evolution so yes they should and hopefully will. pathetic fleshy empathic pussyoles wiith a short shelf life swap dem for the robots whizzing pasts new systems infinitely seeing everything a fleshtard can not.

butter man wrote:robotsll be the next step in evolution so yes they should and hopefully will. pathetic fleshy empathic pussyoles wiith a short shelf life swap dem for the robots whizzing pasts new systems infinitely seeing everything a fleshtard can not.

robots are not the next step in evolution. we might create robots, but we won't evolve into them.

u forget about interracial m8

deadly habit wrote:if _human (doing stupid shit)
{
judgement (of_stupid_shit);
kill _human;
}
else
_human = live;
;

sd5 wrote:but whether robots should be programmed to respond to if statements by killing people.

And the answer to that is individual accountability. You're asking a question, but then you're just removing the answer? Then why ask it?

AI/programming is a middleman in the whole situation, that doesn't really affect the outcome. The real question is "can a person kill someone else?" It doesn't matter if they're using a gun to do it, a knife, their bare hands, or a robot. First you gotta define AI. Is this AI conscious the way humans experience consciousness? Then it should be subject to the same moral code of humans. If it's a programmed tool, then it depends on who does the killing and what for (self defense? was their life in danger?)

yes.

dubunked wrote:

butter man wrote:robotsll be the next step in evolution so yes they should and hopefully will. pathetic fleshy empathic pussyoles wiith a short shelf life swap dem for the robots whizzing pasts new systems infinitely seeing everything a fleshtard can not.

robots are not the next step in evolution. we might create robots, but we won't evolve into them.

the evolution of life: swapping flesh for steel. humans cant go much further, we create life that can.

lloydnoise wrote:AI and robots are just an extension of human will, they do nothing they weren't designed to do by a human at some point. A complicated algorithm for identifying and killing a specific person was still built by a person, and that person has the ultimate responsibility for the capacity/limitations of their system.

I agree entirely.

wrote:Don't relinquish human accountability because technology makes the human element almost invisible.

Not my intention. See below.

gene wrote:

ds5 wrote:but whether robots should be programmed to respond to if statements by killing people.

And the answer to that is individual accountability. You're asking a question, but then you're just removing the answer? Then why ask it?

I see what you're saying but that's not quite the ethical question I'm posing.

wrote:AI/programming is a middleman in the whole situation, that doesn't really affect the outcome.

this is more the nub: allowing programming to run its course
which implies every situation has been forseen & no human reflection upon a new nuance is required,
no reference back to an actual human for a final decision

for example:
the helicopter incident in Afghanistan where they killed journalists on the ground.
The crew fucked up & are accountable.
What if the helicopter had been programmed to fire on what it deemed to be suspects?
Can't you imagine the different reaction?
Sure, the programming needs to be improved but we're doing our best.
Wouldn't best practice require that a human be consulted before the robot kills?
Of course this would not exclude all errors of judgement or mistakes.
But it would make them less likely.

wrote: The real question is "can a person kill someone else?" It doesn't matter if they're using a gun to do it, a knife, their bare hands, or a robot. First you gotta define AI. Is this AI conscious the way humans experience consciousness? Then it should be subject to the same moral code of humans. If it's a programmed tool, then it depends on who does the killing and what for (self defense? was their life in danger?)

Not dismissing your point Gene.
Humans are morally responsible for what they design & activate.

This topic has probably confirmed for me that when a robot has the capacity to kill a person there should be a safeguard.
And that safeguard should be referral to a realtime human controller.

I can understand computer-directed weapons but with human control, like the miniguns on ships that shoot down missiles.

More energy needs to be put in to stopping war though; every time killing people gets easier, the people who will make the most qre more eager to start something.

funnily enough unmanned drones kill more civilians than manned ones.

Robots are brostep

deadly habit wrote:funnily enough unmanned drones kill more civilians than manned ones.

stats?

Magneto always made me worry about the uprising of Robots.
Apocalypse now and all that.

test recordings wrote:

deadly habit wrote:funnily enough unmanned drones kill more civilians than manned ones.

stats?

heard some dodgy stuff about this 'statistic.' That it is possible put out by certain weapons manufacturers etc. because they dont like drones (drones are relatively cheap to make, not needing a mass of safety equipment and that.), would much rather make a really expensive and shitty F35 with loads of excess stuff that doesnt work properly (requiring a bailout to fix) and then sell them for big money.

edit: something to keep in mind when thinking about the anti-drone arguments. getting rid of drones isnt gonna get rid of bombs.

editedit: if they can build autonomous killing robots, and if they need them, they will - morality doesnt enter into it, war is all about being as unfair as possible (it's how you win/dont die). they'll probably be used for recon first (like most technology), spotting 'enemy combatants/pashtun goatherds,' til the next existential threat DEMANDS we arm our brave heroic robots, nevr forget.

danrev wrote:
editedit: if they can build autonomous killing robots, and if they need them, they will - morality doesnt enter into it, war is all about being as unfair as possible (it's how you win/dont die). they'll probably be used for recon first (like most technology), spotting 'enemy combatants/pashtun goatherds,' til the next existential threat DEMANDS we arm our brave heroic robots, nevr forget.

Exactly, they'll normalise their deployment then create a threat

dubunked wrote:

butter man wrote:robotsll be the next step in evolution so yes they should and hopefully will. pathetic fleshy empathic pussyoles wiith a short shelf life swap dem for the robots whizzing pasts new systems infinitely seeing everything a fleshtard can not.

robots are not the next step in evolution. we might create robots, but we won't evolve into them.

ya don't say?

SCope13 wrote:

dubunked wrote:

butter man wrote:robotsll be the next step in evolution so yes they should and hopefully will. pathetic fleshy empathic pussyoles wiith a short shelf life swap dem for the robots whizzing pasts new systems infinitely seeing everything a fleshtard can not.

robots are not the next step in evolution. we might create robots, but we won't evolve into them.

ya don't say?

actually I do say.

destroid are evolution




the evolution of music