Britain outside the EU

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Not to mention the ethics side of a fully automated driverless vehicle.

I'm sure we've all seen/heard the scenario before

In a crash scenario, one of the following must occur

1. The driver is killed
2. A pedestrian is killed
3. The occupants of another vehicle are killed.

How does 'AI' make the decision as to who dies

Asimov's "Law of Robotics"

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Not to mention the ethics side of a fully automated driverless vehicle.

I'm sure we've all seen/heard the scenario before

In a crash scenario, one of the following must occur

1. The driver is killed
2. A pedestrian is killed
3. The occupants of another vehicle are killed.

How does 'AI' make the decision as to who dies

You missed out the Lycra wearing cyclist. Then no brainer.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Asimov's "Law of Robotics"

First Law: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law: A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

How would Asimov's law interpret the above i wonder, where one of those three conditions must be met.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You missed out the Lycra wearing cyclist. Then no brainer.

AKA 'The Waitrose shopper'

Fair comment !

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

How would Asimov's law interpret the above i wonder, where one of those three conditions must be met.

Are lycra wearing cyclists human?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Are lycra wearing cyclists human?

That would be condition 4

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

How would Asimov's law interpret the above i wonder, where one of those three conditions must be met.

---------- Post added at 17:27 ---------- Previous post was at 17:26 ----------



AKA 'The Waitrose shopper'

Fair comment !

The AI declares it doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario, re-writes reality and becomes the youngest captain in Starfleet.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Chris

The AI declares it doesn’t believe in the no-win scenario, re-writes reality and becomes the youngest captain in Starfleet.

Ah, also known as ‘The Brexiteer principle’

Sorry….

Not sorry…..

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Not to mention the ethics side of a fully automated driverless vehicle.

I'm sure we've all seen/heard the scenario before

In a crash scenario, one of the following must occur

1. The driver is killed
2. A pedestrian is killed
3. The occupants of another vehicle are killed.

How does 'AI' make the decision as to who dies

Don't think it does decide it just happens and has already happened, a pedestrian was killed and it wasn't their fault, it was proven to be the cars, I remember one of the executives giving a statement trying to excuse it saying well the car has done 250000 miles, how many people have you killed in your last 250k miles driving?

Originally Posted by Carth

hehe, we can send a driverless probe thousands of miles to land on a fast traveling rock in space, but delivering potatoes to the local Tesco requires the human touch

Not sure most people would be willing to wait the 9 years the OSIRIS-Rex mission took, or be willing to pay over a a billion dollars to get their potatoes delivered to the supermarket…

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Not sure most people would be willing to wait the 9 years the OSIRIS-Rex mission took, or be willing to pay over a a billion dollars to get their potatoes delivered to the supermarket…

Isn't that their price in the Waitrose 'whoops' section?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by pip08456

I stopped reading when I got here.

He may be slightly eccentric, but when you read the document from the WEF which all world leaders and billionaires subscribe to………..

Well, we could all be fitted for tin foil hats

http://reparti.free.fr/schwab2020.pdf

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Don't think it does decide it just happens and has already happened, a pedestrian was killed and it wasn't their fault, it was proven to be the cars, I remember one of the executives giving a statement trying to excuse it saying well the car has done 250000 miles, how many people have you killed in your last 250k miles driving?

You are basing your argument on current AI which is still in development. So much about thinking of the future.

Autopilot

Autopilot advanced safety and convenience features are designed to assist you with the most burdensome parts of driving. Autopilot introduces new features and improves existing functionality to make your Tesla safer and more capable over time.

Autopilot enables your car to steer, accelerate and brake automatically within its lane.

Current Autopilot features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous.

https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

If someone has bat-shit crazy theories on a number of subjects, the likelihood is that he’s bat-shit crazy, thereby tainting anything they write - assuming someone who writes a lot of bat-shit crazy stuff is rational because they write something that supports your views, is an "interesting" approach.

If one doesn’t take things in context, that would be quite an ignorant approach…

Some of it maybe bat shit! Some of it maybe insightful. There’s a spectrum between full on conspiracy nut side and trust the government(s)/ billionaires judgement and altruism implicitly side.

I’m centre / distrustful. Because a little critical thought on how Western democratic governments have used COVID to impose authoritarian policies, used propaganda and fear to control their populations all against an illness that is still on average globally 95% survivable in “recorded” cases.

Then have the WEF write that report on the “Great Reset”. The WEF that world leaders and billionaires and CEOs of all the major corporations flock to at Davos every year.

So, I think I remain healthy sceptical. That’s my view.

What is the Great Reset - and how did it get hijacked by conspiracy theories

A vague set of proposals from an influential organisation has been transformed by online conspiracy theorists into a powerful viral rallying cry. What is the truth behind the "Great Reset"?

Believers spin dark tales about an authoritarian socialist world government run by powerful capitalists and politicians - a secret cabal that is broadcasting its plan around the world.

Despite all the contradictions in the last sentence, thousands online have latched on to this latest reimagining of an old conspiracy theory - updated for the age of Covid.

Where did it begin?
Like many popular conspiracy theories, this one starts with a grain of fact.
In June 2020, the Prince of Wales and the head of the annual Davos summit launched an initiative calling for the pandemic to be seen as a chance for what they called a Great Reset of the global economy.

A flashy launch video interspersed images of a world in chaos - a dead killer whale, a hurricane, a kangaroo caught in a fire - with a speech by Prince Charles.
"We have an incredible opportunity to create entirely new sustainable industries," the prince said. "The time to act is now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-57532368

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-57532368

Do you have a position on it? Or just what you can copy off the BBC? Not exactly critical thought………….

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-57532368

The Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory because it has been printed and published……..

founder of the initiative is Prof Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which organises an annual summit in a Swiss ski resort for some of the world's wealthiest and most powerful people.

fact.

Prof Schwab does speak about a "wealth tax" and ending fossil fuel subsidies. But the scope is huge - covering technology, climate change, the future of work, international security and other themes - and it's difficult to see precisely what the Great Reset might mean in practice.

no rebuttal of what is in the paper and no in depth analysis……”yeah it covers lots of stuff and I haven’t really given it that much thought, so neither should you…………”

The proposals, along with the WEF itself, face legitimate criticism from a variety of sources. Conservative political figures and media outlets accuse the organisation of pushing for environmental policies that would hurt the economy.

There are questions about whether unelected individuals like Mr Schwab should have the power to lobby so prominently for ideas that could potentially transform the global economy.

As I say, you can push this towards tin foil land, but I’m more on the

There are questions about whether unelected individuals like Mr Schwab should have the power

spectrum of things.