https://www.wired.com/story/citizens...o-kick-robots/
Let the butt-hurt commence!K5 is an unregulated security camera on wheels, a 21st-century panopticon.
https://www.wired.com/story/citizens...o-kick-robots/
Let the butt-hurt commence!K5 is an unregulated security camera on wheels, a 21st-century panopticon.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Who uses the word panopticon? Ridiculous!
I found this gem entertaining,My immediate thought was, "First, you can't be an ethicist for non-sentient beings. Robots, even AI, have no self-awareness and therefore no ethics. Second, I'm so glad I don't work at MIT. I'd be pissed they are paying someone to be a fucking 'robot ethicist'."Kate Darling, a robot ethicist at MIT
It is true that right now the humanities in academia are grossly over-represented by people who hold certain political leanings. However, I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea to have people with balanced or even opposed, but studied views on human nature, history and philosophy and the arts, to provide some guidance to the types of people who would build skynet just because they could and numbers!.
Last edited by Caballoflaco; 08-31-2019 at 11:25 AM.
Free copy of Discipline & Punish to whoever takes out the robot at my Stop & Shop. It terrifies my youngest. She knows a Panopticon when she sees one, so I won’t be needing the book anymore. The googly eyes they slapped on it aren’t fooling anyone.
ETA: If I used “break” instead of “brake” in my work product I would consider James Clavell novel style ritual disembowelment appropriate.
Last edited by TDA; 08-31-2019 at 03:25 PM.
I haven't actually read any of her work. I have only heard her in a couple interviews, so take the following with a grain of salt.
I believe her work looks at how we do interact with robots, not how we should interact with robots. The points I've heard her make are that people can anthropomorphise robots, which may be helpful in some circumstances, but less than ideal in others. Robot designers should consider robot features and behaviors in light of people's tendency to do this so that we (people) are not unintentionally manipulated into less than ideal behaviors by our robot companions. It may be better termed "ethical robot design" than "robot ethicist".
She may also advocate for ethical treatment of robots for all I know, but I haven't heard or read that yet.
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Knock it down? Hell, I want to plow an F250 with an I-beam front bumper into it at 70mph. "I'll bet you felt that, R2!"
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
I think I share a common human trait, i don't like being spied upon and despise those who do it; be it some alphabet agency, the city of London, GEICO, license plate readers or RedFlex Traffic Systems. Robot surveillance enters that room with a battering ram. It is not "no different that a policeman on patrol." A policeman doesn't commit everything visible and audible to a cloud drive where it can be used by God knows who for God knows what purpose. A policeman can be interacted with, is subject to constraints of law and answerable for overreaches. Robot spies are not. If you want to have one patrol your empty warehouse at night, go for it. If you want one to patrol a shopping venue, that is not acceptable.
And in case someone wants to trot out the "if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" trope, don't bother. That presupposes that my only basis for objection is guilt and that is the poorest of poor arguments.