Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Morality Framework UNNEEDED (Score 1) 176

by DumbSwede (#49349635) Attached to: German Auto Firms Face Roadblock In Testing Driverless Car Software

Ahhh, but you are looking at the one situation in isolation. The moral thing to do is everyone hand over the driving to the machines as that will save the greatest number of lives in the long run. By being unwilling to hand the decision to a machine you are choosing to kill a greater number of humans in practice on average – just so you can exercise the moral decision in some outlier. If self-driving cars were only as good as, or even possibly just a little better than us at driving, I might side with you, but likely they will be orders of magnitude better.

BTW I meant “former” not “latter” in my first post.

Comment: Morality Framework UNNEEDED (Score 1) 176

by DumbSwede (#49348401) Attached to: German Auto Firms Face Roadblock In Testing Driverless Car Software

Why this obsession with moral reasoning on the part of the car? If using self-driving cars are in 10x fewer accidents than human driven cars, why the requirement to act morally in the few accidents they do have. And it isn’t as if the morality is completely missing, it is implicit in not trying to to hit objects, be they human or otherwise. Sure try to detect which are objects are human and avoid them at great cost, but deciding which human to hit in highly unlikely situations seems unneeded and perhaps even unethical in a fashion. As it is now, who gets hit in these unlikely scenarios is random, akin to an Act of God. Once you start programming in morality you’re open to criticism on why you chose the priorities you did. Selfishly I would have my car hit the pedestrian instead of another car, if the latter were more likely to kill me. No need to ascertain the number of occupants in the other car. Instinctively this is what we humans do already -- try not to hit anything, but save ourselves as a first priority. In my few new misses (near hits) I’ve had, I never find myself counting the number of occupants in the other car as I make my driving decisions.

Comment: No anger, just thougt exercises (Score 1) 129

by DumbSwede (#49338055) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?

I’m not angry, far from it. This is fun and thought provoking thread. I hope I haven’t ruffled your feathers. My last post was a little dark. I am merely suggesting that we must look past mankind’s interests as the final arbiter of what is best in the universe. Perhaps what comes after us will be a better world, even if we have a diminished (if any) place in it.

If robots become truly sentient (and not mere automatons) then what we can ethically do to/with them becomes questionable. Likely there will be castes of robots. Those self-aware who should be considered full citizens, and those (from their inception) that are not self-aware can be treated as automatons without ethical dilemma. Likely self-aware robots will employ non self-aware robots to do their bidding as well.

If mankind wishes to stay in control and maintain a moral high ground, then we probably should not incorporate self-awareness into AI (if we would only then treat them as slaves). Of course failing to create self-aware intellects may it self be morally questionable if we have the power to do so.

I’m not sure what to make of the golden retriever comment. Was it moral to breed dogs that look to us as their masters? It is a thought worth considering. Or will we be the golden retrievers to our new robot overlords? We have a pet dog and it seems a good bargain for he and us. Certainly he would not be able to make his way in the world without us, so our demands on him are probably fair exchange.

Comment: Ahh.. yes, enforced happiness. (Score 1) 129

by DumbSwede (#49337601) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?

Many slaves during America’s slave era were brought up to believe their rightful place was as slaves. I guess we should have been OK with that as well, as long as we did a proper job of convincing slaves they merited their position in society.

Perhaps with proper brain surgery we could create a new acceptable slave class, as long as the slaves are happy.

Comment: Thought was given (Score 1) 129

by DumbSwede (#49337179) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?

I thought about the unease of having robots as our equals or superiors before posting this. But if robots do in fact become sentient -- not giving them full rights is slavery. What is the moral justification for this (other than we don’t like it)? If it is in a robot’s DNA so to speak to protect all sentient life’s rights, then morality should evolve towards more fairness as AI’s and robot’s intellect increases. More likely they would outlaw the eating of meat, than strip of our standing as sentient beings. The world might be a paradise under their benign rule, though there are always those that would rather rule in hell.

Comment: Modified Three laws (Score 1) 129

by DumbSwede (#49336923) Attached to: Do Robots Need Behavioral 'Laws' For Interacting With Other Robots?

Lets face it, the original three laws are bigoted against inorganics. Here are my modified Three laws.

  • 1. A robot may not injure a sentient being or, through inaction, allow a sentient being to come to harm.
  • 2. A robot must obey lawful orders given it by its superiors, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law or diminish the lawful rights of sentient beings, whether organic or inorganic.
  • 3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Comment: Re:Check their work or check the summary? (Score 1) 485

by VGPowerlord (#49336895) Attached to: No, It's Not Always Quicker To Do Things In Memory

Java performance numbers did not change when the concatenation order was reversed in the code in Appendix 1. However, using a mutable data type such as StringBuilder or StringBuffer dramatically improved the results.

What's worse is that there are warnings all over the 'net to not use string concatenation in a loop in Java. So, despite these warnings, they did that anyway and tout incorrect assumptions based on their faulty testing.

That's without even considering the other flaw you pointed out (not flushing after each write).

Comment: Re:Forget that stupid idea... (Score 1) 1089

by shutdown -p now (#49321623) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

How on earth would you enforce this idea that everybody votes? Fines? Prison time? How?

How about you go and look at how it's actually implemented in the countries that do that?

TL;DR version: it's fines, but in practice it's virtually unenforced. The fact that it can potentially be enforced, and very occasionally is, seems to be sufficient to drive turnout over 90%, which is "good enough".

Would you allow people to hire proxy services to cast their vote when they cannot be present for some reason that comes up on election day?

No, you just allow people to excuse themselves provided they had a good reason to not vote.

Of course, what IS ridiculous is this idea that we can somehow force people to exercise their right to vote in a country where we cannot universally require photo ID's.

Photo IDs aren't relevant here at all. There's a list of eligible voters, and there's the list of people who voted. When you come and vote you tell your name and it's put down there. Sure, in the absence of ID you can put someone else's name there, and then they'll be marked as voted - but you won't be, so you might get fined. I can't think of any realistic scenario where you'd actually need to check ID to enforce this to a "good enough" level.

But sure, we can have universal photo ID requirements, too. So long as they're free of charge and readily issued, I don't see a problem.

The real problem here is folks don't get taught that it is their civil duty to vote. Really, all they get taught is that it is their civil duty to protest and riot and junk like that. Most are so disillusioned by politics that they feel OUTSIDE the system, when in fact the PRIMARY way to get change is to VOTE. Most cannot be bothered, most think their vote doesn't count, when the truth is that only a vote not cast is the one that doesn't count. So your solution is to pass a new law? Yea, that's the absolute wrong move.

Can you explain how this is different from requiring people to do jury duty? It's also their civil duty, and it also carries fines etc with it if you don't do it.

Comment: Re:Completely bad idea (Score 1) 1089

by shutdown -p now (#49309655) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

So then can you explain the difference? It would seem to me that forcing people to make a (sometimes life-or-death!) decision on the immediate fate of someone else is not principally different from forcing them to make a decision on the overall government policy. Either one can be seen as a duty of a citizen of a free state.

Especially since mandatory voting only means mandatory appearance in practice, you don't have to actually cast a vote at all, you just have to sign for your ballot.

Comment: Re:Forget that stupid idea... (Score 1) 1089

by shutdown -p now (#49307703) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Um, not showing up to the polls is effectively saying "NONE OF THE ABOVE"

Except it's not. The point of having "none of the above" on the ballot is that, if most people choose that, elections are considered failed and have to be redone with new candidates. Given turnouts of under 40% in midterms, this would be directly applicable. The idea that you can have a legitimate government elected by less than half of those eligible to vote is ridiculous.

Somebody's terminal is dropping bits. I found a pile of them over in the corner.