Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
Katzy

[*] posted on 19-7-2016 at 20:19
[bad img]http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/nodding.gif[/bad img]
marymary100

[*] posted on 19-7-2016 at 13:18
America! America!
God save us all from thee,
And keep cops from the neighbour 'hood
From sea to shining sea!
Katzy

[*] posted on 19-7-2016 at 13:13
But, of course, lightbulbs, tennis balls, water guns and cans of soup are far more dangerous than assault rifles.

[bad img]http://www.katzy.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/c028.gif[/bad img]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ann-coulter-piers-morgan-tennis-balls-more-dangerous-than-guns-good-morning-britain_uk_578 dd49ce4b069bdac5d2d89?utm_hp_ref=uk
scholar

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 12:52
A robot is simply a tool. When lethal force is necessary, it looks like a good idea to me. I see no advantage to declaring the use of robots off limits in lethal situations.

Broadening the question: Is it useful for lawful authorities to generally ban the use of a lethal weapon to all, even themselves? We certainly benefited from agreements not to use poison gas in warfare, so long as all parties honored the agreement. But, it all falls apart when some do not enter the agreement, or break it.
marymary100

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 09:52
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
To Whom was your comment addressed, O'Mary?


All of you.
Katzy

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 09:38
In a country that has more guns than people, I suspect the AI might be superior to that of the populace...

:D
LSemmens

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 08:36
To Whom was your comment addressed, O'Mary?
marymary100

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 08:00
I suggest you watch the clip.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 03:41
Then point is that Police have used a remote control device to kill. Not, so much, as the fact that robots did the killing. We all know that there are plenty of automated devices used in warfare and has been since the first slingshot was used.
scholar

[*] posted on 18-7-2016 at 01:37
Quote:
Originally posted by marymary100
AI is a field of robotics. The same rules apply.

The rules are part of the fictional universe of positronic brain pathways in robots.

I recall a science fiction story based on the premise that someone was foolish enough to try to actually program these laws into an actual robot. As a result, the robot in the story was completely unreliable.

In real life, robot missiles already are programmed to make adjustments to their trajectories en route, and they kill people who are at the target destination, without regard to whether the intent of the mission is to kill people or destroy structures or equipment.
marymary100

[*] posted on 17-7-2016 at 10:01
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcHKm0cm-jI
LSemmens

[*] posted on 17-7-2016 at 09:54
[pedant mode] That's like saying the laws against speeding only apply to red cars, because one was reported as having sped.
marymary100

[*] posted on 17-7-2016 at 09:28
AI is a field of robotics. The same rules apply.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 17-7-2016 at 09:06
Actually it's the first law of ROBOTICS, not AI. Devised by Isaac Asimov in1942

Quote:
The Three Laws of Robotics (often shortened to The Three Laws or Three Laws, also known as Asimov's Laws) are a set of rules devised by the science fiction author Isaac Asimov. The rules were introduced in his 1942 short story "Runaround", although they had been foreshadowed in a few earlier stories. The Three Laws, quoted as being from the "Handbook of Robotics, 56th Edition, 2058 A.D.", are:

A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.[1]

source
marymary100

[*] posted on 15-7-2016 at 14:47
It's against the first law of AI so while I understand why we might think it is a good thing, it is a slippery slope.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 15-7-2016 at 13:00
to kill for the first time A good thing?