6 ms·

Cameras mounted in cars because the populace can't be trusted to respect the vehicle or its operator is already standard in some countries. If people in the US

Cameras mounted in cars because the populace can't be trusted to respect the vehicle or its operator is already standard in some countries. If people in the US want to go down that road, it can become standard here too.

jakeogh 9y ago
Yes yes, the plebs better respect their robot masters.
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Not standing in someone's way is them being a master over you? Uhh, remind me not to be on a sidewalk near you...
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    By all means, keep pretending robots are people and that I was talking about people.
    - Dylan16807 9y ago
      That's an even weirder position! I would think a robot is less likely to be a master over you. But you're saying that getting out of the way of a person is fine and doesn't make them a master, while getting out of the way of a robot does make them a master?
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        I'm obviously not talking about robots containing humans. We should not pretend robots are people under any circumstances. If the robot needs me to move for it to continue on, then it better decide to wait. Maybe you think it should call in a robo cop;) This should be obvious, but I'll be more verbose, my original comment was in ref to robots with wheels, possessing possibly >MJ of KE, recording their surroundings and uploading it in real time to whatever the skynet equiv is at the time. It's an awful idea, and you are living in a bubble if you think the general population will accept it in the US. Sure, it will happen in more tightly controlled societies.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        People don't collectively object to dash cams, and they let non-robot cars do something very similar. And there's no need for it to be constantly uploading video to report a lane blockage. Heck, it doesn't need to upload any video to report a lane blockage. As far as you being in the way: roads are not specifically for humans. A robo car has plenty of right to be there. If you wouldn't stand in the way of a taxi, you shouldn't stand in the way of a robo car.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        "roads are not specifically for humans. A robo car has plenty of right to be there" And there is is. Robots having rights too. As if they are sentient. Next those that don't anthropomorphize machines will be labeled roboist. Machines are tools. _For_ humans. Nothing more. It's like saying a hammer has rights because I use it. Making it a autonomous hammer does not change that, in fact it makes it much more important to not pretend it's sentient.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        Oh my god you're being so pedantic. The robo car has no rights, but the person that owns the robo car has roughly the same right to make use of the road whether or not they happen to be seated inside. Is that wording satisfactory? Edit: And I mean, it's not because I'm giving robots special treatment. It's colloquial english. I'd say a potted plant has "the right" to be somewhere too.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        You are mixing two fundamentally different things. I made it clear I am not referring to robots containing humans. A person wielding a hammer is fundamentally different than a pre-programmed hammer some human unleashed on it's own. I consider the latter a serious threat. If you don't mean "right" than don't use that word. As is you have redefined it to be practically meaningless. I'm not convinced you did re-define it. Your edit makes it more clear: "it's not because I'm giving robots special treatment" Yes, you really are. You are arguing that since it's owned by someone it has "plenty of right" to use the road. That's wrong. Par with humans is as special as treatment gets. F(r) = -F(h) ma(r) = -ma(h) a(r) = -a(h) Which a is more important? Should we treat them even remotely the same when one a ends a life and the other a causes a financial loss? I mean... oops. Sorry for the hammer malfunction. We sent out a patch and fired someone though. Admit it, the end solution is to just remove humans from having direct control over their KE and direction? Right? Programmers are always smarter aren't we? I often wonder if the pre-programmed car proponents realize what side they are on in the war on general purpose computing.

jakeogh 9y ago

Yes yes, the plebs better respect their robot masters.

Dylan16807 9y ago
Not standing in someone's way is them being a master over you? Uhh, remind me not to be on a sidewalk near you...
- jakeogh 9y ago
  By all means, keep pretending robots are people and that I was talking about people.
  - Dylan16807 9y ago
    That's an even weirder position! I would think a robot is less likely to be a master over you. But you're saying that getting out of the way of a person is fine and doesn't make them a master, while getting out of the way of a robot does make them a master?
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      I'm obviously not talking about robots containing humans. We should not pretend robots are people under any circumstances. If the robot needs me to move for it to continue on, then it better decide to wait. Maybe you think it should call in a robo cop;) This should be obvious, but I'll be more verbose, my original comment was in ref to robots with wheels, possessing possibly >MJ of KE, recording their surroundings and uploading it in real time to whatever the skynet equiv is at the time. It's an awful idea, and you are living in a bubble if you think the general population will accept it in the US. Sure, it will happen in more tightly controlled societies.
      - Dylan16807 9y ago
        People don't collectively object to dash cams, and they let non-robot cars do something very similar. And there's no need for it to be constantly uploading video to report a lane blockage. Heck, it doesn't need to upload any video to report a lane blockage. As far as you being in the way: roads are not specifically for humans. A robo car has plenty of right to be there. If you wouldn't stand in the way of a taxi, you shouldn't stand in the way of a robo car.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        "roads are not specifically for humans. A robo car has plenty of right to be there" And there is is. Robots having rights too. As if they are sentient. Next those that don't anthropomorphize machines will be labeled roboist. Machines are tools. _For_ humans. Nothing more. It's like saying a hammer has rights because I use it. Making it a autonomous hammer does not change that, in fact it makes it much more important to not pretend it's sentient.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        Oh my god you're being so pedantic. The robo car has no rights, but the person that owns the robo car has roughly the same right to make use of the road whether or not they happen to be seated inside. Is that wording satisfactory? Edit: And I mean, it's not because I'm giving robots special treatment. It's colloquial english. I'd say a potted plant has "the right" to be somewhere too.
        jakeogh 9y ago
        You are mixing two fundamentally different things. I made it clear I am not referring to robots containing humans. A person wielding a hammer is fundamentally different than a pre-programmed hammer some human unleashed on it's own. I consider the latter a serious threat. If you don't mean "right" than don't use that word. As is you have redefined it to be practically meaningless. I'm not convinced you did re-define it. Your edit makes it more clear: "it's not because I'm giving robots special treatment" Yes, you really are. You are arguing that since it's owned by someone it has "plenty of right" to use the road. That's wrong. Par with humans is as special as treatment gets. F(r) = -F(h) ma(r) = -ma(h) a(r) = -a(h) Which a is more important? Should we treat them even remotely the same when one a ends a life and the other a causes a financial loss? I mean... oops. Sorry for the hammer malfunction. We sent out a patch and fired someone though. Admit it, the end solution is to just remove humans from having direct control over their KE and direction? Right? Programmers are always smarter aren't we? I often wonder if the pre-programmed car proponents realize what side they are on in the war on general purpose computing.