3 ms·

There is a difference between programming a robot to kill, compared to a human that had events happen (without will over them) and where the events almost led t

by sysbin 7y ago

There is a difference between programming a robot to kill, compared to a human that had events happen (without will over them) and where the events almost led to a murder. The human isn't programmed to kill by those events but they almost led to the act. You have to acknowledge absolute vs uncertainty in the problem.

daveFNbuck 7y ago
We're talking about people performing actions with the goal of causing another person's death, not someone who's completely at the mercy of fate and has nothing to do with murder. If it helps, you can think of the robot as having a bug that leads to try to kill people sometimes if the right events happen around it. Should we only fix the bug in robots that have carried out successful attempts?
- sysbin 7y ago
  > We're talking about people performing actions with the goal of causing another person's death, not someone who's completely at the mercy of fate and has nothing to do with murder. That's an assumption and it very well can be the outcome of fate alone. It's not like there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that people have control over their actions. Neuroscience exhibits people are just cause & effect. Imagining a robot that has a bug is similar to the outcome of fate. Outside the realm of blame being on the robot but the universe that made the bug possible & happen.
  - daveFNbuck 7y ago
    Let's look at the robot some more. The universe made the bug possible and happen. I think we should try to fix the bug, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. I also think we should restrain the robot to prevent it from being able to kill again until we think the bug is fixed, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. Do you disagree with me on either of these points?
    - sysbin 7y ago
      > I think we should try to fix the bug, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. Humans have been striving for this goal since the beginning of time. Of course I think the intentions are correct. > I also think we should restrain the robot to prevent it from being able to kill again until we think the bug is fixed, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. The word "restrain" shouldn't be used with what's done by the current justice system (specifically in usa). Anyhow my view of murder/any crime is similar to a person that caught an illness (like the flu for example). Outside one's control like everything else. I think the correct course of action is educating how reality really is for the unfortunate and a process that doesn't have any lingering punishment associated to it. Although the idea of knowing if a murder is no longer a murder is close to an impossibility with current day science. Similar to knowing if someone is capable of murdering when they haven't done the act.
      - daveFNbuck 7y ago
        I agree with you about rehabilitation over punishment. Why do you think we shouldn't rehabilitate attempted murderers?
        sysbin 7y ago
        > Why do you think we shouldn't rehabilitate attempted murderers? I don't necessarily think what the justice system associates with rehabilitation is what I associate with the word. To answer your question, yes a person shouldn't be doomed to jail and when everything is outside one's control. Furthermore, if you study killology the reality is that the majority of humans cannot take the life of another human. The statistics in World War II was approximately 25% of soldiers would actually fire their gun. Today the number is grossly higher and the academic research has the cause being from military adopting psychological training methods for dehumanization. This is interesting to understand with the topic. Since, I theorize the majority of attempts couldn't actually carry it out and didn't realize until reaching the moment where they couldn't do it.
        7y ago

by sysbin 7y ago

daveFNbuck 7y ago

We're talking about people performing actions with the goal of causing another person's death, not someone who's completely at the mercy of fate and has nothing to do with murder. If it helps, you can think of the robot as having a bug that leads to try to kill people sometimes if the right events happen around it. Should we only fix the bug in robots that have carried out successful attempts?

sysbin 7y ago
> We're talking about people performing actions with the goal of causing another person's death, not someone who's completely at the mercy of fate and has nothing to do with murder. That's an assumption and it very well can be the outcome of fate alone. It's not like there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that people have control over their actions. Neuroscience exhibits people are just cause & effect. Imagining a robot that has a bug is similar to the outcome of fate. Outside the realm of blame being on the robot but the universe that made the bug possible & happen.
- daveFNbuck 7y ago
  Let's look at the robot some more. The universe made the bug possible and happen. I think we should try to fix the bug, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. I also think we should restrain the robot to prevent it from being able to kill again until we think the bug is fixed, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. Do you disagree with me on either of these points?
  - sysbin 7y ago
    > I think we should try to fix the bug, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. Humans have been striving for this goal since the beginning of time. Of course I think the intentions are correct. > I also think we should restrain the robot to prevent it from being able to kill again until we think the bug is fixed, even though it wasn't the robot's fault. The word "restrain" shouldn't be used with what's done by the current justice system (specifically in usa). Anyhow my view of murder/any crime is similar to a person that caught an illness (like the flu for example). Outside one's control like everything else. I think the correct course of action is educating how reality really is for the unfortunate and a process that doesn't have any lingering punishment associated to it. Although the idea of knowing if a murder is no longer a murder is close to an impossibility with current day science. Similar to knowing if someone is capable of murdering when they haven't done the act.
    - daveFNbuck 7y ago
      I agree with you about rehabilitation over punishment. Why do you think we shouldn't rehabilitate attempted murderers?
      - sysbin 7y ago
        > Why do you think we shouldn't rehabilitate attempted murderers? I don't necessarily think what the justice system associates with rehabilitation is what I associate with the word. To answer your question, yes a person shouldn't be doomed to jail and when everything is outside one's control. Furthermore, if you study killology the reality is that the majority of humans cannot take the life of another human. The statistics in World War II was approximately 25% of soldiers would actually fire their gun. Today the number is grossly higher and the academic research has the cause being from military adopting psychological training methods for dehumanization. This is interesting to understand with the topic. Since, I theorize the majority of attempts couldn't actually carry it out and didn't realize until reaching the moment where they couldn't do it.
        7y ago