4 ms·

Did not address the most important question.. HAL was following orders..

mattigames 7y ago
Yeah, and humans themselves (e.g. the creators of robots) are known to blindly follow orders even in life-or-death scenarios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
ak39 7y ago
Directive: do not jeopardise the mission even if it meant “erasing” humans. If a lion eats a human, if an ostrich lands a lethal kick while protecting its nest, it’s not murder. HAL cannot commit murder.
- larrydag 7y ago
  Not sure. Legally those would be considered Acts of God, right? HAL is designed, programmed, and given autonomy.
  - teekert 7y ago
    Acts of God in a legal system? What does that mean? Coincidence? Accidents? What a strange name..?
    - jessant 7y ago
      > In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible. > In the law of torts, an act of God may be asserted as a type of intervening cause, the lack of which would have avoided the cause or diminished the result of liability (e.g., but for the earthquake, the old, poorly constructed building would be standing). However, foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes may still raise liability. For example, a bolt of lightning strikes a ship carrying volatile compressed gas, resulting in the expected explosion. Liability may be found if the carrier did not use reasonable care to protect against sparks—regardless of their origins. Similarly, strict liability could defeat a defense for an act of God where the defendant has created the conditions under which any accident would result in harm. For example, a long-haul truck driver takes a shortcut on a back road and the load is lost when the road is destroyed in an unforeseen flood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God
ineedasername 7y ago
That wouldn't change the question being asked though. It can be murder with or without orders. With orders just means the culpability extends beyond HAL. Though I don't think it's proper to think of HAL as culpable unless you also attribute the ability to choose to HAL. It's also so subjective of a question it is not really useful as a philosophical tool either. I describe one criteria for it being "murder", but reasonable people might easily come up with other, equally defensible stances. So interrogating this question doesn't reveal much more than societal divisions along semantic lines. I think the more interesting questions are things like: what do we do about murderers? Punishment for its own sake? Deference? Rehabilitation? What is the primary goal of our legal system?
- JadeNB 7y ago
  > So interrogating this question doesn't reveal much more than societal divisions along semantic lines. Surely knowing that words mean different things to different people in the same society, and knowing what they mean, is quite valuable knowledge! > what do we do about murderers? … Deference? Is there any chance that 'Deference?' was a typo? I can't seem to make sense of it.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Oh, yes, revealing those societal divisions, the different meanings, can be an important activity. I just don't think, from a utilitarian "what's best for society" that it is the root question. The more fundamental question, I believe, is what does society do about such crimes? What are it's goals? The "is it murder" questions gains, I believe, much more relevance in that context. >Deference: Oops, that should be deterence
- edoo 7y ago
  If HAL isn't a sentient being then it is a machine that has been programmed to murder under certain circumstances. If HAL is sentient then he did commit murder. Either way the people who instilled the orders would be culpable under the same rules that would apply if you arranged for someone to be murdered but did not do it yourself.
mannykannot 7y ago
In this article, the title question is really only the jumping-off point for an extended discourse, but insofar as it has been raised... The story would have been uninteresting (or at least very different) if HAL had been acting on direct orders, and Clarke does not seem to have in mind that the mission was deliberately crafted with the intent that HAL would take homicidal action on its own initiative. Instead, HAL, in an unanticipated divergence, is confused by the apparent inconsistencies in the mission plan resulting from its goals being concealed, and, "like a neurotic", unable to recognize its own state, concludes that the astronauts must be killed for the greater good of the mission. If, by "following orders", you are saying that HAL is a deterministic machine, then we are getting into the issue of free will. For what it is worth, Dennett is a 'compatibilist', maintaining that free will, in some sense, is compatible with physical determinism, but I don't know enough about that viewpoint to comment further. "Free will" is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the article, I would guess because it is too deep a rabbit-hole for an article of this length and scope.

Yeah, and humans themselves (e.g. the creators of robots) are known to blindly follow orders even in life-or-death scenarios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

ak39 7y ago

Directive: do not jeopardise the mission even if it meant “erasing” humans. If a lion eats a human, if an ostrich lands a lethal kick while protecting its nest, it’s not murder. HAL cannot commit murder.

larrydag 7y ago
Not sure. Legally those would be considered Acts of God, right? HAL is designed, programmed, and given autonomy.
- teekert 7y ago
  Acts of God in a legal system? What does that mean? Coincidence? Accidents? What a strange name..?
  - jessant 7y ago
    > In legal usage throughout the English-speaking world, an act of God is a natural hazard outside human control, such as an earthquake or tsunami, for which no person can be held responsible. > In the law of torts, an act of God may be asserted as a type of intervening cause, the lack of which would have avoided the cause or diminished the result of liability (e.g., but for the earthquake, the old, poorly constructed building would be standing). However, foreseeable results of unforeseeable causes may still raise liability. For example, a bolt of lightning strikes a ship carrying volatile compressed gas, resulting in the expected explosion. Liability may be found if the carrier did not use reasonable care to protect against sparks—regardless of their origins. Similarly, strict liability could defeat a defense for an act of God where the defendant has created the conditions under which any accident would result in harm. For example, a long-haul truck driver takes a shortcut on a back road and the load is lost when the road is destroyed in an unforeseen flood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_God

ineedasername 7y ago

That wouldn't change the question being asked though. It can be murder with or without orders. With orders just means the culpability extends beyond HAL. Though I don't think it's proper to think of HAL as culpable unless you also attribute the ability to choose to HAL. It's also so subjective of a question it is not really useful as a philosophical tool either. I describe one criteria for it being "murder", but reasonable people might easily come up with other, equally defensible stances. So interrogating this question doesn't reveal much more than societal divisions along semantic lines. I think the more interesting questions are things like: what do we do about murderers? Punishment for its own sake? Deference? Rehabilitation? What is the primary goal of our legal system?

JadeNB 7y ago
> So interrogating this question doesn't reveal much more than societal divisions along semantic lines. Surely knowing that words mean different things to different people in the same society, and knowing what they mean, is quite valuable knowledge! > what do we do about murderers? … Deference? Is there any chance that 'Deference?' was a typo? I can't seem to make sense of it.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Oh, yes, revealing those societal divisions, the different meanings, can be an important activity. I just don't think, from a utilitarian "what's best for society" that it is the root question. The more fundamental question, I believe, is what does society do about such crimes? What are it's goals? The "is it murder" questions gains, I believe, much more relevance in that context. >Deference: Oops, that should be deterence
edoo 7y ago
If HAL isn't a sentient being then it is a machine that has been programmed to murder under certain circumstances. If HAL is sentient then he did commit murder. Either way the people who instilled the orders would be culpable under the same rules that would apply if you arranged for someone to be murdered but did not do it yourself.

mannykannot 7y ago

In this article, the title question is really only the jumping-off point for an extended discourse, but insofar as it has been raised... The story would have been uninteresting (or at least very different) if HAL had been acting on direct orders, and Clarke does not seem to have in mind that the mission was deliberately crafted with the intent that HAL would take homicidal action on its own initiative. Instead, HAL, in an unanticipated divergence, is confused by the apparent inconsistencies in the mission plan resulting from its goals being concealed, and, "like a neurotic", unable to recognize its own state, concludes that the astronauts must be killed for the greater good of the mission. If, by "following orders", you are saying that HAL is a deterministic machine, then we are getting into the issue of free will. For what it is worth, Dennett is a 'compatibilist', maintaining that free will, in some sense, is compatible with physical determinism, but I don't know enough about that viewpoint to comment further. "Free will" is not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the article, I would guess because it is too deep a rabbit-hole for an article of this length and scope.