4 ms·

Big difference between automated tracking and automatic firing.

• thatguy0900 4y ago
  The difference is a few lines of code
  • glonq 4y ago
    TBF the difference between many does-good-things and does-bad-things systems is a few lines of code. A few lines of code can turn an X-Ray machine into a death machine. A drivers assistance system into a kamikaze car. An industrial automation system into a bomb.
    • thinkmcfly 4y ago
      This simply isn't the case for the X-ray machines you'd find in a hospital or at a dentist's office. Industrial equipment though? Sure
      • PaulHoule 4y ago
        See https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-therac-25/ https://hackaday.com/2015/10/26/killed-by-a-machine-the-ther...
    • hirsin 4y ago
      Those things are not built for the express purpose of killing people. There is no manual button on the outside of the xray marked "kill patient" that's at risk of being automated away. No "aim for pedestrians" button in the Tesla that a developer will choose to finish implementing in code. Like, yes, this is a thing that could happen, and has, we call them bugs. But the companies building those products aren't in the business of making that outcome occur. These developers and companies are in the business of helping make people die and I'd bet significant sums this is already tracked in a backlog issue or behind a //.
      • realgeniushere 4y ago
        So what is your point? Why is automated target tracking bad exactly? I’m not saying it’s not, but I don’t see how your argument is different from “all weapons bad”.
        • hirsin 4y ago
          The point is that "you can invert the rewards signal on a Tesla and turn it into a people mower" isn't exactly a dunk on the point above them. We're not worried about Tesla having (someday accurate) people detection because we're not worried about them using it to kill people more efficiently. Indeed, generally people want Tesla to get very good at that! So automated tracking is bad when attached to a gun because it more easily enables the rest of the concerns laid out in the thread. It's not some hobbyist "paintball the squirells in my yard", but a government-purchased, corporation built project with an explicit, obvious goal in mind. Disregarding that because many other things _could_ be used for bad with a couple lines of code is not the right call, imo.
          • booblik 4y ago
            So don’t you want a gun to hit the target with no collateral damage? Imagine a different use-case, for example a mass shooter in a crowd. Where an AI controlled gum can take out the shooter and not the victims, the way police occasionally do.
            • ceejayoz 4y ago
              Some of the victims will invariably be dissidents rather than mass shooters when nasty regimes get their hands on them.
              • realgeniushere 4y ago
                So we’re back to the arguments against weapons generally. Yes, you can use a weapon for bad things.
            • 4y ago
    • karmakaze 4y ago
      Hope fail-safes get thought out more than this one[0]. [0] https://youtube.com/watch/Ip7GGf2_b6Y https://youtube.com/watch/Ip7GGf2_b6Y