|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
204.94.81.82
In Reply to: RE: How would a human handle the situation any better?... posted by Steve O on March 25, 2017 at 17:44:19
Ok, you're right. How about another?
A woman with a baby is walking in front of your car. Your choices on a two lane road are to go left and hit a car head on, hit the woman and baby or go right and drive off a cliff.
AI would choose driving off the cliff because one life is worth less than two, right?
-Rod
Follow Ups:
You would need to read "Computer Power and Human Reason" to see where I am coming from.Mind you this problem of believing the measurements / hypothesis tests / drug tests / intelligence .... predates digital computing. :-)
GIGO, let alone bad assumptions in the test design.
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
Edits: 03/25/17
Endless stories of people failing to react when technology fails. They often just stand there waiting (to die) instead of saving themselves because they expect the thing to work right.
They just do not react to the failure in time.
When they could have, If they had just been paying attention.
The latest is the snowbank and commuter train utube video. Video of a train coming in. everyone can SEE the snow is covering the tracks. Yet not one person runs away in advance. They just stand there and get plastered with the wave of snow created by the train. Idiots one and all. But totally what really happens.
Not one person put two and two together that the snow was about to come flying at them as the train hit it.
So the AI drives off the cliff because this minimizes (certain) loss of life. What does the "ethical" human do differently assuming it can react quickly enough to make a decision and effectively act on it?I believe the "typical" human driver would instinctively swerve left or right to avoid the pedestrian. In one instance one human life is imperiled. In the other, at least two lives are imperiled, maybe more. Since I don't know the probability of a left swerve vs a right swerve, all I can assume is that both are non zero so the average human imperilment with the human driver is > 1 while the imperilment with AI =1, a slightly better long term outcome so AI is an improvement over the human driver.
Edits: 03/25/17
Part of the problem with simplified notions of moral and logical choices do not work. Humans will find ways to bend the rules to fit whatever they want.
So in my case, the woman with the baby deliberately finds a spot on the road and waits, until YOU come along. Then all she has to do is jump out and Kaboom your car kills you for her,
...AI won't be circumventing physics, momentum and all that other real-world stuff.
The baby is innocent. but the babies death is the problem of the Mother.
If I had any choice, I would 'save' the most innocent party
Now in the scenario, if I was really speeding like crazy, By my rules, I should drive off the cliff. If I am driving safely, and the woman jumps out of some bushes.. Blammo.. She is dead raccoon.
I would never ever drive head on into a car going the other way.that person is totally innocent.
The woman crossing is not that innocent. She has a requirement to LOOK before crossing... At a minimum.
And.. The 'baby' may be a doll, or a cat or dog, or even a stuffed animal.
How would anyone confirm the object was a baby?.. in time to decide?
And the other car may have five babies in it? How do you know?
Plus the woman may be trying to commit suicide? Why would I choose to kill myself? or another innocent person to save some idiot trying to get run over?
So, for all these reasons, I would try to avoid the woman as best I could without hitting another car, or driving off the cliff. But if the hit is unavoidable, then so be it. She is toast.
Most logical post. People aren't going to kill themselves on purpose in most scenarios no matter what the outcome. That's what I think is reality.
I think the "average" person would swerve hard right, WITHOUT knowing the cliff was the wrong choice. And drive right over the edge AS they realize "SHIT!! I drove off a cliff!!"
It would take a smart person fully 'awake' to make the correct choice and not kill themselves, but just run the woman down.
"awake' means actually driving. Not blabbing to the passenger, or on the phone, or not daydreaming, or sight seeing.. But seeing a car coming the the way, and knowing they were on the edge of a cliff.
Most of the panic braking is taken up by time to realize one needs to stop. For a person paying attention, this time is way less than for the person not paying attention.
Your logic is excellent even if your math is different.
The primary difference between AI and human decision making is self preservation. The average person will not weigh injury on others versus themselves when making a forced decision with little or no time to consider all the consequences.
I was also thinking the same thing about the quick move to the right and off the cliff when folks are distracted. How many people drive into ditches avoiding a dog or cat? I'll bet that it's not uncommon.
It also reminds me of driving on a 2 lane highway in Idaho. While cruising at the normal speed of the locals, 80 mph, I noticed a deer on the side of the road in the distance, just standing there. My first thought was that this animal would bolt across the road as I lifted my foot off the accelerator and naturally slowed to 50-60 mph as I closed in on the deer. And of course, as I got closer, the fool bolted across the road. Had I not slowed a bit, I would have hit him or veered off the road.
One more hypothetical also crossed mind. Your choice to hit the woman and baby is correct assuming that self preservation is number one. Does that decision change depending on the obstacle? What if that woman was your wife or daughter versus an old homeless woman?
-Rod
VS say my daughter is someone like Melania Trump? I would not kill her, I would drive off the cliff (her live is way more than mine, and I am old.). Or like Chelsea Clinton? same end.. off the cliff.
Say my daughter was a druggie prostitute who just got out of jail on bail for killing her dope addict/pimp husband and two children..(but she says she does not even remember what happened, even though she was covered with about a gallon of blood, and the gun was in her hands.) While she was high on six different illegal drugs. The newborn addict baby was the dope dealers..? I would run her over.. no problem. (though the police might think I arranged it on purpose.. So it would be difficult no matter what. DAs love to put folks in jail for even remotely possible scenarios..
(So lucky lucky I have no doper prostitute daughter I want dead. LOL)
As the person in the road who is in the moral dilemma is unknown. I return to the notion the person on the road is responsible for herself. Period. When she decided to be in the roadway, that is her deal. Not mine. And as I wrote, she may even be trying to commit suicide. Why would I kill myself to save some fool to stupid to not be standing in the middle of the road?
I certainly would try to stop. and would be perfectly wiling to ruin my tires trying to stop.
As for the so called baby. (since in the split second I have to choose?) I would not assume it was a baby. It could be a doll, or an animal, or a stuff toy. But first of all the child is HER responsibility, not mine.
If she wants to carry her baby out into danger, that is on her. not me.
I do not believe in any nanny state. If someone else wants to save the World at their own expense? Not my problem. The nanny folk are total fucking idiots IMO.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: