If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
It just sounds to be like you think the government is encroaching on our liberty (assuming you are American). There is an argument for that for sure.
-
@wirestyle22 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
It just sounds to be like you think the government is encroaching on our liberty (assuming you are American). There is an argument for that.
The american government is assuredly trying to take more and more from me. (I am american) but the topic is government / company owned mass automated transportation.
If personal ownership isn't an option the only result is less choice. Which would lead to less freedom to do what you want, when you want.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
I really mean no offence but you're way way... way off the mark.
Being unable to travel is in no way, shape or form similar to being owned.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
IMO we aren't free to do what we want. We have laws. To you they may be just but to another person they may not be. Are they a slave? Are you a slave? I don't think the argument goes anywhere
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@wirestyle22 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
It just sounds to be like you think the government is encroaching on our liberty (assuming you are American). There is an argument for that.
The american government is assuredly trying to take more and more from me. (I am american) but the topic is government / company owned mass automated transportation.
If personal ownership isn't an option the only result is less choice. Which would lead to less freedom to do what you want, when you want.
I think there is a grey area where the lack of choice could potentially be considered similar to slavery but it would have to be very very restricted way above what is being described.
-
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
I really mean no offence but you're way way... way off the mark.
Being unable to travel is in no way, shape or form similar to being owned.
Let's for example use the old mining companies in the America's. These companies would build towns, railroads, and housing, ship people in and pay them a wage. But the only place they could shop was the local store, which was owned by the Mining company. (along with the rail-road and everything else).
If the employees wanted to leave, they were forced to walk, the Mining company railroad wouldn't transport them.
They were hundreds of miles away from anything, so walking clearly isn't an option. So they are forced to stay in the Mining Village. But to stay they were forced to work, to "earn" money and spend said money at the store.
This is a form of slavery.
I don't see how we as modern humans could ever be forced to travel at the schedule of a business. Ever.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Should self driving cars have human operable brakes, or an override steering wheel?
Not really. Not once we go to all autonomous because it would be a rogue vehicle that cannot be predicted. It will be that way for a long time, but ultimately it has to go away as that would just add a lot of risk.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@Dashrender said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
So if autonomous cars are a good thing, should they have an Override function?
Should a human ever be allowed to drive a car if it is truly self driving?
they already do, with breaking.
I'm sure you've seen the ads.My point is, if autonomous cars are better than humans, why should we allow a human to ever be able to control the vehicle? We should only input the address of where we want to go, tap a button and be on our way. The car should do everything from there, route planning and everything else.
Correct, that is where it needs to get to. The question is really just "how quickly."
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@brianlittlejohn said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
I'm never going to own an autonomous car, I think where it is headed will remove the need of ownership of a car, you pay a ride share company that has a fleet of them to pick you up and drop you off.
This I could see occurring for public transit, or large business complexes.
But as a general concept I want my own space, and having to share a ride with 3 or more other people who I work with (or only know from the car share) would drive me insane.
I'd probably end up stabbing someone.
It doesn't imply ride sharing.
-
@brianlittlejohn said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
I'm never going to own an autonomous car, I think where it is headed will remove the need of ownership of a car, you pay a ride share company that has a fleet of them to pick you up and drop you off.
I think that this will be like it is now... people in the cities will feel like no one needs to own one and people in the country will have no idea how that would work. Already big cities nearly no one owns a car and people in small villages all do. Unlikely to change, some people need very little and could use taxies today. Other people need more flexibility and customization.
And how would you handle things like cross country trips, luggage storage and such? What if you need a ton of stuff that goes with you all of the time? People like that will never have the ability to use rentals that are for hours or days at a time.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Better safe than enslaved
Wouldn't losing the ability to travel around as you please be similar to enslavement? If you wanted to up and drive to <insert location> this instant, but couldn't because the Government run transportation system didn't make that route.
Isn't that essentially slavery to your location / job?
So are you saying that everyone was slaves before the government built the highway system and provided official government roads?
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@wirestyle22 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Why do you both disagree with me?
Enslavement is the act of making someone a slave. A slave is a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them. Being tied to a specific location is not enslavement or even similar to it. It's having less options.
A slave has 2 choices, do as you're told, or be beaten / killed. I don't really see the difference (sorry)
So, for example, in this case it sounds like they feel that a slave is someone that has to do what they are told. But you feel that someone is a slave if someone else won't do something for them (create roads, allow cars, provide transportation options.)
-
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Better safe than enslaved
Wouldn't losing the ability to travel around as you please be similar to enslavement? If you wanted to up and drive to <insert location> this instant, but couldn't because the Government run transportation system didn't make that route.
Isn't that essentially slavery to your location / job?
So are you saying that everyone was slaves before the government built the highway system and provided official government roads?
I'm saying that transportation (any form) controlled by a business or government is essentially a form of slavery. Before roads people were still allowed to own a horse and buggy.
So no, roads are not the "slavery" factory. It's the restriction to privately owned transportation that I would consider.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
I really mean no offence but you're way way... way off the mark.
Being unable to travel is in no way, shape or form similar to being owned.
Let's for example use the old mining companies in the America's. These companies would build towns, railroads, and housing, ship people in and pay them a wage. But the only place they could shop was the local store, which was owned by the Mining company. (along with the rail-road and everything else).
If the employees wanted to leave, they were forced to walk, the Mining company railroad wouldn't transport them.
They were hundreds of miles away from anything, so walking clearly isn't an option. So they are forced to stay in the Mining Village. But to stay they were forced to work, to "earn" money and spend said money at the store.
This is a form of slavery.
I don't see how we as modern humans could ever be forced to travel at the schedule of a business. Ever.
No, that was a form of servitude. Not the same thing. It was in no way slavery. And they could get rides, walk, higher a horse or whatever. They accepted one way transportation willingly. They had every option to buy a car, horse, whatever and get there on their own. Nothing even remotely like slavery. Slavery isn't optional.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Better safe than enslaved
Wouldn't losing the ability to travel around as you please be similar to enslavement? If you wanted to up and drive to <insert location> this instant, but couldn't because the Government run transportation system didn't make that route.
Isn't that essentially slavery to your location / job?
So are you saying that everyone was slaves before the government built the highway system and provided official government roads?
I'm saying that transportation (any form) controlled by a business or government is essentially a form of slavery. Before roads people were still allowed to own a horse and buggy.
So no, roads are not the "slavery" factory. It's the restriction to privately owned transportation that I would consider.
But people are STILL allowed to own a horse and buggy. Are you a slave because you are restricted to certain types of vehicles today? How does eliminating cars make you more or less of a slave. The argument that you are a slave in that case that you are making applies today.
-
What about when things didn't exist... like before people invented the buggy. Was everyone a slave? If not, why not? They were far more tied to location without government restrictions than we are with them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
I really mean no offence but you're way way... way off the mark.
Being unable to travel is in no way, shape or form similar to being owned.
Let's for example use the old mining companies in the America's. These companies would build towns, railroads, and housing, ship people in and pay them a wage. But the only place they could shop was the local store, which was owned by the Mining company. (along with the rail-road and everything else).
If the employees wanted to leave, they were forced to walk, the Mining company railroad wouldn't transport them.
They were hundreds of miles away from anything, so walking clearly isn't an option. So they are forced to stay in the Mining Village. But to stay they were forced to work, to "earn" money and spend said money at the store.
This is a form of slavery.
I don't see how we as modern humans could ever be forced to travel at the schedule of a business. Ever.
No, that was a form of servitude. Not the same thing. It was in no way slavery. And they could get rides, walk, higher a horse or whatever. They accepted one way transportation willingly. They had every option to buy a car, horse, whatever and get there on their own. Nothing even remotely like slavery. Slavery isn't optional.
Have you kept up on your history of the coal mines? These people were very much slaves to the businesses that brought them in. 14-16 hour days, and no choices for anything.
They were trapped in the area in which the mine existed.
Sure they chose to go and work for the mining company, but they had very little choice once there. Almost none.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
I really mean no offence but you're way way... way off the mark.
Being unable to travel is in no way, shape or form similar to being owned.
Let's for example use the old mining companies in the America's. These companies would build towns, railroads, and housing, ship people in and pay them a wage. But the only place they could shop was the local store, which was owned by the Mining company. (along with the rail-road and everything else).
If the employees wanted to leave, they were forced to walk, the Mining company railroad wouldn't transport them.
They were hundreds of miles away from anything, so walking clearly isn't an option. So they are forced to stay in the Mining Village. But to stay they were forced to work, to "earn" money and spend said money at the store.
This is a form of slavery.
I don't see how we as modern humans could ever be forced to travel at the schedule of a business. Ever.
No, that was a form of servitude. Not the same thing. It was in no way slavery. And they could get rides, walk, higher a horse or whatever. They accepted one way transportation willingly. They had every option to buy a car, horse, whatever and get there on their own. Nothing even remotely like slavery. Slavery isn't optional.
Have you kept up on your history of the coal mines? These people were very much slaves to the businesses that brought them in. 14-16 hour days, and no choices for anything.
They were trapped in the area in which the mine existed.
Sure they chose to go and work for the mining company, but they had very little choice once there. Almost none.
Reasons this is false:
- Choice
- Not trapped
It's that simple. They had every right to not take the job, not keep the job, walk away.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Almost none.
Except, you know, quitting and leaving. Find any mining town on a map that is so isolated that someone healthy enough to work in a coal mine could not walk far enough to get assistance.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@MattSpeller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
Being stuck in one location to me is comparable to false imprisonment. Which is equatable to slavery in that you aren't free to do what you want.
So to say "if you can't travel, that's just less options" is equatable to slavery in that you aren't able to do what you want.
I really mean no offence but you're way way... way off the mark.
Being unable to travel is in no way, shape or form similar to being owned.
Let's for example use the old mining companies in the America's. These companies would build towns, railroads, and housing, ship people in and pay them a wage. But the only place they could shop was the local store, which was owned by the Mining company. (along with the rail-road and everything else).
If the employees wanted to leave, they were forced to walk, the Mining company railroad wouldn't transport them.
They were hundreds of miles away from anything, so walking clearly isn't an option. So they are forced to stay in the Mining Village. But to stay they were forced to work, to "earn" money and spend said money at the store.
This is a form of slavery.
I don't see how we as modern humans could ever be forced to travel at the schedule of a business. Ever.
No, that was a form of servitude. Not the same thing. It was in no way slavery. And they could get rides, walk, higher a horse or whatever. They accepted one way transportation willingly. They had every option to buy a car, horse, whatever and get there on their own. Nothing even remotely like slavery. Slavery isn't optional.
Have you kept up on your history of the coal mines? These people were very much slaves to the businesses that brought them in. 14-16 hour days, and no choices for anything.
They were trapped in the area in which the mine existed.
Sure they chose to go and work for the mining company, but they had very little choice once there. Almost none.
Reasons this is false:
- Choice
- Not trapped
It's that simple. They had every right to not take the job, not keep the job, walk away.
You said it yourself, they were in a servitude relationship. With slavery like environments and working conditions.
