Musk, Hawking, Wozniak and Chomsky hate Tim

[The Minsky Moment]

Hmm . . . it's not like humans reliably make such great decisions. 

[crazy canuck]

Hmm . . . it's not like humans reliably make such great decisions.

We had a discussion about you being a precursor agent.  One more data point in support of that conclusion.

[garbon]

Incidentally, the ethics of a machine making a decision about human life is not limited to automated weapons. Automated cars are another example - let's say you are driving in an automated car and you get two (non automated) cars coming from the other side. One is full of kids, who have a high chance of dying if you hit it, but you also get some chance of surviving; the other is a huge truck which will surely kill you. There is no way to avoid hitting either. Are we happy with your automated car making a decision who to kill (including, yourself)?

Are people working on self-driving cars that will scan nearby vehicles to see how many human lifeforms are in them?

[The Brain]

Robots won't harm humans, or by inaction allow humans to be harmed.

[Norgy]

Fuck robots.
We tried that in Europe from 1939-45.

[The Brain]

Fuck robots.
We tried that in Europe from 1939-45.

[Norgy]

You were more like robot-enabling scum of the Earth neutrals. 

[Syt]

I resent the notion that I am a descendant of robots.

My ancestors were puppets of the finest quality, thankyouverymuch.

[Zanza]

Incidentally, the ethics of a machine making a decision about human life is not limited to automated weapons. Automated cars are another example - let's say you are driving in an automated car and you get two (non automated) cars coming from the other side. One is full of kids, who have a high chance of dying if you hit it, but you also get some chance of surviving; the other is a huge truck which will surely kill you. There is no way to avoid hitting either. Are we happy with your automated car making a decision who to kill (including, yourself)?

IF children_in_oncoming_car > 0 THEN swerve(right) ELSE swerve(left) ?

That's ridiculous. No one will ever program any line of code that makes a moral decision on whether humans should be killed or not. Cars are (even now) programmed to do everything to limit impact speeds. That's objective as it is just about Newtonian mechanics and there is no moral component to it. And computers can certainly make that decision much better than any human ever could.

[Martinus]

Incidentally, the ethics of a machine making a decision about human life is not limited to automated weapons. Automated cars are another example - let's say you are driving in an automated car and you get two (non automated) cars coming from the other side. One is full of kids, who have a high chance of dying if you hit it, but you also get some chance of surviving; the other is a huge truck which will surely kill you. There is no way to avoid hitting either. Are we happy with your automated car making a decision who to kill (including, yourself)?

Are people working on self-driving cars that will scan nearby vehicles to see how many human lifeforms are in them?

I am not sure - I sure hope so. If we are to let self-driving cars drive, they better be able to tell a difference between crashing into a bunch of bushes and into a bunch of pedestrians. 

[garbon]

Which is, of course, rather far off from your hypothetical and the intention of my question.

[Ideologue]

I totally agree with them.  I can't think of any reason we'd want to create a true AI anyway unless we do in fact want to go extinct.  Human minds are pretty awesome.

They're weak and should be retired as soon as better materials become available.

[Queequeg]

I totally agree with them.  I can't think of any reason we'd want to create a true AI anyway unless we do in fact want to go extinct.  Human minds are pretty awesome.

I can think of a dozen reasons a fully automated economy would be way, way, way better than what we have now. 

[Siege]

This is ridiculous. Robots will eventually be better at war than men, because robots have no feelings, they will obey the Rules of Engagement to the letter, they don't get angry, or fustrated, or tired of dealing with double crossing moonslims, or have personal problems back home that could influence their behavior and performance. Not to mention all the lives they will save by removing Soldiers from the battlefield.

Only retards that don't understand how flawed we humans are (not that I am human) expose these stupid and uneducated opinions.

[Siege]

I'm starting to think this Stephen Hawkins dude is not that intelligent after all. He cannot even see the emergence of the Humanai, the merge between humans and AI, the next step in human evolution.

Elon musk at least have Tesla Energy, with its new and incredible high performance batteries.