|
That car AI chart is from the Moral Machine website, go take the quiz and have your own chart! It generates random moral dilemmas, some of them are hilarious  Also Shaun owns and the end of his most recent video is relevant to this thread https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM7BgrddY18&t=1522s (25:22)
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:It generates random moral dilemmas, some of them are hilarious That is awesome, I need to go and take that quiz. Pet ethos: The machine should always continue straight, no matter the consequences, because taking action to kill a particular person is less ethical than by inaction allowing a particular person to die. Hippie Hedgehog has a new favorite as of 14:07 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 14:04
|
|
|
gently caress
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:03
|
|
|
 (Also: Good Lord, how many news anchors does ABC need?)
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:20
|
|
|
There was a good radio lab on these self driving dilemmas. The one big point was that no matter what people choose in situations like these quizzes, the end result is that the cars always need to do whatever possible to protect the occupants. Otherwise nobody would say that they'd use a self driving car.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
HardDiskD posted:gently caress You know, a Dukes of Hazzard sideways slide could get them all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I warms my heart that there are people in this world who have not heard of Michael Gove. System Metternich posted:(Also: Good Lord, how many news anchors does ABC need?) pangstrom has a new favorite as of 16:21 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:That car AI chart is from the Moral Machine website, go take the quiz and have your own chart! Just crash the car, the cats will land on their feet and pretend that nothing happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
And in Camelot they established the Round Table...
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Just crash the car, the cats will land on their feet and pretend that nothing happened. It's a Tesla. It'll catch fire and kill everyone
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Fathis Munk posted:That car AI chart is from the Moral Machine website, go take the quiz and have your own chart!  WHO'S A GOOD CRIME FIGHTING BOY??
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
If there is one thing I’m sure of it’s that the people who made that were stoned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 19:04
|
|
|
itskage posted:There was a good radio lab on these self driving dilemmas. The one big point was that no matter what people choose in situations like these quizzes, the end result is that the cars always need to do whatever possible to protect the occupants. Otherwise nobody would say that they'd use a self driving car. Yeah that's a huge problem. Imo, they should always err on the side of killing the occupants who willingly chose to drive the murdermachine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
I think I solved the puzzle: Lowest score dies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
HardDiskD posted:I think I solved the puzzle: Hack the system and turn that -1 for executive into -10. The guillotinemobile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
just to be clear those aren't official scores or anything i just thought it would be funny to do
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
the only way for a self-driving car to behave ethically is to do donuts and then jump off ramps and then crush cars with its big tires and then fire comes out of the exhaust and also the self driving car is a monster truck and all other vehicles are illegal
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:33
|
|
|
Captain Hygiene posted:
E: Also I accidentally clicked on an option to kill five people instead of one and the summary now thinks I'm a bloodthirsty killer. Lord Hydronium has a new favorite as of 22:55 on Nov 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
A tweet from a couple of days ago that I can't find now was responding to that self-driving car chart and pointed out that the research is clearly being done by people who don't actually understand the technology. A self-driving car can't tell the difference between a man and a woman, much less a "criminal" and an "athelete". All it sees are highlighted rectangles and follows the directive "avoid obstacles". It's going to respond "ethically" the same way to a pedestrian as it does to a trash can.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
No reason they couldn't be taught to recognize men and women, fit or fat, cats or dogs, if it actually made sense to do so. Which it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:No reason they couldn't be taught to recognize men and women, fit or fat, cats or dogs, if it actually made sense to do so. Which it doesn't. Eh, the thing is that even humans can't perfectly identify "man" or "woman" at a distance on the street, especially if it's winter and they're all bundled up in heavy jackets. We go more based on fashion choices than actual physical characteristics. A self-driving car MIGHT be able to distinguish "children" from "adults" because of different size characteristics, but as far as two objects of roughly equal size, it has no way of knowing. It doesn't see details because it needs to be able to process things quickly and that level of detail analysis would be too slow for what little value might be gained from doing so. A lot of people talking about the "ethics" of self-driving cars are obsessing over edge cases and digging into way more specifics than the cars ever will. I mean hell in a real life accident it's not like a human driver is making value judgements like "Oh no my brakes failed, do I run over the lady pushing the stroller or the man in the jogging outfit?". It's a lot more like "Oh no my brakes failed oh no I just hit someone".
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
PragerU is very appropriate for this thread      
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Eh, the thing is that even humans can't perfectly identify "man" or "woman" at a distance on the street, especially if it's winter and they're all bundled up in heavy jackets. We go more based on fashion choices than actual physical characteristics. A self-driving car MIGHT be able to distinguish "children" from "adults" because of different size characteristics, but as far as two objects of roughly equal size, it has no way of knowing. It doesn't see details because it needs to be able to process things quickly and that level of detail analysis would be too slow for what little value might be gained from doing so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:12
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:PragerU is very appropriate for this thread Yeah those are the ones he shows in the vid. Amazing graphs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
The decline of artistic standards one is just one of my favorite graphs of all time. At a glance you can just know it's profoundly stupid. It doesn't even define what an artistic standard actually even is, if such a thing is even possible. Then it just so happens to completely bottom out at exactly the time the civil rights era hit but I'm sure that's just a coincidence that means absolutely nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:If anything, computer vision would be much better equipped to handle non-binary genders. Like so: I have trouble believing a computer would be better at handling anything non-binary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The decline of artistic standards one is just one of my favorite graphs of all time. At a glance you can just know it's profoundly stupid. It doesn't even define what an artistic standard actually even is, if such a thing is even possible. Then it just so happens to completely bottom out at exactly the time the civil rights era hit but I'm sure that's just a coincidence that means absolutely nothing. My favorite is that the peak of artistic standards and where the overall decline begins appears to be right around the 1860s 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 03:32
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:My favorite is that the peak of artistic standards and where the overall decline begins appears to be right around the 1860s Oh crap, Sherman must still be out there burning down all the culture. Gotta find that fucker and make him stop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 03:53
|
|
|
Another fun thing about that graph is that apparently artistic standards are at literally 0. Not just "lower than they've ever been" but "as low as they can theoretically go. Art cannot possibly be worse"
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Another fun thing about that graph is that apparently artistic standards are at literally 0. Not just "lower than they've ever been" but "as low as they can theoretically go. Art cannot possibly be worse" I'm inclined to agree. I mean have you seen the political cartoon thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Another fun thing about that graph is that apparently artistic standards are at literally 0. Not just "lower than they've ever been" but "as low as they can theoretically go. Art cannot possibly be worse" Which happens around the 1960s/70s so yet another
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Oh crap, Sherman must still be out there burning down all the culture. Gotta find that fucker and
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
I’ve seen a similar artistic standards graph before - they were talking about the rise of advertising and all the young talent migrating from painting actual pictures to hack work for big corporations in that instance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
It may be nearly useless as a visualisation, but I do like the idea of a world in which nobody uses or is expected to use SAS, so I'm completely on board
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 10:18
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:Which happens around the 1960s/70s so yet another The 1860's is around the time that impressionism became a big thing, paving the way for increasingly less representational forms of art - what we know as modern art collectively. By the 60's and 70's pop art and other forms of postmodern art were becoming a big thing. It's still a profoundly stupid graph and of course the evolution of art is related to cultural changes that the author presumably disapproves of as well, but it makes 'sense' outside of the specific Americentric references that you guys are bringing up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 10:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
0/10 no Guiana See me after class. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 12:33 on Nov 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2018 12:23
|
|
