EU ha snuked the shark

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Robot kill switches & legal status: MEPs endorse AI proposal


A European Parliament committee has voted in favor of a draft report that proposes granting legal status to robots, categorizing them as “electronic persons”.

The draft report, approved by 17 votes to two and two abstentions by the European Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs, proposes that “The most sophisticated autonomous robots could be established as having the status of electronic persons with specific rights and obligations, including that of making good any damage they may cause.”


:doh:

we are not talking a Star Trek Commander Data here ....
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Sad that this article didn't start with "Having solved all other problems facing the EU....."
 

glhs837

Power with Control
As I read it, they're exploring the legal avenue of holding 'them' responsible for damages.

Wonder if we can get the vote for my 1911?


Attica! Attica! Attica!

So, if my autonomous Mercedes plows through a store window, the car itself will have to drive the shopkeeper around at Uber rates til the bill is paid off?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
So, if my autonomous Mercedes plows through a store window, the car itself will have to drive the shopkeeper around at Uber rates til the bill is paid off?

When we reach the point where it is totally autonomous, that's my thinking. I could be TOTALLY wrong but I think the point is that it ain't YOUR fault when your automated car effs up and it ain't your fault when your Toshiba body servant rapes a toaster while out running errands. And manufacturers are gonna want some sort of distance one they sell it to you. Or, it could simply be they KNOW that AI is going to be doing it's own thing at some point and in unknowable fashions given how quickly it's gonna supersede us.

You wanna be on the hook when your T1000 starts whacking the neighbors and hollering 'Judgment day! Judgment day!" because some smart ass at the factory slipped in a little extra code?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

Have fun, you get to decide......... had this talk with the coworkers the other day, one whose Masters program is working on a human factors study.

Dumbest test, ever. Is the machine going to be able to assess and process; "ok, brakes failed, person, don't hit! Wait! He's a bank robber! Hit them, save non bank robber passenger! No! It's a pregnant woman! Kill non pregnant woman passenger to save pregnant woman pedestrian! No! It's a bank robber dressed up as a pregnant woman!!! Save passengers. NO!!! It's a pregnant woman who just robbed a bank!! No, wait! It's a pregnant woman bank robber that called for a ride!!! Pedestrian to be Passenger bank robber pregnant woman!"

I think the car will be able to process MUCH better than people and that means it's NOT zero sum or binary, either kill the boys OR the girls. It means, hit barrier because occupants will have some chance. It means slide into building to reduce speed, noise will warn pedestrians! Or perhaps some emergency features, like an emergency brake or engine kill? Ejector seats? Air bags? External air bags? An anchor?

The VAST majority of humans claim "I didn't see them!" when they ran over a motorcycle that they DID see but weren't really focusing on because the truck beyond was bigger. We say 'it was unavoidable' when it was avoidable given a little training. We kill ourselves to avoid hitting a little turtle that was far harder to see than the motorcycle but is something, the turtle, we see as vulnerable and not an annoying noise maker with some jack off in a pirate costume, like the bike.

Yes, it's better, probably, to hit 4 people instead of 5 but it is FAR better to avoid that or mitigate it because it's not moral to say 4 is less than 5 and for the reasons stated; it's math. Moral says those 4 could be nicer people or smarter or friendlier or just generally better than 5 douche bags. What if it's the President of the United States OR Hitler? Well, if it's Trump and you're of a certain mindset, that could go either way. Same if it's Obama. What if it's POTUS or a lump of crap? Same thing; it depends. We've reached a point in time where our morality is totally subjective. All of us.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
The point isnt to accurately represent what sorts of judgement these vehicles can and or will make. But to spark discussion just like you and I are engaged in. And I agree, cars will be better than people. Were we to train people and actually get them to engage, it might be a draw, not with car control, of course, the computers can outdrive almost anyone except maybe WRC drivers. But peoples ability to work with crappy data and pull crap out of their asses intuitively wont be so easily matched.

The cars should be able to pretty easily nail down kids/not kids, and I'm okay with the car taking extra risk for me to save kids. And yes, mitigations along the "pick the best crash" should be part of the equation.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
And yes, mitigations along the "pick the best crash" should be part of the equation.
If they STARTED with that rather than the binary, I'd be a lot happier with the thinking they're engaging in.

Safety in automation should not be a social experiment; "better to run over the boys than the girls?" I mean, what are they gonna do, make a Klan or Panther model that will be programed to lower the value of a given person in accordance with the preferences of the owner? "Would you like the Democrat or the Republican model, ma'am??"

It's a fun test for entertainments sake but I'd like to think engineers are WAY past binary decision making on complex issues. Default should ALWAYS be self destruct, sacrifice the vehicle over running over any person. Except if it's a politician.... :evil:
 

glhs837

Power with Control
If they STARTED with that rather than the binary, I'd be a lot happier with the thinking they're engaging in.

Safety in automation should not be a social experiment; "better to run over the boys than the girls?" I mean, what are they gonna do, make a Klan or Panther model that will be programed to lower the value of a given person in accordance with the preferences of the owner? "Would you like the Democrat or the Republican model, ma'am??"

It's a fun test for entertainments sake but I'd like to think engineers are WAY past binary decision making on complex issues. Default should ALWAYS be self destruct, sacrifice the vehicle over running over any person. Except if it's a politician.... :evil:



Larry, thought experiment, bears no relation to actual autonomous car programming. Only purpose is to gather data about how people view these sorts of decisions, call it raw fodder for the ethecists who will advise the programmers. BTW, when making my choices, I always defaulted to crash over hitting any pedestrian, and that made me look like a sociopath :) But I also know damn well the real world incidence of crashes that are fast enough to kill occupants and also involve pedestrians are pretty slim.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Larry, thought experiment, bears no relation to actual autonomous car programming. Only purpose is to gather data about how people view these sorts of decisions, call it raw fodder for the ethecists who will advise the programmers. BTW, when making my choices, I always defaulted to crash over hitting any pedestrian, and that made me look like a sociopath :) But I also know damn well the real world incidence of crashes that are fast enough to kill occupants and also involve pedestrians are pretty slim.

Good stuff
 
Top