New efforts!

[Arcana]

I found nothing offensive about any of it.  I saw it as simply a healthy debate and learning experience for everyone.

I didn't specifically take offense myself.  I didn't even really see it as a debate per se: I'm pretty sure there are people who spend trivial amounts of time on educational lectures, so it is entirely possible there are people who think that is the norm.  I'm honestly not even sure what the norm actually is.  I only mentioned that it wouldn't be the norm for me.

[Taceus Jiwede]

This is something I learned many, many years ago back on the old CoH forums. Also, something I learned a long time ago from much forum reading was "don't ever contradict Arcana on anything, whether it be math or having your own views, because not only will you be curb-stomped by Arcana's next eloquent post...but, you'll also be crucified by all of Arcana's supporters/admirers."

I've certainly had my fair share of arguments with CoH people in the past (not with Arcana thank goodness...haha)... Most of them involved whether human-form Warshading was viable or just as effictive/good as tri-forming. However, these days, I've decided to relegate myself to just mostly reading and commenting here and there and leaving well enough alone. it's not really worth my time anymore.

I had meant no disrespect to Arcana whatsoever.  Like I said I was just baffled how what had originally been nothing more then a compliment to Arcana was so quickly turned upside down.  Sure after everyone started digging into Ukaserex he/she didn't help her/his case by saying that in their experience adjunct's didn't have it very hard.  But if a bunch of people teamed up on me to dissect my compliment I might get a little defensive too.  What I said wasn't directed to Arcana in anyway at all besides that the conversation originated about her.  I just have never seen so many people refuse a compliment intended for someone else.

When people say "You are smart enough and comprehensive enough to be a great teacher" or pay any compliment the general practice is to say something like "Thank you, but I have no interest in that" not have a group of people spend 3 pages dissecting how awful of a position it is to be an adjunct how no one in the right mind would wish that upon a person.  Ukaserex would have never had to go on the defensive if people never tore apart his/her compliment the way they did.  Just take the compliment like 99% of the world does when given one.  The conditions of a compliment are never literal, so why were they taken so literal this time.

I don't consider this an argument.  I saw something I didn't like and said something, people can love it or hate it or be completely indifferent it makes no difference to me.  I hardly consider being called an adorable sugary treat or redacted insults a crucifixion at best they are knee jerk emotional responses neither of which I found to be very insulting.  Attempted insults at me don't change the fact that a bunch of people, from where I was sitting at least, tore into someone for a compliment which I have never seen.

[LadyVamp]

I didn't even really see it as a debate per se:....

Perhaps debate was too heavy a word.  I should have said discussion.  Never the less, it was interesting, informative, and even entertaining.

Now, what subjects have we yet to talk about in this one thread?  I think the debate on left drive vs right drive cars hasn't been talked about yet. 

[LadyVamp]

I want it understood, categorically, that I am NOT "human".  Harrumph! 

Half elf, half Vulcan, half cat, and quarter snake. 
Yes, that equals more than "1", we always figured there had to be more of me than there was other people! 
Oh, and I forgot about the 53% Irish, and 49% Scandinavian!

Half elf, half Vulcan, half cat, and quarter snake?  I was thinking wow.  We got Sarah Kerrigan post infestation from StarCraft but then I realized the mice would have a problem with the cat and snake parts.

[Tubbius]

Half elf, half Vulcan, half cat, and quarter snake?  I was thinking wow.  We got Sarah Kerrigan post infestation from StarCraft but then I realized the mice would have a problem with the cat and snake parts.

This is beginning to sound like Elizabeth the Star Child from the 1980s V tv series.

[Arcana]

Now, what subjects have we yet to talk about in this one thread?  I think the debate on left drive vs right drive cars hasn't been talked about yet.

Well, that's going to be moot in a decade or two anyway, right?

[Arcana]

This is something I learned many, many years ago back on the old CoH forums. Also, something I learned a long time ago from much forum reading was "don't ever contradict Arcana on anything, whether it be math or having your own views, because not only will you be curb-stomped by Arcana's next eloquent post...but, you'll also be crucified by all of Arcana's supporters/admirers."

Funny thing about reputations: nobody actually contradicted me in this sequence, nor did anyone come to my defense as a result.  Nor am I cognizant of how it could seem that way.  ukaserex made a comment about adjunct professors that other people objected to, and I just happened to be nearby when it happened.

[AlienOne]

Funny thing about reputations: nobody actually contradicted me in this sequence, nor did anyone come to my defense as a result.  Nor am I cognizant of how it could seem that way.  ukaserex made a comment about adjunct professors that other people objected to, and I just happened to be nearby when it happened.

Notice that I never said someone contradicted you in this sequence. I simply agreed with Taceus's comment from earlier (which he seems to have completely dissected my agreement with him now), and then added as an aside (as a related subject to "people jumping on to one person for something") that people have done the same thing to someone contradicting you/arguing with you in the past--hence, the word "also" beginning my second original sentence. I never stated that someone was arguing with you here. I was simply adding to the discussion and making a personal observation about people in the CoH community ganging up on one person for making a simple comment or observation--and since the subject was Arcana, I made my own added observation about CoH people and Arcana--given my knowledge of the CoH forums in the past.

Sorry for any misunderstanding there--hope that clears things up.

[LadyVamp]

Well, that's going to be moot in a decade or two anyway, right?

Who is to say.  Not sure I'd put my life in the hands of a self driving car.  I'm more impressed with how computers take orders.  So far, their ability to give them hasn't been impressive to me.  Especially when doing exception processing when the correct action to take is highly situational and changes from moment to moment.

Besides, I love driving too much to give it up.

[blacksly]

Besides, I love driving too much to give it up.

So do I... but I wouldn't mind if most of you did give it up.
GIT OFFA MAH ROAD, HOGS!!!
Sheesh, buncha old peeps should let these new-fangly electronic doo-dads drive them to Denny's rather than hoping they put on their driving and not their reading glasses.

The above is mostly and moderately tongue-in-cheek. Other than the "MAH ROAD" part :p

[Twisted Toon]

Well, that's going to be moot in a decade or two anyway, right?

Because no one will be able to afford to drive because the fees for the greenhouse emissions from driving cars, burning the fuel to drive the cars, and manufacturing the driver's licenses will cost more then a Bugati Veyron? All because of Global Warming, of course. And, the protection of the stupid. Also, because cars will fly and you'll need a pilot's license instead of a driver's license?

[Arcana]

Who is to say.  Not sure I'd put my life in the hands of a self driving car.

The question isn't whether you would put your life in the hands of a self driving car instead of yourself, but whether you would put your life in the hands of self-driving cars instead of everyone else.  Over 30,000 people are killed every year in traffic fatalities in the US alone.  Even if you don't care about pedestrians and bicyclists and even car passengers and only care about actual fatalities involving auto drivers that number is still over 15,000 per year.  That's approximately the number of people that are killed in all homicides in the US.

Self-driving cars will end up killing people.  It is just a question of them not killing quite so many people than are already killed by other people with cars.

[Arcana]

Because no one will be able to afford to drive because the fees for the greenhouse emissions from driving cars, burning the fuel to drive the cars, and manufacturing the driver's licenses will cost more then a Bugati Veyron? All because of Global Warming, of course. And, the protection of the stupid. Also, because cars will fly and you'll need a pilot's license instead of a driver's license?

That seems unlikely to me now insofar as the technology to electrify cars is firmly established and getting better all the time.  While it does ultimately take electric power to charge electric vehicles and that power does ultimately come from fossil fuels in large part today, by removing the combustion from the car and putting it into the power grid itself, vehicle emissions just become part of the same emissions that power homes and businesses.  That would make it difficult to tax directly to disincentivize driving.

I think flying cars are unlikely for the same reason I think self-driving cars are inevitable.  I would prefer to drive and I would love to fly.  But I would prefer if others weren't driving and I really don't want the average person flying anywhere near me.  As George Carlin used to say, think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are stupider than that.  Now give them flying cars.

[LadyVamp]

So do I... but I wouldn't mind if most of you did give it up.
GIT OFFA MAH ROAD, HOGS!!!
Sheesh, buncha old peeps should let these new-fangly electronic doo-dads drive them to Denny's rather than hoping they put on their driving and not their reading glasses.

The above is mostly and moderately tongue-in-cheek. Other than the "MAH ROAD" part :p

I drive a 350Z convertible.  85,000 miles and tight as the day I bought it.  Run the hell out of it.  The get the hell out of my way is usually my line.  :)

[LadyVamp]

[quote author=Arcana link=topic=9675.msg211961#msg211961 date=1471976586
Self-driving cars will end up killing people.  It is just a question of them not killing quite so many people than are already killed by other people with cars.
[/quote]

And I don't know that they would be better at making split second decisions which aren't necessarily based on pure logic. I would not want a computer to decide to kill me so it can save 2 other people because logic dictates I should die to save them.

Then there's the firmware/software bugs and malware.  Imagine being locked in your car being forced to listen to annoying commercials because some ad company wrote some malware and your car got infected.  I'd almost want the ransomware malware to infect the car so it could encrypt the ad malware and disable it for me.  Or being locked in your car unable to unlock the doors because the powered off car thinks it is in gear due to a bug in the software/firmware.  It isn't a far leap for someone to decide locking your doors so you cannot exit is a good idea for safety reasons.

[Codewalker]

Then there's the firmware/software bugs and malware.  Imagine being locked in your car being forced to listen to annoying commercials because some ad company wrote some malware and your car got infected.

I think eventually we'll see regulations requiring car control systems to be air-gapped and unable to be remotely accessed without physical user interaction, much as is done (or at least supposed to be) for potentially hazardous infrastructure such as nuclear reactors.

The question is how many high-profile hacks will it take before that happens. Hopefully they are the entertaining variety rather than the deadly kind, though I fear it will require the latter before people start taking it as seriously as they should.

[Biz]

And I don't know that they would be better at making split second decisions which aren't necessarily based on pure logic. I would not want a computer to decide to kill me so it can save 2 other people because logic dictates I should die to save them.

Is this a common traffic problem in your area? If so please tell me where you live so I don't accidentally plan a road trip through your city.

[Vee]

[quote author=Arcana link=topic=9675.msg211961#msg211961 date=1471976586
And I don't know that they would be better at making split second decisions which aren't necessarily based on pure logic. I would not want a computer to decide to kill me so it can save 2 other people because logic dictates I should die to save them.

Really it's irresponsible of all of us to be driving without being able to analyze actuarial tables in microseconds.

[Arcana]

And I don't know that they would be better at making split second decisions which aren't necessarily based on pure logic. I would not want a computer to decide to kill me so it can save 2 other people because logic dictates I should die to save them.

Statistically speaking, we already know that within the current parameters they are allowed to drive within legally today, they are in fact better at that.  Self-driving cars have actually clocked enough miles for us to know statistically how good they are.  Today, statistically speaking they are at least three times better (more properly, they make only one third of the mistakes that lead to accidents).  And getting better all the time.

The ethical question you raise is the interesting one being debated.  It is based on the ethical conundrum of greatest benefit.  The apparent ethical paradox is this.  If you ask people if they would *avoid* killing three people if it meant taking an action that would cause one person to die, most would say yes.  *However* if you ask people if they would be willing to *directly murder* an innocent person to save the lives of three people far less people would say yes.  Numerically speaking, those are the same situation.  It suggests that what people believe the moral decision to be is not something that can be easily quantified.

But to me, that ethical problem has a definite moral solution, at least for me personally.  It goes like this: there are some things I am morally allowed to do within the context of living in a shared society and with the understanding that I am an imperfect person within it.  So there's no such thing as the mathematically perfect problem or the mathematically certain solution.  There is only the situation as I perceive it, the imperfect understanding I have of it, and the fact that I must make my decisions within the context of coexisting with other imperfect people that will ultimately decide whether my actions are compatible with the rest of society.

Given those axioms, if I am driving down the road and there are three people in my way, and I *could* turn off the road and kill someone to avoid those three people, I don't.  That's not a math problem.  I am morally compelled to do whatever I can to avoid hitting those people, but I am not morally allowed to kill an innocent bystander to do it.  To do that is to play God.  I do not get to decide which lives I get to extinguish to further my causes.  If I kill that one person I do end up killing less people, but that life is not mine to spend.  I take whatever other actions I am presented with to try to mitigate that situation.  I can even risk my own life  in the process, because it is my life to risk.  But your lives are not mine to spend, not even to save other people.  To me, that is not a moral contradiction.  Circumstances put those three people in the road.  Circumstances put me behind the wheel.  We four can try to save ourselves, but not by taking other lives to do it.

Now, *if* I decide to turn right and kill someone to avoid those three, I have to do so understanding that person had the right to expect I wouldn't kill him, and it is worth exactly nothing at all to that person that I say I had no choice but to kill him.  I murdered him.  Whether I murdered him to save three people's lives or save one other person's life or beat the red light is irrelevant.  I should expect there to be consequences.  I should expect society to morally judge me to be a self-appointed arbiter of life and death, a right not granted to me.

What does this have to do with self-driving cars?  In my opinion, everything.  Everyone from computer programmers to actual technological ethicists have been framing the ethical problems of self-driving cars in quantitative terms.  What should the algorithm be that tells the cars what to do when presented with life or death choices?  How does the car decide how to maximize the best possible outcome.  I think that's wrong.  I think that presumes that cars - and for that matter people - have the freedom to actually decide for everyone else in the world what the best possible outcome is, and take the appropriate action.  We don't.  If we think two people are being bad parents to three children, are we ethically required to kill those two people to save the lives of the three children from a bad future?  No.  We don't have that right.  Self-driving cars shouldn't be programmed to be the individual arbiters of human life, deciding which lives to save and which to kill.  They should be programmed to obey moral limits on what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do even if that doesn't generate the optimal outcome.  Because life is not about generating the optimal outcome.  It is about living within the limits we place among ourselves, knowing we're imperfect people who can't be trusted to decide "ultimate good" and "ultimate bad."

If a self-driving car finds itself suddenly presented with three people in the road, I expect it to hit the brakes.  If the car doesn't stop in time, I expect those people to die.  If the car could have drove onto the sidewalk and not hit anyone, I would expect it to do that.  If the car could have drove onto the sidewalk and it was going to kill someone to do it, I would expect it to not do that, because the programmer of the car doesn't have the right to decide to deliberately take that life.  Period, the end.

Now, should your car kill *you* to save other people?  That to me is the most interesting question of all.  When you're behind the wheel, that is always your decision to make.  When you are in a self-driving car, that's a decision you're handing over to the programmer of the car.  If you were a passenger of the car driven by a human being, whether you want to or not you're delegating that decision to the driver.  The question is whether you should have some input into the decision when it is just you and you own the car.  I think in the ideal case you should.  I'm not sure how you do that though.  Do you have a conversation with the car where it asks you these moral questions and decides what to do based on your answers?  Do you tell the dealer to pre-program the car with a self-preservation switch set to "off" or "on" when you buy the car?  I think you should have the right to decide this question, but I'm not sure how to best implement such a choice.

[LadyVamp]

Is this a common traffic problem in your area? If so please tell me where you live so I don't accidentally plan a road trip through your city.

Try practically every college campus.  The young adults often walk right out in front of traffic.  Often without looking.  On a small campus the problem isn't too bad but try a major university which happens to be in a major city or where the college engulfs the town itself.