Sponsored

You Get What You Pay For..

Shots

Well-Known Member
First Name
Winchell
Joined
Jul 6, 2018
Threads
16
Messages
2,105
Reaction score
2,783
Location
Ohio
Vehicle(s)
'22 Rubicon
Just going by memory here since I don't have a lot of time ... a couple years ago there was an accident in Arizona involving a self driving vehicle (SDV) and a pedestrian. The pedestrian lost, even though she stepped immediately in front of the SDV, the car did have time to conclude it's calculations and choose a path. It was destined to hit the pedestrian, even though it applied all of the braking force it could muster.

According to Asimov's laws, the only law in question, in this case, is the first one " A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. ". The caveat being that in this case the SDV's prime motivator was its own occupants.

Back to the story. The SDV had made its calculations, and had elected to impact the pedestrian instead of maneuvering to avoid it as it is quite capable of doing. The reasons are simple...
1) The pedestrian in front of it was an object, not a human. SDVs and their computers cannot make that distinction ... yet.
2) In the oncoming lane was a bigger object. A class 8 truck travelling at speed (that means the speed limit, not speeding).

The algorithm simply said "In this unavoidable situation, in which we are going to hit something, chose the path of least resistance that is likely to cause the least damage to your occupants.".
Yes, there was a crash where an automated vehicle struck a pedestrian, but it did exactly what it was programmed to do. It applied braking and did not swerve.
As I mentioned, an autonomous vehicle will not swerve to avoid a collision. Yes it is physically capable of doing it, but there are no autonomous vehicle (*that I know of) which will swerve to avoid a collision. The car in question didn't analyze the area and "elect" to take the "path of least resistance". All it did was detect an object ahead of it an apply braking.
It doesn't matter if a semi is in the other lane, or if it's driving in a wide open parking lot with nothing around it. Current autonomous vehicles will not swerve regardless of what's around it. Will that change in the future? Maybe, but none do it now.

Regarding Asimov's laws. That is a work of fiction. They were published in a sci-fi novel written by Asimov, and made popular by the movie I-Robot (with Will Smith). IIRC the movie was based on the novel. Anyway Asimov's laws aren't actually any sort of guideline or standard, and are not programmed into autonomous vehicles. They're fictional rules set to create a conflict in a story.
Sponsored

 

Notorious

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Threads
4
Messages
2,215
Reaction score
4,589
Location
North Texas
Vehicle(s)
2000 TJ Sahara
So my general observation, life is precious, well not all life, just yours
1*
I still hate that guy. Such a douche.
1601000812985.png
See below. Ayn Rand is not Rand Paul. Completely different people, genders, timelines and ideals. In your defense, they both needed oxygen to live.
I like it when people pontificate on concepts or philosophers they don't really understand. To make the above association to Ayn Rand (who coincidentally is not Rand Paul, lol) is laughable at best.
Agreed. I chuckled. And that user’s credibility is lost.
 

Gee-pah

Banned
Banned
Banned
First Name
Andy
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Threads
59
Messages
1,658
Reaction score
1,264
Location
SanFrancisco
Vehicle(s)
JL Wrangler
I suppose that is true . . . unless the individual's perceived rights endanger other people or infringe on their rights unfairly. For instance, I feel like I have a minority of one right to sit naked in a movie theater and yell at the screen while the movie plays. The other 200 people in the theater may disagree, and try to deny my individual right by calling the cops. So according to Rand, I guess they are in the wrong. Or does it just mean whatever rights somebody else has decided I deserve? That doesn't seem very nice at all.

Oh well, maybe I am getting too philosophical, which does happen after I have eaten my third or fourth Tide Pod.

Anyway, it's a decent quote I guess, but I still hate that guy. Such a douche.

1601000812985.png
Please appreciate @Mfarr75 that the following critique takes stabs at the quote you cite--which you of course didn't author--not you.

Its author seems to attempt to make a point by using the word "minority," which in the quote has two entirely different meanings, as if it has one. The first reference to the word speaks merely to the factual, mathematical minority, which is merely the group with smaller representation, while the latter is far more about a class of individuals, who while making advances towards parity, have been and still are denied their fair access to the American Dream and equality.

I suspect the quote's author does this by design because most people (I'm glad to report) don't want to think that they're discriminating against, for example, people of color: the most obvious group that comes to mind when thinking of the quote's second reference to minorities. Quotes like this get stupid people to ask, absurdly so, "so if I tell that nude screamer in the movies to shut up and put on clothes, I've actually discriminated against Blacks/Hispanics/Native Americans, etc?"

They haven't: regardless of whether the offender happens to be a person of color or not.

The quote seems, at least to me, to cloudy up some very simple concepts of freedom that are easy to understand when presented without intent to trick. Here goes.

Within the confines of law and morality we are afforded a large but limited set of different choices...freedom. We are free to choose what we wish, but we are not only responsible for those choices, we cannot deny those around us more freedom than we take for ourselves--much as quantifying freedom is subjective.

Call it an arbitrary standard, but our society has determined that the loss of freedom from having others around us naked, when disrobing is not otherwise indicated (e.g. the men's shower room at my community outdoor pool) and screaming when not otherwise warning the masses of eminent danger, is greater than the rights of others to act this way. It's hygiene, culture and bias all it one.

One more point and off the soapbox I'll go. It's the responsibility aspect of choice.

I've seen too many people argue about their loss of freedom from a tyrannically government in the US, when all it really was about was selfishness.

Absolutely, government needs to remain in check, and refrain from enacting laws (i.e. losses of freedom) that fail to provide more benefit to more people than the limits to freedom those laws have imposed. And government has at times failed at that task due to its own stupid and selfish reasons. Many protests about loss of freedom have been justified.

But if people choose to do things in the name of freedom that offend others or reduce their freedom, they need to, IMHO, incentivize those they've disenfranchised, examples including pollution tax on gasoline (which I use and would have to pay too), and palliative care insurance if your helmetless motorcycle riding (such an easy thing to remedy!) results in an accident that makes you a "vegetable."

With that said, there are also limits to my thoughts here. I'm not prepared, for example, to hand out traffic tickets to those who regularly consume fast food French fries and risk their health.
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,782
Reaction score
17,829
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
People who ride without helmets likely would advocate removal of the 'social safety net' that EMTALA provides, thereby negating your argument for such a mandate entirely, especially so long as private insurance remains a thing in the USA.

And that's the biggest argument against single payer/socialized medicine. The minute you make the misnomer of universal "healthcare" (which is WHOLLY different than "health insurance") within the purview of the government via taxation for all of the citizenry, you invite a loss of liberty in terms of self ownership and control over one's body simply b/c now EVERYONE has a vested interest in your life choices, thereby opening up scrutiny into your diet, your sex life, your recreational activities, etc.

Who owns your body? You? Or government? It's a damn slippery slope if you advocate the latter...and we already do so with the failed War on Drugs and did so with the (thankfully)now defunct concept of Prohibition.
I'm only quoting, because you mentioned health care. My wife's an RN. She was telling me last night, about a new proposed policy that may go into affect in the near future concerning an addition made to all charted patients records. Fucking disgusted to think about it! It may become policy to ask every patient if they have any firearms in their homes. Not just the ones with questionable medical records and/or showing current signs of needing a psych eval. Every patient, period! Great way of circumventing the restricted access to 4473 records. They'd be able to run their confiscation sweeps without being limited to just handgun permit lists.
 

Sponsored

PyrPatriot

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2019
Threads
43
Messages
567
Reaction score
558
Location
Kentucky
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Gladiator
I'm only quoting, because you mentioned health care. My wife's an RN. She was telling me last night, about a new proposed policy that may go into affect in the near future concerning an addition made to all charted patients records. Fucking disgusted to think about it! It may become policy to ask every patient if they have any firearms in their homes. Not just the ones with questionable medical records and/or showing current signs of needing a psych eval. Every patient, period! Great way of circumventing the restricted access to 4473 records. They'd be able to run their confiscation sweeps without being limited to just handgun permit lists.
I'd just say yep, want to see mine? Hot nurses love German engineering, afterall.

They've been trying to push the "gun violence is a national healthcare crisis" crap for a while now. It's our job to fight against the lies. I wish they would just do what the police do: assume everyone they encounter is armed or has guns unless there is clear evidence they do not (ie naked on a surgery table or getting ready for an MRI)
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,782
Reaction score
17,829
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
I'd just say yep, want to see mine? Hot nurses love German engineering, afterall.

They've been trying to push the "gun violence is a national healthcare crisis" crap for a while now. It's our job to fight against the lies. I wish they would just do what the police do: assume everyone they encounter is armed or has guns unless there is clear evidence they do not (ie naked on a surgery table or getting ready for an MRI)
Things may be more like how they should be, down your way. But new york just keeps getting worse. On top of the "safe" act, illegals can now vote and get drivers licenses, but becoming legal and tax paying isn't required for either. My wife and i are getting pretty locked in to the idea of her becoming a registered travel nurse, within the next 2 years. She'll make a ton of money, I'll be mostly retired and exploring trails everywhere we go, and after a few to several years we'll have a very good bead on where to lay roots again.
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Threads
26
Messages
7,782
Reaction score
17,829
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
Yeah, wherever a nurse registers into the program is where their salary gets taxed. If memory serves, that's the next aspect that she was going to look into. She just started in the ICU unit, so further class work both in the hospital and home on the computer has been added on to of her normal shifts. Her free time has been filled, so she hasn't researched more into traveling. Plus, she wants to log at least 2 years of experience before moving on. Building a house here is a notion that's been pushed to the edge of the table. As time goes on, I get more and more convinced that it will get the last nudge to get knocked off.
 

Deleted member 53226

Guest
I like it when people pontificate on concepts or philosophers they don't really understand. To make the above association to Ayn Rand (who coincidentally is not Rand Paul, lol) is laughable at best.
LOL. In all seriousness, I actually know all about Ayn Rand. She was a bit whacky, and had very unrealistic views of how the world actually works, like most people who fancy themselves philosophers. I typically don't take anyone seriously that quotes her for any reason. The only good thing is that she is no longer around to write dumb books. A lot of republican-types love to quote Rand as some bastion of conservatism and some great defender of "individual rights", but she really wasn't. At the heart of it, she just really liked making money off people who bought her BS. Funny thing is, if she were around, Rand would actually be against 99% of the current MAGA platform which drifts heavily toward authoritarian when you pull back the curtains. I just assumed you were joking around by quoting her. But I guess not. Carry on then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 53226

Guest
1*
See below. Ayn Rand is not Rand Paul. Completely different people, genders, timelines and ideals. In your defense, they both needed oxygen to live.
Agreed. I chuckled. And that user’s credibility is lost.
This is all very funny. I guess sarcasm and a bit of joking doesn't fly in this thread. Oh well.

Actually, Rand Paul doesn't need oxygen to live. In fact, I doubt he breathes at all. I fear he is some kind of alien sent here to destroy the Senate, or at least common sense. His work is not yet finished, but he is making progress. Ayn Rand doesn't need any oxygen since she's been dead since the early 1980's. The cigarettes got her in the end by giving her lung cancer. I guess she would not be mad at the cigarette manufacturers for not warning her about that tiny risk, because they were just being good capitalists and making money. Cancer warnings hurt profit.
 

Deleted member 53226

Guest
LOL, once again illustrating just how little you understand the concepts about which she wrote.

I couldn't even be characterized as a "fan" (though I do agree with her quote above) of her work and I know that.

Funny how many folks in this thread are clearly very afraid of their own mortality and lack all personal accountability...so much so that they project it on to others.
Hey everybody. Sean K has got it right (as usual I am sure). Sounds like he's got it all figured out, which is fantastic! Great job Mr. K! Hold your signed copy of Atlas Shrugged high for all to see! For my part, I will just continue to stew in my own salty broth of ignorance and lack of accountability. And I shall project my flaws upon others I meet. I can't help it because I am unenlightened and fear my own mortality, as you have so deftly figured out in this Jeep Wrangler forum! Oh, have mercy on the wretches Mr. K. Please I beg of you.

Don't forget to mark your calender for February 2nd to celebrate Ayn Rand's 116th B-Day!

Jeep Wrangler JL You Get What You Pay For.. 1601064944605
Sponsored

 
 



Top