Who's to blame? [Archive] - Two Plus Two Newer Archives

Darryl_P

07-01-2006, 04:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If they caused all of this destruction out of some apparent existential depression, I think its a pretty big assumption that they don't have a soul. Care to elaborate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going on what I know to be the definition of a robot, ie. a mechanical being which acts according to pre-set programming. Unless it's specifically mentioned, I see no reason assume they have a soul. Programming them to find a purpose for existence is conceivable even if they don't have a soul, don't you think?

I'd say it's a stretch to assume any sort of depression since that is not mentioned anywhere in the OP.

evolvedForm

07-01-2006, 11:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's a stretch to assume any sort of depression since that is not mentioned anywhere in the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

robots are destroying the planet because they cannot find any reason for their existence..

[/ QUOTE ]

madnak

07-01-2006, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He does indeed have a bad rap.. How about those damned amino acids? or should we accept some responsiblility for some bad choices that we make.. like the creator of the Robots.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards. If the creator is to blame, then so is the Creator.

Personally I don't think it's meaningful to blame people. But while it depends on the circumstances, I'll usually hold the creator more responsible. Then again, when I start waging war against the robots, I might take a different approach.

http://madnak.com/images/terminator.jpg

surftheiop

07-01-2006, 02:21 PM

Godboy good thread, your getting people to blame God which means they would have to be accepting his existence.

hmkpoker

07-01-2006, 02:22 PM

Don't you think having a paradigm that requires you to isolate one of many, many causes as the sole cause, and call that the sole, proximate cause of something while ignoring the others, is a little limiting?

luckyme

07-01-2006, 03:36 PM

why would that cause them to destroy anything? Where would they form the idea that they should want a reason for existance or that there could even be a reason for existance or if there isn't one then that's a reason to destroy rather than enjoy or ignore or improve.

Obviously the person who set the process in motion isn't directly responsible unless he programmed them to act this way specifically. If he just started super neural-nets algorithimically at the nano level, then he's no more responsible than my spitting causing the next hurricane.

ScottHoward

07-01-2006, 04:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Godboy good thread, your getting people to blame God which means they would have to be accepting his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
did anybody blame god yet?

AceofSpades

07-01-2006, 05:07 PM

If the creator knew the robots would act that way then clearly the creator is to blame.

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 07:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Godboy good thread, your getting people to blame God which means they would have to be accepting his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]
did anybody blame god yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I did, in the context of the OP. However I dont think this is quite the fiat that surf thinks it is. Using the word god, for me, isn't exactly the same as accepting his existence. Thus the lower-case.

Matt R.

07-01-2006, 07:56 PM

Doesn't the standard definition of AI include sentience, self-awareness, and reasoning ability? If so, then humans would be no different than the robots as far morality is concerned. The robots would be the one to blame.

Essentially if you think the creator of the robots is to blame, then you cannot blame humans if they were to destroy the world. We would have to blame our creator, and given that we can't even agree on who/what that is, it seems a bit silly to do so.

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 08:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the standard definition of AI include sentience, self-awareness, and reasoning ability? If so, then humans would be no different than the robots as far morality is concerned. The robots would be the one to blame.

Essentially if you think the creator of the robots is to blame, then you cannot blame humans if they were to destroy the world. We would have to blame our creator, and given that we can't even agree on who/what that is, it seems a bit silly to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they wouldnt have a SOUL.....!

godBoy

07-01-2006, 09:32 PM

Ok, the robots have free will, they decide for whatever reason to destroy the planet.. Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

soon2bepro

07-01-2006, 09:33 PM

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, the robots have free will, they decide for whatever reason to destroy the planet.. Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain what you are trying to get us to say, and I will say it for you.

godBoy

07-01-2006, 09:43 PM

It's amazing how people can take a seemingly straight forward question about robots, and blame God or religion.
Perhaps if my question was why is the sky blue? Many here would reply - cause that bastard Jesus clearly had something against the rest of the spectrum. What If blue is my most hated of all colours, who is He to impose his taste of colour upon me. He truly is the ultimate evil eh? what a monster??

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 09:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's amazing how people can take a seemingly straight forward question about robots, and blame God or religion.
Perhaps if my question was why is the sky blue? Many here would reply - cause that bastard Jesus clearly had something against the rest of the spectrum. What If blue is my most hated of all colours, who is He to impose his taste of colour upon me. He truly is the ultimate evil eh? what a monster??

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if the robots have 'free will' however you choose to define that, and they do all this 'bad' stuff, how can they not be to blame? Is it your parents fault for the things you do? Obv not. This seems like a weird question. If the point is, Do these robots have free will? then just ask that. But as stipulated, this is easy. Robots fault.

MidGe

07-01-2006, 09:52 PM

if your god is creator of all, then he is responsible for all.

godBoy

07-01-2006, 10:00 PM

I'll try --

In the not too distant future...
The technology of artificial intelligence has been increasing in compexity exponentially since the creation of the T-1000, Rob Otter designed a robot that was aware of the distinction that humans made between right and wrong. The robot knew by default ( was programmed with ) a sense of right and wrong. This particular robot was able to duplicate itself and re-program his children with any knowledge that he wanted them to know.
These robot knowing the difference between right and wrong had the freedom to choose to do anything they wanted to.

10 years on, 1 of the robots decides to build a bomb and end all known life..

Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

- God
- The Designer of the first robot
- The first robot
- The parent of the 'bad' robot
- The 'bad' robot
- someone/something else..

You guys think too much..

vhawk01

07-01-2006, 10:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll try --

In the not too distant future...
The technology of artificial intelligence has been increasing in compexity exponentially since the creation of the T-1000, Rob Otter designed a robot that was aware of the distinction that humans made between right and wrong. The robot knew by default ( was programmed with ) a sense of right and wrong. This particular robot was able to duplicate itself and re-program his children with any knowledge that he wanted them to know.
These robot knowing the difference between right and wrong had the freedom to choose to do anything they wanted to.

10 years on, 1 of the robots decides to build a bomb and end all known life..

Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

- God
- The Designer of the first robot
- The first robot
- The parent of the 'bad' robot
- The 'bad' robot
- someone/something else..

You guys think too much..

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont believe in free will, so my answer probably doesn't mean much to you. But, as asked, I'll go with 'bad robot.'

Edit: There are only 2 acceptable answers to this question, as I see it. Its either bad robot or god. Actually, I suppose c) no one deserves blame, blame is irrelevant; is also acceptable.

surftheiop

07-01-2006, 10:10 PM

I know, i was just being annoying : )

Philo

07-02-2006, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the standard definition of AI include sentience, self-awareness, and reasoning ability? If so, then humans would be no different than the robots as far morality is concerned. The robots would be the one to blame.

Essentially if you think the creator of the robots is to blame, then you cannot blame humans if they were to destroy the world. We would have to blame our creator, and given that we can't even agree on who/what that is, it seems a bit silly to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted. Blame is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every concept is a human created concept.

Philo

07-02-2006, 12:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If the creator knew the robots would act that way then clearly the creator is to blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is only the creator to blame in that case?

ScottHoward

07-02-2006, 12:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]

- God
- The Designer of the first robot
- The first robot
- The parent of the 'bad' robot
- The 'bad' robot
- someone/something else..

[/ QUOTE ]
you left out "-the creator of god", and "-the creator of the creator of god"

madnak

07-02-2006, 01:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's amazing how people can take a seemingly straight forward question about robots, and blame God or religion.
Perhaps if my question was why is the sky blue? Many here would reply - cause that bastard Jesus clearly had something against the rest of the spectrum. What If blue is my most hated of all colours, who is He to impose his taste of colour upon me. He truly is the ultimate evil eh? what a monster??

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on your screen name, and your posting history, if you asked "why is the sky blue?" I'd probably think there was a religious agenda. But in this case it's really relevant, because if the human creator is to blame for the actions of the robots, then it stands to reason that if God exists, he's to blame for the actions of the humans.

madnak

07-02-2006, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll try --

In the not too distant future...
The technology of artificial intelligence has been increasing in compexity exponentially since the creation of the T-1000, Rob Otter designed a robot that was aware of the distinction that humans made between right and wrong. The robot knew by default ( was programmed with ) a sense of right and wrong. This particular robot was able to duplicate itself and re-program his children with any knowledge that he wanted them to know.
These robot knowing the difference between right and wrong had the freedom to choose to do anything they wanted to.

10 years on, 1 of the robots decides to build a bomb and end all known life..

Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

- God
- The Designer of the first robot
- The first robot
- The parent of the 'bad' robot
- The 'bad' robot
- someone/something else..

You guys think too much..

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't think blame is a useful concept and nobody has given me a reason to think otherwise. But in this case I'd assign levels of responsibility as follows (in order from most to least responsible):

God
The "bad" robot
The parent of the "bad" robot
The Designer of the first robot (Rob Otter)
The first robot

I think all of them are accountable to some degree, but I'd say God is most accountable and the first robot is least accountable (of the individuals mentioned in your post).

soon2bepro

07-02-2006, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that blame is a meaningless concept. At a point it all comes down to blaming the universe itself and it's purposeless forces. It's a self contradictory concept.

Blame (well, responsibility really) is a concept created to encourage and deter certain human actions and feelings. It has no relevance besides this.

hmkpoker

07-02-2006, 03:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, the robots have free will, they decide for whatever reason to destroy the planet.. Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

My same answer applies.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think having a paradigm that requires you to isolate one of many, many causes as the sole cause, and call that the sole, proximate cause of something while ignoring the others, is a little limiting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it have to be only one party that is to blame? Who was to blame for Hiroshima? Oppenheimer? Truman? The aggressing Japanese? They all had a causal influence. Why does it just have to be one party?

Lestat

07-02-2006, 08:37 PM

You cannot get meaningful results from asking a non-sensical question.

Once again, another theist assumes life cannot have meaning without a god. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

ZenMasterFlex

07-05-2006, 12:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that blame is a meaningless concept. At a point it all comes down to blaming the universe itself and it's purposeless forces. It's a self contradictory concept.

Blame (well, responsibility really) is a concept created to encourage and deter certain human actions and feelings. It has no relevance besides this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

In the case of a robot it is lifeless, so of course it is the fault of the creator. It made me laugh to see 21% of people saying it was the robots fault.

vhawk01

07-05-2006, 12:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that blame is a meaningless concept. At a point it all comes down to blaming the universe itself and it's purposeless forces. It's a self contradictory concept.

Blame (well, responsibility really) is a concept created to encourage and deter certain human actions and feelings. It has no relevance besides this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

In the case of a robot it is lifeless, so of course it is the fault of the creator. It made me laugh to see 21% of people saying it was the robots fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is hilarious. First, 'otherwise sane' is a pretty comical defense of your idea. Psychopaths, according to you, must speak in tongues and jump up and down doing a Yosemite Sam impersonation, 24/7?

TomBrooks

07-05-2006, 01:37 PM

The blame lies with the collective consciousness of the people.

kurto

07-05-2006, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You guys think too much..

[/ QUOTE ]

In light of the OP and all the followup responses... the quote above gave me a good chuckle.

madnak

07-05-2006, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, he said blame is meaningless. So no, it's not nature's "fault." It's nobody's "fault." That implies nothing about responsibility or accountability, of course. But blame is only valid within a specifically delineated context.

[ QUOTE ]
And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... what? I admit I'm not obsessed with the subject, but I've read at least summaries of the actions of many serial killers. So far each of them seems to have exhibited psychotic behavior independently from his crimes. My guess is that you're confusing the legal definition of insanity with psychosis.

There is a pattern of serial killers claiming "devil worship" or some such thing as a motivation for their actions. Many of these claims are subsequently retracted. There is never any evidence to support them. They are typically psychotic. And typically they contradict the other claims or actions of the killer. I don't know that any reputable forensic specialist would say that any of these actions have been undertaken as a way to "spite god."

ZenMasterFlex

07-05-2006, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, he said blame is meaningless. So no, it's not nature's "fault." It's nobody's "fault." That implies nothing about responsibility or accountability, of course. But blame is only valid within a specifically delineated context.

[ QUOTE ]
And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um... what? I admit I'm not obsessed with the subject, but I've read at least summaries of the actions of many serial killers. So far each of them seems to have exhibited psychotic behavior independently from his crimes. My guess is that you're confusing the legal definition of insanity with psychosis.

No. There are cases of other than psychotic people doing things like this.

There is a pattern of serial killers claiming "devil worship" or some such thing as a motivation for their actions. Many of these claims are subsequently retracted. There is never any evidence to support them. They are typically psychotic. And typically they contradict the other claims or actions of the killer. I don't know that any reputable forensic specialist would say that any of these actions have been undertaken as a way to "spite god."

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Well, obviously, I guess, it's scary to think about normal people doing psychotic things. But it happens. I am simply saying that aside from the psychotic act itself, alot of these guys are quite normal. Ted Bundy had a very normal life aside from his killings. As did Kryzinsky the hitman(definitly spelled wrong) This guy had people he loved enough to die for, and a very normal home life that he enjoyed.

As far as you not knowing a forensic specialist who would agree with this, I'm sorry, get out more is all I can offer.

ZenMasterFlex

07-05-2006, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that blame is a meaningless concept. At a point it all comes down to blaming the universe itself and it's purposeless forces. It's a self contradictory concept.

Blame (well, responsibility really) is a concept created to encourage and deter certain human actions and feelings. It has no relevance besides this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

In the case of a robot it is lifeless, so of course it is the fault of the creator. It made me laugh to see 21% of people saying it was the robots fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is hilarious. First, 'otherwise sane' is a pretty comical defense of your idea. Psychopaths, according to you, must speak in tongues and jump up and down doing a Yosemite Sam impersonation, 24/7?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what you take from that really? Or are you just looking to argue? By hilarious you obviously mean that the truth is funny to someone as misinformed as yourself, because it is true. If the phrase "otherwise sane" cracks you up that much you are in the wrong place, because that is what we are discussing here.

SWB

07-05-2006, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, the robots have free will, they decide for whatever reason to destroy the planet.. Who is to blame for the destruction of Earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blame is only really meaningful if there's somebody around to do the blaming, which presumably isn't the case after the destruction of the Earth. If there are actually a couple of escape ships fleeing the planet (one with humans, the other with robots), I imagine the survivors would blame each other.

OTOH, if I were reading a science fiction story where this occurred, I'd be inclined to blame the twit who built a self-aware robot in the first place (even if multiple generations of robots separate it from the one(s) that nuked the earth), since that strikes me as a Bad Idea.

vhawk01

07-05-2006, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that blame is a meaningless concept. At a point it all comes down to blaming the universe itself and it's purposeless forces. It's a self contradictory concept.

Blame (well, responsibility really) is a concept created to encourage and deter certain human actions and feelings. It has no relevance besides this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

In the case of a robot it is lifeless, so of course it is the fault of the creator. It made me laugh to see 21% of people saying it was the robots fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is hilarious. First, 'otherwise sane' is a pretty comical defense of your idea. Psychopaths, according to you, must speak in tongues and jump up and down doing a Yosemite Sam impersonation, 24/7?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what you take from that really? Or are you just looking to argue? By hilarious you obviously mean that the truth is funny to someone as misinformed as yourself, because it is true. If the phrase "otherwise sane" cracks you up that much you are in the wrong place, because that is what we are discussing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that even if you could somehow demonstrate that their specific violent act(s) was the only psychotic thing that they did, what would that show? And I don't think you can do this. Like the previous poster, I am far from an expert, but I don't think I've ever heard of a serial killer who was otherwise normal. The hitman example is a terrible one...he certainly isn't killing out of some psychosis, any more than a soldier is.

Edit: Not saying a soldier and a hitman are morally equivalent, just trying to show that a hitman and a serial murderer like Son of Sam are not even close to the same.

vhawk01

07-05-2006, 05:26 PM

Oh, and the correct answer is "Blame Canada."

madnak

07-05-2006, 05:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well, obviously, I guess, it's scary to think about normal people doing psychotic things. But it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. Normal people do some ugly things as a result of conformity and social pressures - but not independently.

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply saying that aside from the psychotic act itself, alot of these guys are quite normal.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Alot?" Like whom?

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Bundy had a very normal life aside from his killings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke? Bundy was never anything close to normal.

[ QUOTE ]
As did Kryzinsky the hitman(definitly spelled wrong) This guy had people he loved enough to die for, and a very normal home life that he enjoyed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Ted Kaczynsky, the Unabomber? Richard Kuklinski the hit man? They seem the closest matches to "Kryzinsky," but both were highly unstable and mentally ill from a very early age. Maybe you meant Patrick Kearney?

ZenMasterFlex

07-05-2006, 06:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point was that blame is a meaningless concept. At a point it all comes down to blaming the universe itself and it's purposeless forces. It's a self contradictory concept.

Blame (well, responsibility really) is a concept created to encourage and deter certain human actions and feelings. It has no relevance besides this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

And don't use the arguement that only a psychopath would do this so "yes" because this is sadly wrong. Otherwise sane people have done things like this to spite god.

In the case of a robot it is lifeless, so of course it is the fault of the creator. It made me laugh to see 21% of people saying it was the robots fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bolded part is hilarious. First, 'otherwise sane' is a pretty comical defense of your idea. Psychopaths, according to you, must speak in tongues and jump up and down doing a Yosemite Sam impersonation, 24/7?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that what you take from that really? Or are you just looking to argue? By hilarious you obviously mean that the truth is funny to someone as misinformed as yourself, because it is true. If the phrase "otherwise sane" cracks you up that much you are in the wrong place, because that is what we are discussing here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that even if you could somehow demonstrate that their specific violent act(s) was the only psychotic thing that they did, what would that show? And I don't think you can do this. Like the previous poster, I am far from an expert, but I don't think I've ever heard of a serial killer who was otherwise normal. The hitman example is a terrible one...he certainly isn't killing out of some psychosis, any more than a soldier is.

Edit: Not saying a soldier and a hitman are morally equivalent, just trying to show that a hitman and a serial murderer like Son of Sam are not even close to the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but, what I am saying is that the Son of Sam killer and Ted Bundy are JUST as different.

We are all Psychotic to some degree, some people see blood and faint, some people, can fist fight but can't take it any further, some people can kill if they absolutly HAVE to, some people can hold a civil conversation with you and stab you in the chest mid-sentence.

ALL of these types of people have killed other people, and all of them have had varying levels of psychosis from none to very very sociopathic. But not all are so unlike you or me at all.

madnak

07-05-2006, 06:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We are all Psychotic to some degree, some people see blood and faint, some people, can fist fight but can't take it any further, some people can kill if they absolutly HAVE to, some people can hold a civil conversation with you and stab you in the chest mid-sentence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain which definition of the word psychotic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychosis) you're using, because I don't think you know what it means.

ZenMasterFlex

07-05-2006, 06:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, obviously, I guess, it's scary to think about normal people doing psychotic things. But it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. Normal people do some ugly things as a result of conformity and social pressures - but not independently.

[ QUOTE ]
I am simply saying that aside from the psychotic act itself, alot of these guys are quite normal.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Alot?" Like whom?

[ QUOTE ]
Ted Bundy had a very normal life aside from his killings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke? Bundy was never anything close to normal.

[ QUOTE ]
As did Kryzinsky the hitman(definitly spelled wrong) This guy had people he loved enough to die for, and a very normal home life that he enjoyed.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean Ted Kaczynsky, the Unabomber? Richard Kuklinski the hit man? They seem the closest matches to "Kryzinsky," but both were highly unstable and mentally ill from a very early age. Maybe you meant Patrick Kearney?

[/ QUOTE ]

Richard Kuklinsky that's him. Yes maybe he had mental ilness, my point is, he had a loving family, and he CHOSE to leave that environment to do his killing. He is responsible, not God.

madnak

07-05-2006, 07:32 PM

He was psychotic from an early age, that's my point. And where do you get that he had a loving family? You mean his father who brutally beat him and mother who abandoned him to homelessness?

I don't think contract killers count anyhow. They do it for the money. I don't think a person has to be psychotic to do that. Now, kidnapping a little girl and cutting her up, to me that's a strong sign of psychosis.

godBoy

07-06-2006, 07:21 PM

I think it's reasonable to assume that God was never created.

vhawk01

07-06-2006, 10:03 PM

Reasonable to assert, perhaps. I hardly think it can be assumed, unless you just mean "God" as a tautology.

FortunaMaximus

07-07-2006, 12:15 AM

How horribly would you have to code forced-emergent AI that this is even a possible result? I'd raise a toast and shrug while we're wiped out of existence. Because this is a situation where we should pretty much be wiped out by our own stupidity. Give them a million years to evolve too, and maybe boron AI gets a turn later in THEIR evolution.

That'd be a cool protoUniverse, have everything eat everything perpetually. Put on some elemental Olympics or something.

Sykes

07-07-2006, 08:50 AM

this thread is so retarded for 1 reason:

Humans have free will and cannot be programmed.

Robots do not have free will and are programmed to do whatever we tell them to do.

_TKO_

07-07-2006, 10:15 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If the creator knew the robots would act that way then clearly the creator is to blame.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the creator did not know the robots would act that way, then isn't he guilty of negligence?

_TKO_

07-07-2006, 10:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
this thread is so retarded for 1 reason:

Humans have free will and cannot be programmed.

Robots do not have free will and are programmed to do whatever we tell them to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the implication is that AI, when well-designed, only needs to be programmed once. Also, many humans do not have "free will" in the way that you've set it up, since many humans do what others tell them to, seemingly programmed.

_TKO_

07-07-2006, 10:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the standard definition of AI include sentience, self-awareness, and reasoning ability? If so, then humans would be no different than the robots as far morality is concerned. The robots would be the one to blame.

Essentially if you think the creator of the robots is to blame, then you cannot blame humans if they were to destroy the world. We would have to blame our creator, and given that we can't even agree on who/what that is, it seems a bit silly to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted. Blame is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Every concept is a human created concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think blame implies that something was done wrong?

godBoy

07-07-2006, 10:32 PM

I don't think I assumed all that..

I'm sure that one person in the history of Earth has acted violently because he felt personally he had no purpose.
In this race of machines I think it would be possible for one of them to also act violently.

I agree with you, your life can have whatever meaning you would like, purpose is a very personal thing, I think there a many without a sense of purpose though.

HLMencken

07-07-2006, 11:35 PM

Derek 'Stormy' Waters: Okay, okay. So, say I put my brain in a robot body and there's a war. Robots versus humans. What side am I on?
Debbie DuPree: Humans! You have a human brain.
Sparks: But... the humans discriminate against you. You can't even vote!
Marco: We'd better not have to live on a reservation. That would really chap my caboose.
Captain Murphy: Yeah, but... nobody knows you're a robot. You look the same.
Debbie DuPree: Uh, uh. Dogs know. That's how the humans hunt you.
Derek 'Stormy' Waters: They're gonna' hunt me? For sport?
Marco: That's why we have to CRUSH mankind! So you might as well get on board for the big win, Stormy.

soon2bepro

07-08-2006, 03:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is awesome. So if you decide to go to a schoolyard kidnap a little girl, rape her for a week locked up in your basement, then disect her screaming, and make her watch you eat her body parts, it's natures fault?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, fault is a concept that is only relevant inside a society. You can blame whoever it's best to blame for that society to work in a better way. I would suppose you would choose to blame the raper/killer. What I was trying to point out is that you're simply looking to make things work better for you and your peers. In other words, you're basing your conclusions on your goals, you're concluding what you need to conclude, not what you must conclude by using sound reason, analysis and logic.

It's pretty much the same as concluding there's a God because you need Him to exist, not because evidence and logic point you that way.

If you were scientifical/logical/rational about the blame issue, you would understand that it's pointless to be consider this subject in this manner. You'd just end up looking for the cause instead of blame, or rather, you'd be trying to understand how reality works, seeking true knowledge, rather than looking to attach responsibility to someone/something, seeking to justify a particular benefit.