If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
What makes one a slave (imprisoned to your region) would be if you were restricted to your movements on someone else's schedule
Imprisonment and slavery are different concepts. If you are restricted by others, that's a form of imprisonment. But no one is being restricted by not being allowed to own their own cars.
-
Here is the quandary that I posed to @DustinB3403 in an IM that I think solves all issues...
The emperor of Rome, the most powerful person in the world, had no car and was restricted in movement the same as, in fact far far worse than, anyone not allowed to have a car today.
Was the emperor of Rome a slave because of this lack of cars? And if so... to whom?
-
@DustinB3403 Cars are a privilege not a right, for one. You arent forced to not go anywhere, you can go whereever you choose, just not in a car in your hypothetical sitrep.
-
@momurda said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 Cars are a privilege not a right, for one. You arent forced to not go anywhere, you can go whereever you choose, just not in a car in your hypothetical sitrep.
My point is (as someone else started down this chain) if all transportation is owned by businesses (lets say much like airports). You have to pick your route and stick to it. You can't just decide "Oh hey that sign for the worlds biggest ball of yarn seems like a cool stop" and pull over to go see it.
You have to know and plan everything for all potential items you'd want to do / see.
And if the business doesn't offer transportation to that destination, you're SOL. Unless you travel as near as possible and then walk / rent a bike etc the rest of the way.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@momurda said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 Cars are a privilege not a right, for one. You arent forced to not go anywhere, you can go whereever you choose, just not in a car in your hypothetical sitrep.
My point is (as someone else started down this chain) if all transportation is owned by businesses (lets say much like airports). You have to pick your route and stick to it. You can't just decide "Oh hey that sign for the worlds biggest ball of yarn seems like a cool stop" and pull over to go see it.
You have to know and plan everything for all potential items you'd want to do / see.
And if the business doesn't offer transportation to that destination, you're SOL. Unless you travel as near as possible and then walk / rent a bike etc the rest of the way.
The same system that most people live with today and they can get everywhere. That's how it has always been and is currently. Even cars can only go to some places. You can't drive everywhere. There are even villages and cities that don't have roads go to them.
-
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@momurda said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 Cars are a privilege not a right, for one. You arent forced to not go anywhere, you can go whereever you choose, just not in a car in your hypothetical sitrep.
My point is (as someone else started down this chain) if all transportation is owned by businesses (lets say much like airports). You have to pick your route and stick to it. You can't just decide "Oh hey that sign for the worlds biggest ball of yarn seems like a cool stop" and pull over to go see it.
You have to know and plan everything for all potential items you'd want to do / see.
And if the business doesn't offer transportation to that destination, you're SOL. Unless you travel as near as possible and then walk / rent a bike etc the rest of the way.
The same system that most people live with today and they can get everywhere. That's how it has always been and is currently. Even cars can only go to some places. You can't drive everywhere. There are even villages and cities that don't have roads go to them.
But you can still stop at the side of the road and hoof it to that ball of yarn.
With routed transportation you don't get that ability, the bus or plane isn't going to stop to just let you off. As you said "What's good for the goose"
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
My point is (as someone else started down this chain) if all transportation is owned by businesses (lets say much like airports). You have to pick your route and stick to it.
This is actually a completely different issue. You're concern here is about changing the route en route... which only makes sense because you are focused on cars both because of their function AND their slow speed.
The future system does not restrict your movement in this example, at all. It simply requires you to go where you selected and then go somewhere else that you select. You can still get to the place with the yarn, you just have to choose it as a destination.
Planes and trains are not "less free" just because they can't change the path mid way. Nor is a Star Trek transporter. They simply go point to point quickly and efficiently. It only feels semi-reasonable to feel this way about cars because they are so inefficient.
One might argue that cars are so slow and encumbered by good roads and fuel that nothing involving a car is free, right? Cars are just so restrictive.
-
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@scottalanmiller said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@momurda said in If you thought Skynet was just a story why is google building an AI kill switch:
@DustinB3403 Cars are a privilege not a right, for one. You arent forced to not go anywhere, you can go whereever you choose, just not in a car in your hypothetical sitrep.
My point is (as someone else started down this chain) if all transportation is owned by businesses (lets say much like airports). You have to pick your route and stick to it. You can't just decide "Oh hey that sign for the worlds biggest ball of yarn seems like a cool stop" and pull over to go see it.
You have to know and plan everything for all potential items you'd want to do / see.
And if the business doesn't offer transportation to that destination, you're SOL. Unless you travel as near as possible and then walk / rent a bike etc the rest of the way.
The same system that most people live with today and they can get everywhere. That's how it has always been and is currently. Even cars can only go to some places. You can't drive everywhere. There are even villages and cities that don't have roads go to them.
But you can still stop at the side of the road and hoof it to that ball of yarn.
With routed transportation you don't get that ability, the bus or plane isn't going to stop to just let you off. As you said "What's good for the goose"
Right, and you will always have the ability to hoof it. People without cars still have unlimited mobility, today. So even if cars become routed to the destination, which they won't that's silly, you still maintain total freedom of movement. Just like you have today, but improved.
-
You are picking on very strange and arbitrary artefacts of transportation that are not related to freedom of movement. You aren't saying that people can't go wherever they want, only that they can't get there in the one way that you want to get there.
Could people before cars get to the ball of yarn? Yes.
Can people with cars get there today? Yes
Can people without cars get there today? Yes
No matter what happens with cars in the future will they be able to get there? YesWhose movement is restricted? In all cases the people can go where they want to go. If they can't go where they don't want to go, how do we know?
-
What if we picked on other arbitrary artefacts of travel like being able to use the bathroom while moving or being allowed to sleep? We don't normally point out how restrictive cars are today for lacking these things, but as a long distance driver I can assure you that they are very limiting. I often choose things that you consider "non free" or "movement restricted" because they give me "more freedom".. freedom to go places that I can't drive due to needing sleep or wanting to eat or use the bathroom. Trains allow this.
Which restricts movement more? Kids can take trains. So can drunks. So can the elderly or disabled. Trains provide a lot of freedoms that cars do not. Neither is free or not free. They are just different. But both allow you to go wherever you want, just in different ways.
