Philosophy Now Forum

I agree with the author: "Delegating ethics to robots is unethical not just because robots do binary code, not ethics, but also because no program could ever process the incalculable contingencies, shifting subtleties, and complexities entailed in even the simplest case to be put before a judge and jury."

In the case of the driverless cars, they should be programmed with a very simple algorithm: "When a hazardous situation is detected, do an emergency stop in a straight line".

Whilst it may not be ideal in all situations, I suggest that it would be better than any other algorithm over the long term.

I suppose that Robert Newman's last paragraph took some logic liberties to be amusing. Fair enough and in the same spirit ( of illogic and humour) : if it is true that robots can never be lawyers does it not suggest that they are inherently ethical?

Just sayin

Smckenna wrote:I suppose that Robert Newman's last paragraph took some logic liberties to be amusing. Fair enough and in the same spirit ( of illogic and humour) : if it is true that robots can never be lawyers does it not suggest that they are inherently ethical?

Just sayin

Hahaha!! Well said!

However, my fondest laugh regarding AI is that i suspect that these blood sucking imbeciles of the comprehension of law will be the first to find themselves without employment should AI develop some sort of worthiness to wo/man. However their bum chums in parliament will astutely ensure that AI has no place on the bar!