Automatic Executions Regime

[Thermodolia]

why?

because at any given point in time there are 50+ active serial killers on the loose

https://www.bustle.com/articles/112070- ... -right-now

they kill lots of innocents

And your genocide bot wouldn’t? Indirect deaths are a thing dude.

[Thermodolia]

I would, without hesitation. A world without crime would be nice, but it's utopic thinking - impossible since the idea of it goes against human nature.
A system like this also doesn't allow for the possibility of repentance or forgiveness, which I think are important.
The biggest problem with it is that I don't think a human can deserve to die.

what about innocent victims of violent crime?

They would probably tell you to shove your idea where the sun don’t shine

[Infected Mushroom]

because at any given point in time there are 50+ active serial killers on the loose

https://www.bustle.com/articles/112070- ... -right-now

they kill lots of innocents

And your genocide bot wouldn’t? Indirect deaths are a thing dude.

Its a simple matter of re-ordering society around the the times when the bot strikes (its a regular cycle).

[Thermodolia]

And your genocide bot wouldn’t? Indirect deaths are a thing dude.

Its a simple matter of re-ordering society around the the times when the bot strikes (its a regular cycle).

Yes but you said yourself that the first time it happens will be without warning. Based on that you are probably going to kill millions of innocent people

[Infected Mushroom]

Its a simple matter of re-ordering society around the the times when the bot strikes (its a regular cycle).

Yes but you said yourself that the first time it happens will be without warning. Based on that you are probably going to kill millions of innocent people

Doesn't matter. That time was long past the point where you've got to make the decision in the OP, past is past. Now is now.

Its like saying, "we need to condemn the Industrial Revolution forever because at the start of it X innocents died... so now we should undo the whole package." No.

You look at the effects now and going forward.

[Thermodolia]

Yes but you said yourself that the first time it happens will be without warning. Based on that you are probably going to kill millions of innocent people

Doesn't matter. That time was long past the point where you've got to make the decision in the OP, past is past. Now is now.

Its like saying, "we need to condemn the Industrial Revolution forever because at the start of it X innocents died... so now we should undo the whole package." No.

You look at the effects now and going forward.

Wow. You are seriously extremely callous.

And no it’s not like the industrial revolution your genocide bot is murdering millions on purpose.

And fuck it doesn’t matter. You genocided millions. Fuck if it happened years ago that’s not a good reason to keep the damn thing running.

How about you go tell the victims of 9/11 or the Holocaust that it doesn’t matter that their family and friends died. The past is the past. I can tell you that 99% of them will punch you.

And another thing. If we where in 1940’s Germany I am 90% certain that you would be cheering on the genocide of the Jews.

[Infected Mushroom]

Doesn't matter. That time was long past the point where you've got to make the decision in the OP, past is past. Now is now.

Its like saying, "we need to condemn the Industrial Revolution forever because at the start of it X innocents died... so now we should undo the whole package." No.

You look at the effects now and going forward.

Wow. You are seriously extremely callous.

And no it’s not like the industrial revolution your genocide bot is murdering millions on purpose.

And fuck it doesn’t matter. You genocided millions. Fuck if it happened years ago that’s not a good reason to keep the damn thing running.

How about you go tell the victims of 9/11 or the Holocaust that it doesn’t matter that their family and friends died. The past is the past. I can tell you that 99% of them will punch you.

And another thing. If we where in 1940’s Germany I am 90% certain that you would be cheering on the genocide of the Jews.

If a System requires you to kill X million people to START... and you are asked, "would you start the System?" Then it at least makes some sense to say, "I won't start the System because killing X million people is wrong."

But if a System has already started (and long ago killed X million people), and you are asked "would you stop the System?" then it doesn't make sense to give the above reply.

Instead, a completely objective analysis would consider the starting cost a sunk cost, and you would look at the pros and cons from this point onward.

You wouldn't say, "We need to dismantle capitalism because in the past, it killed X million people," a rational analysis would look at the pros and cons of capitalism NOW (is it killing X million innocent people now or in the future? No). Similarly, you would do the same with an analysis of anything else.

In a society where the System has been established, there is no foreseeable situation in the present or in the future where it would kill millions of people again. Everyone knows that Crime = Death. People put 2 and 2 together so there would be no realistic situation where the System in any cycle kills millions of people again. To factor that in is nonsensical.

[Infected Mushroom]

Your argument is the equivalent of saying, "We need to get rid of Japan as a nation, because in the past the Japanese government in WWII has killed millions of people."

It makes no sense and its divorced from rational analysis... which would look at what the Japanese government is doing NOW and what its likely to do in the future.

This is why you can't say, "The System did X in the past... so it needs to go." You need to look at what it is doing NOW and what it is likely to do in the future. And there is no situation where it kills millions of people because ultimate deterrence has been established.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Smash the system. If the government doesn't bomb the mainframe back to the stone age (for being a blatantly unconstitutional murder machine), I'd disable the system, then take a sledgehammer to it.

[Thermodolia]

*fascist nonsense*

You don’t speak for me. IM nobody, or at least no more than 3 people, are going to agree with you. Stop moving the goalposts and forcing everyone to make the same decision as you have. That’s not how thought experiments work.

I would nuke the system from orbit BECAUSE it has genocided millions of innocents. I am bringing those innocents justice.
It’s a shame that you can’t see that.

[Thermodolia]

Your argument is the equivalent of saying, "We need to get rid of Japan as a nation, because in the past the Japanese government in WWII has killed millions of people."

It makes no sense and its divorced from rational analysis... which would look at what the Japanese government is doing NOW and what its likely to do in the future.

This is why you can't say, "The System did X in the past... so it needs to go." You need to look at what it is doing NOW and what it is likely to do in the future. And there is no situation where it kills millions of people because ultimate deterrence has been established.

I can and I fucking will. You need to stop acting like a dick and stop forcing people to agree with you.

[Infected Mushroom]

*fascist nonsense*

You don’t speak for me. IM nobody, or at least no more than 3 people, are going to agree with you. Stop moving the goalposts and forcing everyone to make the same decision as you have. That’s not how thought experiments work.

I would nuke the system from orbit BECAUSE it has genocided millions of innocents. I am bringing those innocents justice.
It’s a shame that you can’t see that.

Its a shame that you don't understand the concept of sunk costs.

Its like you're saying, "I don't care if the business is currently making profits or not... I only care that it took X dollars to START the business in the first place. Because at that time it was running a deficit, we need to dismantle it now."

It makes no sense.

[Infected Mushroom]

Your argument is the equivalent of saying, "We need to get rid of Japan as a nation, because in the past the Japanese government in WWII has killed millions of people."

It makes no sense and its divorced from rational analysis... which would look at what the Japanese government is doing NOW and what its likely to do in the future.

This is why you can't say, "The System did X in the past... so it needs to go." You need to look at what it is doing NOW and what it is likely to do in the future. And there is no situation where it kills millions of people because ultimate deterrence has been established.

I can and I fucking will. You need to stop acting like a dick and stop forcing people to agree with you.

So then according to your logic, to analyse whether or not we should get rid of any System we only need to look at what it costs to START the System... never mind what benefits and cons its bringing about NOW or in the future?

It doesn't add up.

[San Lumen]

I can and I fucking will. You need to stop acting like a dick and stop forcing people to agree with you.

So then according to your logic, to analyse whether or not we should get rid of any System we only need to look at what it costs to START the System... never mind what benefits and cons its bringing about NOW or in the future?

It doesn't add up.

I ask again dont you see how this System could be abused. whats to stop someone from programming the machine to kill LGBT people because they made sodomy illegal again. Theres one way you could abuse the system.

Yet another example someone tries to hurt my boyfriend so I punch them to the ground. I just committed assault now i get murdered by this machine. So forgive me if I have zero remorse and get great pleasure about smashing the mainframe.

How could you make it ignore things that are unconstitutional? what one person sees as unconstitutional another might not. In the end its all about programming.

[Sovaal]

because at any given point in time there are 50+ active serial killers on the loose

https://www.bustle.com/articles/112070- ... -right-now

they kill lots of innocents

And your genocide bot wouldn’t? Indirect deaths are a thing dude.

C’mon man this is like the tenth or something thread of this nature by IM, you should know by now he doesn’t care.

[Infected Mushroom]

So then according to your logic, to analyse whether or not we should get rid of any System we only need to look at what it costs to START the System... never mind what benefits and cons its bringing about NOW or in the future?

It doesn't add up.

I ask again dont you see how this System could be abused. whats to stop someone from programming the machine to kill LGBT people because they made sodomy illegal again. Theres one way you could abuse the system.

Yet another example someone tries to hurt my boyfriend so I punch them to the ground. I just committed assault now i get murdered by this machine. So forgive me if I have zero remorse and get great pleasure about smashing the mainframe.

How could you make it ignore things that are unconstitutional? what one person sees as unconstitutional another might not. In the end its all about programming.

What prevents them from making such a law? Well for one thing whatever prevents them from making the law right now. You aren’t Currently worried they would pass such a law so why be inconsistent and worry about that in my OP. It’s inconsistent. Your faith in democracy and the Constitution is suddenly gone? The system doesn’t change how laws are made.

The risk of the government going rogue is the same.

Self defense in some cases provides a complete e defense to the crime. Machines be factor it.

[San Lumen]

And your genocide bot wouldn’t? Indirect deaths are a thing dude.

C’mon man this is like the tenth or something thread of this nature by IM, you should know by now he doesn’t care.

No they just keep moving the goalposts when someone points out a legitimate flaw

[Infected Mushroom]

C’mon man this is like the tenth or something thread of this nature by IM, you should know by now he doesn’t care.

No they just keep moving the goalposts when someone points out a legitimate flaw

Subject to a few clarifications, the OP has remained intact. No posts have been moved.

[Neutraligon]

C’mon man this is like the tenth or something thread of this nature by IM, you should know by now he doesn’t care.

No they just keep moving the goalposts when someone points out a legitimate flaw

I love that they said that society would form around this kill-bot. That seems impossible to me. For instance a fire fighter is driving the truck when previously they committed a felony (no one knows of course). They have no choice in when the drive that truck because you know emergencies happen. Now what happens to that truck that was called out to deal with the fire when the driver dies? What happens to the innocents in the burning house when that truck crashes when the driver is killed? How about what happens with other emergency responders?

[Senkaku]

No they just keep moving the goalposts when someone points out a legitimate flaw

Subject to a few clarifications, the OP has remained intact. No posts have been moved.

"a few"

lmao

[Infected Mushroom]

No they just keep moving the goalposts when someone points out a legitimate flaw

I love that they said that society would form around this kill-bot. That seems impossible to me. For instance a fire fighter is driving the truck when previously they committed a felony (no one knows of course). They have no choice in when the drive that truck because you know emergencies happen. Now what happens to that truck that was called out to deal with the fire when the driver dies? What happens to the innocents in the burning house when that truck crashes when the driver is killed? How about what happens with other emergency responders?

Perhaps in an age of robotics human drivers and emergency service providers are not needed. Maybe it’s all safely automated.

If you look at the op, the sophistication of the System suggests a more futuristic era.

Even if not, a functional culture could develop where people are extra cautious and safe during the hours for the system’s activity.

[Neutraligon]

I love that they said that society would form around this kill-bot. That seems impossible to me. For instance a fire fighter is driving the truck when previously they committed a felony (no one knows of course). They have no choice in when the drive that truck because you know emergencies happen. Now what happens to that truck that was called out to deal with the fire when the driver dies? What happens to the innocents in the burning house when that truck crashes when the driver is killed? How about what happens with other emergency responders?

Perhaps in an age of robotics human drivers and emergency service providers are not needed. Maybe it’s all safely automated.

If you look at the op, the sophistication of the System suggests a more futuristic era.

Even if not, a functional culture could develop where people are extra cautious and safe during the hours for the system’s activity.

We can make no assumptions about the society your system exists in at all as all you have given us is that your system exists. We do not know if robots are more sophisticated, or whether AI is more sophisticated or anything else, so no that is not suggested at all by your OP. As to the more cautious approach, that is unlikely and still will not solve the issues of emergencies. A gas line breaks or a tree happens to fall over hitting a house, these are not things that you can be more cautious about.

As to the vehicles being driven by AI in the future that is entirely possible, but even AI make mistakes, and so there is likely to be a human driver to act to ensure that the AI does not do something wrong (that is of course assuming that the AI is sophisticated enough to ignore the normal rules of the road that often happens when emergency vehicles are used).

[Trollgaard]

How about no

[Infected Mushroom]

Perhaps in an age of robotics human drivers and emergency service providers are not needed. Maybe it’s all safely automated.

If you look at the op, the sophistication of the System suggests a more futuristic era.

Even if not, a functional culture could develop where people are extra cautious and safe during the hours for the system’s activity.

We can make no assumptions about the society your system exists in at all as all you have given us is that your system exists. We do not know if robots are more sophisticated, or whether AI is more sophisticated or anything else, so no that is not suggested at all by your OP. As to the more cautious approach, that is unlikely and still will not solve the issues of emergencies. A gas line breaks or a tree happens to fall over hitting a house, these are not things that you can be more cautious about.

Why assume that technology is the same as today’s when the OP is set in the future?

Automation isn’t sci fi it’s already underway. Complete automation of all emergency services is a real possibility in the next few decades. Also, if you consider the sophistication of the system, it’s clear this is a far point in the future.

[Neutraligon]

We can make no assumptions about the society your system exists in at all as all you have given us is that your system exists. We do not know if robots are more sophisticated, or whether AI is more sophisticated or anything else, so no that is not suggested at all by your OP. As to the more cautious approach, that is unlikely and still will not solve the issues of emergencies. A gas line breaks or a tree happens to fall over hitting a house, these are not things that you can be more cautious about.

Why assume that technology is the same as today’s when the OP is set in the future?

I said I cannot make any assumption about the technology as all that we are given is that this system exists. I have no said the technology is the same, I said we cannot know.

Automation isn’t sci fi it’s already underway.

You are talking to someone who has a degree in engineering and more specifically in robotics where my specialty has to do with human machine interfaces and controls. I know it is not sci fi.

Complete automation of all emergency services is a real possibility in the next few decades. Also, if you consider the sophistication of the system, it’s clear this is a far point in the future.

It is not clear at all since once again all we know is the system exists. We can make no assumption about the technology of the world. And it is highly unlikely that emergency services (just the driving aspect of it) will be completely automated in the next couple of decades, let alone emergency services in general. Simply due to liability issues there will likely always be a human component to watch and make sure that nothing goes wrong.

I will try to explain, most drivers(those that are not dealing with emergency stuff) Follow certain rules of the road that can be programmed into the cars (yes this is a big simplification) The thing is when emergency vehicles are being used, these rules of the road are more suggestion then real rules, where judgement is needed to determine when to break those rules (is it safe to go through that light, how about using the lane that deals with oncoming traffic, etc). In an emergency every minute counts.