Comment by KETpXDDzR
2 years ago
Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.
2 years ago
Guns/AI don't kill people. People do. If someone should be held responsible, it's the people that order the strikes.
Sorry. Guns do kill people. That's their whole point.
I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself.
Of those not all could mentally do it under anything but the most extreme of circumstances. 2, maybe 3 might be actually capable of ending a life under extreme circumstances.
With a gun probably, at a guess, ~400 - 700 could kill someone if they got anxious/scared enough is my bet. Even if I'm way off it's a lot more than without a gun. Couple of hundred at least. Not 2, or 3!
So yes, I'm sorry, guns definitely, 100% kill people.
And more people will absolutely kill someone if they possess a gun, than if the didn't. And by extension same is true if AI.
I'm interested how you even come up with that response? It's obviously factually and logically wrong. What makes you think it makes a reasonable argument to anyone?
Also, worth pointing out, thar AI in this case is insanely unfit for it's purpose (unlike a gun) and will have randomly killed lots of innocent people, even if the AI algorithm says otherwise.
> I know roughly ~1000 people. Maybe 10 of them have the physical capability of killing someone, in case you don't know, it's not actually that easy to do it yourself.
Do you primarily work with invalids or children? Heck, even children can kill, but it usually requires working together. I was reading the other day about a group of under 10yos that buried alive another kid in a village because he looked weird.
Of everyone person I've ever met between the ages of 16 and 60, I'd say 99% are physically capable of killing somebody - you only need to push someone at the right time to have them fall to their death. Frail old woman have killed babies by covering their faces. There are poisonings.
Do guns make it easier or more accessible? Absolutely. Can a 95 lbs woman physically take on a 250 lbs man? Not likely in a 1:1 fight, but I met one who killed her husband with a knife.
I primarily work with people who have an issue with killing other people.
That, and that it is non-trivial without a gun, or more powerful weapon, to kill someone.
Which is why, in a lot of places it's extremely difficult to own or have a gun. And sane people consider very carefully a guns use. Most refuse to own or even consider even holding one never mind using one.
The AI discussed here is similar to me. It shouldn't be available or in use, ever. It even strips away the benefit a gun has of the user contemplating the end result.
5 replies →
You dramatically underestimate the physical capability of the people you know. Humans are strong and humans are fragile. Every single one of them could kill another human in a pre-technological society.
Apologies for my earlier reply, it's been pointed out to me it was rude. It was and I'd like to apologise.
On your point I'm not sure where you get the assertion any human could kill any other in pre-technological society. That appears evidently false to me. How did you come to that assertion?
1 reply →
[flagged]
2 replies →
The line gets blurred a little here though.
I give you a gun and say "shoot whoever you choose with this gun, the choice is yours".
I give you an AI powered gun and say "use this however you choose, I have programmed it to automatically shoot in certain circumstances".
In the latter case, I have some responsibility, because I shared in the decision making by programming the gun. Through my code I have put my proverbial finger on the trigger, right next to your finger.
Why don't you have responsibilities in both scenario
Exactly - the safest thing to do with the AI gun is not point it anybody and destroy it. Perhaps the AI gun shooting somebody wouldn't be an intentional murder but it's certainly manslaughter since you know that it could shoot whoever it's pointing at so simply pointing it at anybody is the active decision that frames the crime.
Hard to say without knowing all the facts, but it's quite reasonable to hold those who are accessories to atrocities responsible as well.
That's like saying "defibrillators don't save people, people save people".
Both can (and are) true.
The point is, without a defibrillator (gun) you will have a very hard time to save life (kill) even if you wanted to.
Just spotted you are replying to the parent response, not mine.
Fully agree and very succinctly put.
Said people are trusting the intel from the AI. Those who provide that intel possible should shoulder responsibility for its effects, or at least its efficacy.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk
this is such BS argument, before guns you could still kill people but it'd take a lot more effort & organization to kill en-masse. same deal if you apply this logic to nukes or missiles. yes those people should be held responsible but there should be a systematic regulation of AI-robot killing machines just like we have geneva accords for cluster munitions or unusually cruel weapons. this is just common sense 101.
Sorry but from an AI system that targets individuals to a system that kills them (they already have autonomous drones with computer vision) there is max 1-2 web services path. So AI kills people