Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2251-2255 (13-17 August 2012) Weekly Comic Discussion Thread
celticgeek:
--- Quote from: Is it cold in here? on 14 Aug 2012, 01:45 ---
That's a really good question about liability laws. The QC world has probably tried multiple approaches. Who would write liability insurance to cover acts of Pintsize?
--- End quote ---
Robotic liability Insurance
Omega Entity:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 13 Aug 2012, 23:55 ---
--- Quote from: ukrayf on 13 Aug 2012, 06:10 ---Emily and Marten aren't going to get together are they
--- End quote ---
Guh.
After the black Dora-lookalike the asian Dora-lookalike ?
And she's again an airhead on top of it, too !
I dont like the idea, but I dont dare to say "no".
To think Marten was once interested in girls like Faye before ...
--- Quote from: TheEvilDog on 13 Aug 2012, 20:35 ---The Three Laws of QC are probably written up like this;
--- End quote ---
OMG can we PLEASE NOT GO THERE.
The Singularity happends, robots are sentient and dont need a set of mechanical laws to control their actions.
--- End quote ---
For one, pretty sure Padma was Indian and not black. Also, where's the indication that Marten has -any- romantic interest in Emily, or any of the other interns for that matter? Because he's talking to her or shares a panel with her? Cart in front of the horse, I'd say. I also don't see how Emily is a Dora clone - she's easily distinguishable from her. Is any female in the strip that you feel that Marten might hook up with a 'Dora clone'?
Anyway, someone asked who would be sued in the event of an anthroPC hurting someone. I imagine it would be the anthroPC they would sue - after all, the chassis is really just a shell for the 'intelligence' that inhabits it, and obviously they can own property, or at the very least stocks and financial materials if Station is anything to go by. So, being independent in their actions, and able to hold monetary property, I would say that yes, they would likely be the ones sued.
sitnspin:
Happy floaty Dora is nice to see, even if it doesn't last. (please let it last)
I agree, she does look younger when she is happy, even taking the hairstyle into account.
T:
--- Quote from: snubnose on 14 Aug 2012, 00:56 ---I dont get Fayes statement "Not much of a pursuit, if you ask me".
--- Quote from: T on 14 Aug 2012, 00:06 ---
--- Quote from: snubnose on 13 Aug 2012, 23:55 ---
--- Quote from: TheEvilDog on 13 Aug 2012, 20:35 ---The Three Laws of QC are probably written up like this;
--- End quote ---
OMG can we PLEASE NOT GO THERE.
The Singularity happends, robots are sentient and dont need a set of mechanical laws to control their actions.
--- End quote ---
You know, those laws are needed exactly because Singularity happened and not the opposite.
--- End quote ---
Drat.
And so I fueled the discussion I tried to stop !
Assimov has written many stories about the three laws. Basically one can summarize the result as: they just dont work. Neither will probably any other set of simple mechanical laws.
Fortunately, thanks to the singularity, robots are as intelligent as people now and can follow their own common sense.
--- End quote ---
There is no such a thing as common sense or "good and evil" from a neutral point of view. And yes, a set of simple mechanical laws will never work. The problem is that they need some sort of ethical system to avoid some incidents where the best solution would involve hurting or killing a human. Maybe removing the "or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm" so if humans want to destroy each other is fine. or limit how many implications they would have to follow. Like stop imediate harm but not something like smoking or drinking too much.
Also, they would be really dangerous if they worked like humans, humans already are dangerous as they are.
Is it cold in here?:
So many AnthroPCs are unemployed that they're probably "judgment-proof", a short term for having so little that suing them couldn't recover anything useful.
One logical and functional law would be to require AnthroPCs to carry liability insurance when they go out in public, as we require of human car drivers. But how would they pay for it? Would their "owners" pay the premiums as a gift?
There is of course no evidence that there's such a law in the QC universe.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version