Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT 7-11 January 2019 (3911-3915)
Case:
--- Quote from: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21 ---P.S. Oh, I should clarify. Faye shouldn't be nicer for positive reviews. Faye should be nicer because it's the decent thing to do.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, the review thing surprised me a bit.
--- Quote from: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21 ---Perhaps you would be angry at Crushbot because they own a dangerous chassis? I guess I could accept that. Even though we accept risk elsewhere in life. Such as driving cars.
--- End quote ---
That's actually the analogy I was thinking of: I'm German (Chorus: "We know, Case!"), and we love cars, we love to drive them often, we drive at very high traffic density, and we do it legally at speeds few other countries on this planet allow. We also have rather low number of road fatalities. Comes with extensive safety regulations, driver training, etc. <- The point is that it's drilled into you to be constantly aware of your surroundings and the impact of your actions on others (In theory, at last).
There's been a debate here about (very) old drivers - when it's time that they should hand in their license, as there is no legal age-limit. On the one hand, it is a cruel statement to make, it is likely to shrink their mobility and thus their social circle at a time when loneliness becomes a health-hazard etc. On the other hand, they're handling half a ton of murder on wheels in one of the most demanding driving environments on the planet. Reaction times become longer, focussing becomes harder, eyesight weaker.
The individual and its rights and welfare must be at the core of societies' considerations - that's where all 'western democracies' agree, the heritage of the enlightenment, to be dramatic about it. In the end, 'the people' are comprised of individuals and whatever rights you take away from one, you take away from all.
Otoh, the people are also a collective of people, not merely the sum total of its individual members. At what point does the concern for the welfare of the many override the concern of the welfare and freedom of the few?
IDK, for me this is a natural consideration, the way I was raised and the discursive ideal my society - or liberal democracy in general - purports to strive towards (not always successfully, and increasingly less so, but still). It's a constant balancing act, it's the core question that most of society's problems boil down to. And I'm sometimes a bit ... surprised to see that other cultures agree on the first part, but that the second seems foreign to many.
TL;DR - Yes, he shouldn't be in this chassis, or shouldn't walk it on the sidewalk, or get a sensor upgrade or safety training or whatever. I understand he didn't intend to hurt anyone, but "With great power ekcetra ekcetra"
--- Quote from: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21 ---Otherwise, what's the point of anger at Crushbot at this time?
--- End quote ---
Anger ... there's not much point to anger, unless it fuels productive action. I'd say that it's not wrong to insist that Crushbot has a think about whether he can safely walk his chassis around people he could easily kill accidentally, and what he could do to reduce the risk to his fellow beings.
And anger is something different than cruelty, which is what you seem to be reading here? I'd say that anger can (!) be productive and instructive, when it is followed and joined by compassion and care. Being angry with someone doesn't imply shunning them forever - you can always come back, apologize, embrace etc. Of course, as you'll rightly point out, many people agree with the first part and forget about the second ... (or how addictive anger can be)
--- Quote from: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21 ---If someone lost control of their car after a rock hit the windshield, and someone were killed as a result, would your reaction towards that person be angry or compassionate?
--- End quote ---
Happens all the time over here, and at speeds you've rarely driven at. The results aren't pretty, penalties (for the rock-throwers) are severe and nobody has sympathies for the sociopaths who do that. In fact, I used to flinch whenever I saw people on a bridge over an autobahn I was riding on.
That's very different from crushing someone flat on a sidewalk because you stumbled ass backwards over a crate of bananas - a sidewalk is not a highway, people do all manner of stuff on a sidewalk, and 'people' includes e.g. children, who are widely known to come up with the most unthinkable stuff apropos nothing at all.
--- Quote from: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21 ---Bonus supplementary question: how would you feel in turn if your anger resulted in the person inflicting self-harm?
--- End quote ---
Horrible. But that's an unanswerable question and, more problematic, an unactionable one. First, you can never truly know how your words impact the actions of another - afaics, the time-evolution of the statevector of the human brain is very much an unsolved problem. Second, if you make 'Always act in such a way as to exclude the possibility of someone coming to harm, including harming themselves as a possible reaction to your actions' your maxime, you can't act at all. Which actually makes sure you're harming one person - yourself.
(Sidenote: Threatening suicide for coercion is a real thing and a real problem and it's a tactic abusers use. Thank God it never happened to me, but I was in a position once where informing myself and thinking about it seemed an immediate necessity, so ... I'm sorry: While I am among those who insist that 'words have consequences', I also insist that everyone of us is ultimately responsible for their own actions (modulo illness). I'm well aware that this sentence, if read literally enough, contains a paradox. I have no better answer than: "Do what you can, that's all you can do, and all anyone can demand of you")
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; What is essential is invisible to the eye" would be the maxime I'd try to follow.
This reminds me a lot of the comic where Fae starts a dialog with Hanners with "Hi fellow crazerina". Lot of people got upset about addressing someone sufferning from OCD as "crazerina". I've lived with OCD for quite a while, and I wasn't upset. It was clear to me what she meant. There's meaner/more damaging things people have said to me than 'crazerino', and they did it with a smile and polite words and superficial concern (or simply because they didn't know better). Forcing them not to use 'crazy' while I'm around won't protect me from those.
<- Points to 'motto-quote'
I think this situation is similar: People get upset about Faye saying something crass, but forget that crass isn't the same as cruel. Note e.g. that when she says 'Nobody likes you' she adds the qualifier 'right now', which implies that in the future, people will like him again. And it's ... IDK, close to the hyperbole you use around kids?
Anyhow, my 1$ 21cents.
BenRG:
Interesting point made by the guys on the subreddit today. All salvageable components from Roko's old chassis should remain hers (unless the chassis was leased or something weird but the way the insurance settlement was handled doesn't suggest that). Anyway, we know that she has a phobia about seeing her parts but it is still hers. So, how are Faye and Bubbles going to handle the bits they pick out of Crushbot's back panel? I am thinking of Faye presenting Roko with a bucket of parts and asking 'Do you want to keep these in case you need spare parts?' because... well, Faye.
I'm wondering if we're going to see the AI equivalent of an organ/tissue donor charity starting via Roko's voluntary work. It strikes me as something that no-one would have thought to have done so far, given how poor May had to go begging for bits. Maybe Bubbles and Faye could donate the mystery arm too?
Would anyone else find a long-term arc about Faye, Bubbles and Roko being the leading lights in supported healthcare for low-income synthetics?
Cornelius:
--- Quote from: Tova on 11 Jan 2019, 03:21 ---If someone lost control of their car after a rock hit the windshield, and someone were killed as a result, would your reaction towards that person be angry or compassionate?
--- End quote ---
Aside from what Case answered above, let me adjust that image; Someone is driving a car on the sidewalk all the time, and doesn't see an obstacle, about the same size of a child drawing on the sidewalk, reverses, and kills someone. Should we be angry at that person?
I know the idea is that their chassis is their body, and that they're supposed to be accepted as people, but let's be honest, what is the heaviest person you're likely to see on a sidewalk? And are those people likely to be clad in metal? There's a good reason to separate traffic, even if some people think it might be a good idea to mingle it and slow down traffic.
Cornelius:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 11 Jan 2019, 04:47 ---Interesting point made by the guys on the subreddit today. All salvageable components from Roko's old chassis should remain hers (unless the chassis was leased or something weird but the way the insurance settlement was handled doesn't suggest that). Anyway, we know that she has a phobia about seeing her parts but it is still hers. So, how are Faye and Bubbles going to handle the bits they pick out of Crushbot's back panel? I am thinking of Faye presenting Roko with a bucket of parts and asking 'Do you want to keep these in case you need spare parts?' because... well, Faye.
--- End quote ---
On the other hand, Melon didn't get to keep Roko's head, so perhaps she part exchanged the wreckage towards her new body? Like some car dealers will take your totaled car for scrap, and count it towards your new purchase?
JoeCovenant:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 11 Jan 2019, 04:47 ---Interesting point made by the guys on the subreddit today. All salvageable components from Roko's old chassis should remain hers (unless the chassis was leased or something weird but the way the insurance settlement was handled doesn't suggest that). Anyway, we know that she has a phobia about seeing her parts but it is still hers. So, how are Faye and Bubbles going to handle the bits they pick out of Crushbot's back panel? I am thinking of Faye presenting Roko with a bucket of parts and asking 'Do you want to keep these in case you need spare parts?' because... well, Faye.
I'm wondering if we're going to see the AI equivalent of an organ/tissue donor charity starting via Roko's voluntary work. It strikes me as something that no-one would have thought to have done so far, given how poor May had to go begging for bits. Maybe Bubbles and Faye could donate the mystery arm too?
Would anyone else find a long-term arc about Faye, Bubbles and Roko being the leading lights in supported healthcare for low-income synthetics?
--- End quote ---
Interesting point... not sure if it's cogent, though.
It's a bit tricky, considering it's Sentient AIs but..
If you have a car, said car must be insured. IF your car is written off, your insurer will pay for it - and the car is no longer yours.
If you go to hospital, and a surgeon removes your leg - that leg is destroyed - it's no longer yours.
(Yes, there are odd occasions when people may be allowed to be given things like kidneys stones etc if they ask after they have been removed, but generally speaking, if it's removed from your body, it's destroyed... it's no longer yours.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version