PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:31 am
The last deer I hit ran alongside my vehicle for at least a quarter of a mile, then suddenly veered directly in front of me.
The deer was in flight mode, thought it was being chased. Moose do this too. There was probably an opening to escape into the woods on the other side of the road, which is why the deer veered; or your speed changed, or some other predictable trigger which made the deer feel like that was the chance to finally escape.
It's weird behavior, but it's predictable within certain parameters.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:31 amIf they come up with an algorithm to anticipate deer movements, then chances are the computers themselves are sentient, and I for one welcome our new robot overlords..
Keep in mind a human has slow reflexes and can't see far in the dark: the opposite it true for even a non-AI computer program. Reflexes are instantaneous, and it can make near perfect decisions about swerving or not based on statistical data for the exact circumstances present. Doesn't take any intelligence to feed the variables through a decision table.
Anyway, the point is animal collisions will be basically unheard of compared to today. Which will be good, since a lot of people die in these accidents too.
I can't wait for self driving cars to be the norm, overlords or not.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:02 am
In reference to the bolded point, I agree 100%. (By which I mean I think it is the best path; I understand you are positing it as a questionable endeavor)
Well, the question is about our knowledge. Maybe we think it's a sure thing, but it's actually a one in a million chance. In which case, we're gambling on torturing a million people to save 200... not quite as good a deal.
But I agree; if it's actually a sure thing, then that's what we should do.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:02 amAre you willing to torture them yourself?
Or would you proposition a
mostly morally upright PsYcHo willing to do the dirty work?
I'd entrust a professional. I might not be very good at it.
PsYcHo wrote: ↑Thu Nov 30, 2017 3:02 amI concede I'm not as moral as I could be, but I posit that I am much, much more moral (as it pertains to treating animals in a dietary sense) than I was/could be.
I think we can all agree on that. I hope you'll keep working on it.