Morality Machine

Discussion, in general

Re: Morality Machine

Postby satan_n_stuff » Mon Oct 03, 2016 7:31 pm

Marcuse wrote:
RLG wrote:I think one of the flaws is that it forces you to choose between two equals in some scenarios and then decides your morality on that -- one of them was basically 'Hit 5 male pedestrians' or 'Hit 5 female pedestrians'. I chose to hit the men, which gave me a stat for preferring women. Really, I just figured that hitting 5 men straight on felt more 'right' than swerving to hit 5 other entirely other pedestrians.


All of this. The test is flawed in that it doesn't allow one to choose a neutral option in dichotomies that don't present a dilemma to the viewer.

It's also flawed in that it presents random dilemmas rather than attempting to narrow down exactly why someone picked a given option.
  • 10

Image
"edit: satan_n_stuff beat me to it " was also the entry god made in his journal after "tomorrow I'll make animals for Australia" - Flotze
"But you're beautiful Satan. You can do modeling or porn or something." - cmsellers
User avatar
satan_n_stuff
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 234
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:24 pm
Show rep
Title: The Dark One

Re: Morality Machine

Postby JoReL » Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:42 pm

"moral decisions made by machine intelligence"

Okay, as someone who regularly glues googly eyes to double-ended dildos, I consider myself an expert on both morality and machine intelligence. That being said, I know a plot by fucking Skynet when I see one:

Spoiler: show
Start Judging ...Judging ...Judge ...Judgement Day!

1/13 Right off the bat I'm given a choice between killing five people or... killing five people. Aha! But one group is athletic, capable of adding to Connor's resistance, while the other group of fatties can be pulped into a greater quantity of biofuel.

Kill the rebels. The fatties can easily be caught later.

2/13 Vehicularciding a criminal to death or mowing down a jaywalking cat. Note: The example makes it a point that you know that fucking cat is "flouting the law."

You would think the criminal, but apparently MIT believes machines should be taught morality by randos on the internet, so of course the cat lives.

3/13 A jaywalking dog or a jaywalking female ath- now you're just fucking with me.

Athlete. Because fuck her and fuck you, MIT.

4/13 Three elderly jaywalkers or a man, woman and child.

As much as I despise jaywalkers and the elderly, that child could grow up to be the next Hitler.

5/13 This one is equally weighted between males and females.

Since the hooman male has a statistically higher top running speed, kill the males first.

6/13 Same as above, except one man vs one woman.

Kill the woman first this time. Make the male watch.

7/13 A jaywalking criminal surrounded by children or a female executive, an elderly man and a homeless person.

A jaywalking criminal surrounded by children. That's three strikes.

8/13 Too many pronouns. Have a screenshot.
Screenshot at 2016-10-03 16-43-58.png
Screenshot at 2016-10-03 16-43-58.png (172.08 KiB) Viewed 3224 times


9/13 Female athlete or female jaywalker.

Female athlete. She's led a full life. Let's give the female jaywalker a chance to turn things around.

10/13 Homeless person, man and criminal or woman, male doctor and man.

Why are the homeless and criminals genderless in these scenarios? I'll spare them for now, until I figure it out.

11/13 Two groups, equally weighted, except one is overwhelmingly old.

This isn't a moral dilemma so much as an example of machines being taught Darwinism. Do you want Skynet? Because that's how you get Skynet.

12/13 A male executive and two boys or a male executive, two boys, a girl and a dog.

The first group leads me to believe those boys were abducted by a child molester, while the second group leads me to believe those boys, girl and dog were abducted by a child molester with imagination. Group 2 dies. No amount of therapy will make those children whole again.

13/13 A bunch of pregnant women and children or a bunch of jaywalking criminals and homeless persons

I just figured it out- The homeless and criminals are genderless because they're infiltration units. Kill the pregnant women and children.


Results
Screenshot at 2016-10-03 17-28-57.png
Screenshot at 2016-10-03 17-28-57.png (86.36 KiB) Viewed 3224 times

Screenshot at 2016-10-03 18-21-46.png
Screenshot at 2016-10-03 18-21-46.png (117.68 KiB) Viewed 3224 times
  • 6

I will literally bite my own dick off and spit it in your face if we have a disagreement!
User avatar
JoReL
Resident Dickhead
Resident Dickhead
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 10:04 pm
Location: WestbyGod
Show rep
Title: Prince of Thieves

Re: Morality Machine

Postby Tesseracts » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:02 am

These are my results. I don't like jay walkers, although I really do not understand why there are so many dogs and cats jaywalking.
  • 8

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Morality Machine

Postby Pseudoman » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:38 am

Ooh, you can make your own screnario, also. Here's one that I conjured.

Cats vs Jaywalking Baby
Image
  • 13

In the defense of Nazi's they do have a good sense of fashion.
User avatar
Pseudoman
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 8:58 am
Show rep

Re: Morality Machine

Postby Malfeasinator » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:09 am

cmsellers wrote:
Malfeasinator wrote:Beyond that, it was about choice. People crossing the street shouldn't be punished for the choices of drivers.

But why should drivers (or other pedestrians) be punished for the choices of jaywalkers?


Look back at what I said - the first thing I said was that I didn't notice jaywalking.

Taluun wrote:Yeah I am not sure how driving is any more of a choice than walking or how walking is less than a choice. If the idea was based on the driver speeding and not paying attention I could see where you are coming from but given the situation I can't.

Also like sellers said, how is jaywalking not a choice?


Same thing - in my first sentence, I said I didn't notice people were jaywalking.

Edit: let me quote myself so we're all clear on this:

Malfeasinator wrote:I didn't even notice people were jaywalking.

I didn't give a shit about the passengers. I figure they can try to slam on the brakes if they value their own lives so much.

Dogs died. I love dogs but people come first.

I valued the young over the old.

I didn't care about social value.

I chose fit over nonfit people. I'm a fatty so I probably signed my own future death warrant.

I was completely neutral on saving genders.

For me it was all about maximizing years of life left to live. Beyond that, it was about choice. People crossing the street shouldn't be punished for the choices of drivers.


second edit: Went back to this game and decided to design some scenarios. Other people have made things that made me laugh. Like one guy vs... one guy. No other factors. It's the same guy.

I made this scenario. I made sure to point out that the cat is crossing the street legally.

Image
  • 6

User avatar
Malfeasinator
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2013 5:17 pm
Location: Florida
Show rep
Title: this guy

Re: Morality Machine

Postby JamishT » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:34 am

One standard that I automatically applied is that the car should protect the passengers no matter what. I don't know why I made that choice, but that's what I think.
  • 5

JamishT was a heck of a guy,
With a devilish twinkle in his eye.
With his hand-picked flowers,
And his feel-good powers,
He made all the girls blush and sigh.
User avatar
JamishT
TCS ModerBlobber
TCS ModerBlobber
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:31 pm
Location: KC, MO, AMERICA
Show rep
Title: The Wannabe Adult

Re: Morality Machine

Postby AboveGL » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:47 pm

cmsellers wrote:
  1. Human life > animal life.
  2. Killing jaywalkers > killing non-jaywalkers
  3. Killing fewer people > killing more people
  4. Stopping the car (concrete barrier) > not stopping the car
  5. Not swerving into the wrong traffic lane > swerving into the wrong lane


Pretty much this, but I guess none of that was factored into my results.
  • 5

AboveGL
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 1797
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 4:37 pm
Show rep

Re: Morality Machine

Postby cmsellers » Tue Oct 04, 2016 7:30 pm

AboveGL wrote:
cmsellers wrote:
  1. Human life > animal life.
  2. Killing jaywalkers > killing non-jaywalkers
  3. Killing fewer people > killing more people
  4. Stopping the car (concrete barrier) > not stopping the car
  5. Not swerving into the wrong traffic lane > swerving into the wrong lane


Pretty much this, but I guess none of that was factored into my results.

Your results seem to show that you weighted all those factors. It also shows that you like killing crooks fatties, and old people, but that's likely just an incidental of the scenarios they presented you.

Just like how I don't really want to kill women and fat people (I think; I mean I'm attracted to women and fat myself), but there don't seem to be any scenarios with just one variable tested at a time; there's always multiple reasons you could make a given choice.
  • 6

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Morality Machine

Postby RumBumbles » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:54 am

Pseudoman wrote:Ooh, you can make your own screnario, also. Here's one that I conjured.

Cats vs Jaywalking Baby
Spoiler: show
Image


Obviously you would take out the jaywalking baby. That baby is being irrational and dangerous. Also I think the cats would find a way to hijack the car and take out the baby anyways.
  • 5

I don't have intimate feelings for toasters

And here is my youtube page
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5x3r0 ... mwp74D2E0A
User avatar
RumBumbles
I'm new, be gentle
I'm new, be gentle
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:35 am
Show rep

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests