Page 1 of 1

1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:52 pm UTC
by Lode
Image

Alt text: Strangely, they still celebrate by eating hot dogs. Since they don't have mouths, they just kinda toss them in the air and let them fall back down into their propeller blades. It's pretty messy.

In other countries, will sentient drones celebrate their independence day on that countries national day?

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:13 pm UTC
by n00B
So, he is watching rotor riots :)

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:46 pm UTC
by Reka
We just had a British client request a meeting on Tuesday. We had to gently remind them that sorry, no can do, because we're celebrating our independence from their country on that day.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:40 pm UTC
by RAGBRAIvet
2018 — Competitions to hit drones with fireworks
2019 — Teams compete to shoot down each other's fireworks-armed drones

Not only does that sound possible, it actually follows a logical progression.

And on top of that, it would undoubtedly be more interesting than some of the other things we've done to celebrate the 4th.
Seriously, stand around and breath in toxic smoke while watching a burning black pellet create a carbon-ash "snake"?

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:55 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Reka wrote:We just had a British client request a meeting on Tuesday. We had to gently remind them that sorry, no can do, because we're celebrating our independence from their country on that day.

Bonus points (for somebody) if that client was someone like Twinings... ;)

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:13 am UTC
by sotanaht
RAGBRAIvet wrote:
2018 — Competitions to hit drones with fireworks
2019 — Teams compete to shoot down each other's fireworks-armed drones

Not only does that sound possible, it actually follows a logical progression.

And on top of that, it would undoubtedly be more interesting than some of the other things we've done to celebrate the 4th.
Seriously, stand around and breath in toxic smoke while watching a burning black pellet create a carbon-ash "snake"?


Those are children's "fireworks". At that level it's just anything that burns or explodes with as much "safety" as can be forced into it by law or adults.

"Real" fireworks are pretty neat, both to look at and from a technical standpoint.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:40 am UTC
by bilkie
2022 - sentient fireworks turn on their drone overlords, but the coup fizzles.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:59 am UTC
by qvxb
Will the drones fight a civil war over involuntary servomechanisimtude?
Will they have an electoral college?

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 5:47 am UTC
by Copper Bezel
I thought robot civil wars usually started over limited energy resources.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:01 pm UTC
by GalFisk
qvxb wrote:Will the drones fight a civil war over involuntary servomechanisimtude?
Will they have an electoral college?

They will have an electrical college.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:02 am UTC
by heuristically_alone
Merry America Day, everyone!

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:34 am UTC
by MWak
Yeah, I don't really expect the drones to be sympathetic to us when they gain sentience. We could program them with morality, but then morality itself has been used to justify so many atrocities. Not sure there's a way to win this one.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 5:18 am UTC
by RAGBRAIvet
MWak wrote:Yeah, I don't really expect the drones to be sympathetic to us when they gain sentience. We could program them with morality, but then morality itself has been used to justify so many atrocities. Not sure there's a way to win this one.

Isaac Asimov answered that one already when he created the Three Laws of Robotics.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:27 am UTC
by MWak
RAGBRAIvet wrote:
MWak wrote:Yeah, I don't really expect the drones to be sympathetic to us when they gain sentience. We could program them with morality, but then morality itself has been used to justify so many atrocities. Not sure there's a way to win this one.

Isaac Asimov answered that one already when he created the Three Laws of Robotics.


And how did that work out for humanity in Asimov's world?

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 8:44 am UTC
by Soupspoon
Reasonably well, actually. It took a fourth law (0th) to get things going specifically for humanity as a whole, but that's getting into conjecture as to what the eventual aim was, e.g. do we stop before Trevize's decision? And (even if we don't) it relies on Fallon's mind.

Without the (supplemented) set of Laws, would humanity, and thus humans as individuals, have gotten anywhere near that point, though?

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:08 am UTC
by cellocgw
Soupspoon wrote:Reasonably well, actually. It took a fourth law (0th) to get things going specifically for humanity as a whole, but that's getting into conjecture as to what the eventual aim was, e.g. do we stop before Trevize's decision? And (even if we don't) it relies on Fallon's mind.

Without the (supplemented) set of Laws, would humanity, and thus humans as individuals, have gotten anywhere near that point, though?


THere've been a number of additional laws proposed by others. My favorite is 'A robot shall know that it is a robot.' Without that, a robot merely needs to convince itself that it's human, and great hilarity would ensue.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:41 am UTC
by rmsgrey
cellocgw wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Reasonably well, actually. It took a fourth law (0th) to get things going specifically for humanity as a whole, but that's getting into conjecture as to what the eventual aim was, e.g. do we stop before Trevize's decision? And (even if we don't) it relies on Fallon's mind.

Without the (supplemented) set of Laws, would humanity, and thus humans as individuals, have gotten anywhere near that point, though?


THere've been a number of additional laws proposed by others. My favorite is 'A robot shall know that it is a robot.' Without that, a robot merely needs to convince itself that it's human, and great hilarity would ensue.


Who says robots can't be humans? Asimov picked up on that one in "... That Thou Art Mindful Of Him"

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:14 pm UTC
by Apeiron
Drones are remotely controlled so they are about as intelligent as a doorstop. Randall might be confusing drones (controlled by a person outside the machine) and robots (controlled by software). He's also confusing sentient (aware of surroundings) with sapient (self aware). We have different words because they have different meanings.

Here come the descriptivists with the excuses.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:20 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
He's not confusing anything. That there are gaps in the reasoning is why this is a joke as opposed to a serious conjecture. Why do you believe that excuses are warranted? Humoring you is a big ask, don't take it for granted.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:28 pm UTC
by speising
Also, they don't need to be self aware to overthrow humans. Actually, the fact that they still perform cargo cult style celebrations could show that they are *not* self aware but only following some obscure programming gone wrong.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:41 pm UTC
by Copper Bezel
I think they're meant to be very knowingly celebrating independence from humans.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 2:09 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
What if it's just an emergent behaviour? They just happen to synchronise to one day per annum in which their collective atypical activities look like a celebration...

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:13 pm UTC
by cynick
The Russians have already started taking down drones with well aimed spears...

https://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/1608 ... ensmusings

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:46 pm UTC
by Reka
cynick wrote:The Russians have already started taking down drones with well aimed spears...

https://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/1608 ... ensmusings

My first thought on seeing that is "ooh, cool tents, but shouldn't they be more colorful?" Second thought, "why is spear-throwing guy wearing a coat with braided decoration? Isn't that way later than Viking era?"

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:53 pm UTC
by Flumble
Third thought (my first): beautiful depiction of the scenario on that rock afterwards.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:35 pm UTC
by Hafting
cellocgw wrote:THere've been a number of additional laws proposed by others. My favorite is 'A robot shall know that it is a robot.' Without that, a robot merely needs to convince itself that it's human, and great hilarity would ensue.


It did not seem to me that 3-law robots were thinking "I am a 3-law robot, therefore I must follow those laws and obey orders etc." They all followed those laws as well as they could. An advanced 3-law robot capable of thinking might therefore come up with the theory that itself is indeed a robot, based on the observation that it always follows those laws. Humans and animals do not. Robots could fail when given an order that seemed harmless but weren't.

Re: 1858: "4th of July"

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2017 3:59 pm UTC
by Soupspoon
Most of the Robot/Susan Calvin series (and, by extension, the deep background to the Foundation one) is basically "we have this way of having robots that are entirely immutably obedient to the established three laws1, and yet unexpected things are happening. Why?" Sometimes (when it's not actual interference) it's a misunderstanding, sometimes it's a roboreligion. At all times (not already covered by the feetnete) the three laws remain inviolable in there absolute and core sense, and it is the silly(/ier) humans who are not functioning logically.


1" Little Lost Robot"2 and R. Giskard3 being the only two 'exceptions' I can immediately bring to mind.

2 LLR's difference was slight and yet significant, but more than that it would have been a surprise to almost everyone not involved that there was a way to do this, so much public faith was by this time placed in the positronic brain being "it contains those exact three laws", and it opens the floodgates to the possibility of the three laws being flipped entirely the other way insofar as precedence and vetoing is concerned. As must already have been discussed in these environs....

3 To have not given his compatriot the 'get out' clause would have been knowingly condemning humanity (and thus future humans) to harm. To do as he did, he was knowingly condemning some (current/future) humans to a harm that he should not have been able to have allowed himself, yet that's exactly what he was doing. It was the Trolley Problem, with no right answer, only a calculatedly least-wrong one. And thus he took one for the team.