Robots have owners and operators.
Hold the government that uses them accountable for their pre programmed actions, problem solved.

I think the state's ability to employ robots domestically, especially for crime fighting, should be limited dramatically by a Constitutional amendment. There's too much room for abuse.

I need to correct my statement. Such wording makes it sound like I may be a mutant, communist, or other subversive, and nothing could be further from the truth. Without Friend Computer making the world safe for us, I could not make the world safe for Friend Computer.

One day the robots will come for us.

But I'll be ready.

Ed Finnerty

In the pic you posted, the robot's initials spell "FISTO".

LOL.

Did you even know that?

/And so it begins
//28,000 years ahead of schedule too

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Weaver95: texdent: Weaver95: ok, I propose a new rule - the first idiot who builds a workable, reliable torture bot gets to be it's first patient for a period no less than 24 hours and no more than 48 hours.

What are your rules towards sex bots?

same deal, just with more lube.

What about a torture sex bot?

I never thought I would go out this way, but I always really hoped.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Weaver95: texdent: Weaver95: ok, I propose a new rule - the first idiot who builds a workable, reliable torture bot gets to be it's first patient for a period no less than 24 hours and no more than 48 hours.

What are your rules towards sex bots?

same deal, just with more lube.

What about a torture sex bot?

Less lube?

FTA: This would avoid a serious ethical conflict between physicians' duty to do no harm, or nonmaleficence, and their...

I was really confused by the "duty to do no harm" thing, until the author explained he meant nonmaleficence.

FTFA: They could also administer injections and even inflict pain in a more controlled way, free from malice and prejudices that might take things too far

"Too far?" WRT torture?

wat

/torture is by definition "too far"

Ed Finnerty: Weaver95: texdent: Weaver95: ok, I propose a new rule - the first idiot who builds a workable, reliable torture bot gets to be it's first patient for a period no less than 24 hours and no more than 48 hours.

What are your rules towards sex bots?

same deal, just with more lube.

[28.media.tumblr.com image 500x331]

haha, bravo

I want to throw up. Which part of "torture = evil, no exceptions" and "we're supposed to be the good guys" do people struggle with? The whole reason we're at war with an idea is (supposed to be) that we're the good guys battling evil. You know what they call good guys who do bad guy things? Well, I suppose they don't call them anything, but terrorizing people into silence is not something to brag to St. Peter about.

There are times when being an atheist suck. I would love to roll in the schadenfreude of believing that those who invent torture-bots in order to hold the evil at arm's length--how can they believe that absolves them???--will spend eternity getting tortured by their own inventions, a la the Bronze Bull.

I repeat: how can anyone believe that designing a torture bot lessens their culpability?

Sometimes I hate, I hate, I hate my species. At least when a cat torments a mouse, you can put it down to the cat being too stupid to understand that "torture = evil, no exceptions". Humans are supposed to be at least slightly smarter than that.

Am I the only one who would prefer death to being part of something cartoonishly evil? And is there any way of bringing the torture nuts to heel short of becoming one of them and rounding them up in the night?

Link (new window)


Dr Steel approves.

Build the robots.

Weaver95: Robots are replacing humans on the battlefield--but could they also be used to interrogate and torture suspects? This would avoid a serious ethical conflict between physicians' duty to do no harm, or nonmaleficence, and their questionable role in monitoring vital signs and health of the interrogated. A robot, on the other hand, wouldn't be bound by the Hippocratic oath, though its very existence creates new dilemmas of its own

ok, I propose a new rule - the first idiot who builds a workable, reliable torture bot gets to be it's first patient for a period no less than 24 hours and no more than 48 hours.

Sorta like what supposedly happened to the guy who invented the Brazen Bull?

In a way, it could be argued that was the first torture machine ever made.

/aside from repeated jabbings with a pointy stick, or mothers-in-law, that is

Helen_Arigby: Which part of "torture = evil, no exceptions" and "we're supposed to be the good guys" do people struggle with?

If you want to understand it, you have to lose the religious concept of Good and Evil.
Politicians, of any stripe, are only out for themselves.

For example, the second Gulf war. It cost us almost a trillion dollars to do for just under a decade what Saddam spent an infinitesimal fraction of the money to do for the better portion of a human lifetime. Intelligence gathering wise, he dominated that nation without the use of a single satellite or UAV.
Fewer resources and less manpower achieving a more reliable result.

If the powers that be can employ torture, scientifically and anonymously, it would save lives and money and (more importantly) their re-election campaigns. They'd be able to win wars abroad or at home without any skill and without ever admitting they were wrong about anything.

That's at the root of why it is they will never come to grasp with this.
The moment the public turns a blind eye and allows a machine to take the blame, we get both a new scape goat and a system for automated oppression.

Robotic torture of the eyes and ears.

I'm fully covered... just in case.



Are you?

MBA Whore: Ed Finnerty

In the pic you posted, the robot's initials spell "FISTO".

LOL.

Did you even know that?