2,900
edits
Main Page: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
{{Main Page - new design/navigation}} | {{Main Page - new design/navigation}} | ||
<div id="home-content"> | <div id="home-content"> | ||
The [[ecological crisis]] demands a radical transformation of modern lifestyles, however, we are all [[Cognitive dissonance|reluctant to change]]. Inducing [[Pivotal Mental States]] can help on an individual level however it is our organisational systems which ultimately govern the fate of our biosphere. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however, whilst many have good initial intentions their efficacy is often limited by their primary tenet of unfettered profit maximisation. This dynamic pits the maintenance of positive [[externalities]] against the generation of the more easily profitable negative externalities. When this dynamic plays out in a [[Hyper Liquid|hyper-liquid]] market such as the internet, [[Nash Equilibrium|Nash's equilibrium]] suggests that most companies will | The [[ecological crisis]] demands a radical transformation of modern lifestyles, however, we are all [[Cognitive dissonance|reluctant to change]]. Inducing [[Pivotal Mental States]] can help on an individual level however it is our organisational systems which ultimately govern the fate of our biosphere. [[Corporation|Corporations]] are rushing to solve the crisis, however, whilst many have good initial intentions their efficacy is often limited by their primary tenet of unfettered profit maximisation. This dynamic pits the maintenance of positive [[externalities]] against the generation of the more easily profitable negative externalities. When this dynamic plays out in a [[Hyper Liquid|hyper-liquid]] market such as the internet, [[Nash Equilibrium|Nash's equilibrium]] suggests that most companies will avoid the loss in revenue from lowering negative externalities by opting for lower cost greenwashing stratergies. The simple solution would be to remove the profit incentive however, this, for [[Why NFPs Dont Work|various reasons]] generates top heavy, ineffective institutions. ''This then begs the question, is there a way to design a new self perpetuating [[Machines|machine]] which does [[Relativity of ethics|good]]?'' | ||
When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however, a conundrum quickly arose. If a machine is developed which has autonomy and was sufficiently enabled, how can we ensure that it primarily does no harm to humans? Without any protective laws, a machine with the purpose of purely making money will destroy everything in its path to achieve its goal. As such, Asimov developed the ''Four'' laws of robotics, which meant any new robot created had to follow distinct uneditable ethical rules which were enabled to protect humans from the ruthlessness of machines: | When the concept of robotics was first invented, Isaac Asimov imagined the creation of autonomous intelligence in the form of androids however, a conundrum quickly arose. If a machine is developed which has autonomy and was sufficiently enabled, how can we ensure that it primarily does no harm to humans? Without any protective laws, a machine with the purpose of purely making money will destroy everything in its path to achieve its goal. As such, Asimov developed the ''Four'' laws of robotics, which meant any new robot created had to follow distinct uneditable ethical rules which were enabled to protect humans from the ruthlessness of machines: | ||