6

In my eyes the answer is simpler than one might think: If the damage is caused by a failure of the hardware or the software shipped with the robot, the company selling the drone has to be held responsible (within the warranty). Whether the company wants to sue the developer depends is up to the company and depends on the contract that the developer signed. ...


5

Before discussing this further, I’d like to highlight this quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as I feel it is particularly relevant to your question: ”First, there is the question whether it is a useful goal for AI research to aim to make a machine that can pass the given test (administered over the specified length of time, at the specified ...


4

The idea that you mention is similar to Marx's concept of alienation: When a person performs labor in a capitalist industrialized society, they slowly loose their connection with their work and their community. The become alienated. The theoretic basis of alienation, within the capitalist mode of production, is that the worker invariably loses the ...


4

What a wonderful contribution in the philosophy of technology. Let's see if we can't provide some clarification of this philosophical topic. INTRODUCTION From the article you cited: Virtuality is the cultural perception that material objects are interpenetrated by information patterns. So the first thing to be understood about her "virtuality" is that ...


3

One current philosopher and theologian, Robert Barron, would dispute this claim by looking at what is meant by the word "freedom." Freedom, in Kaczynski eyes is the ability to do whatever one pleases. However, another dictionary definition for the word "freedom" is "familiarity or openness in speech or behavior." As Barron often points out, familiarity or ...


3

Lazy answer: Yes, anything is possible Okay, now for the longer answer I think the wording difference between "input/output" and "mapping" is used because of side effects. Mathematical mappings have no side effects, they are simply mappings. The difference between having a value, 1, and having a complicated equation evaluated at a point which maps to 1 ...


3

As I studied economics as well as philosophy and had advanced courses in physics in school, I feel prepared to answer this question. First, what does the second law of thermodynamics state? It has various formulations, but the essential core may be formulated like this: There is no way (=no machine) that can transfer energy from a system with lower ...


3

It's not just you First of all, any difficult you face in understanding what Heidegger meant is more likely Heidegger's fault than yours. He is an infamously unclear writer. Gestell in ordinary German means a physical framework, frame, structure, chassis, rack, stand, trestle, etc. But Heidegger is obviously not using the ordinary meaning of the word. ...


3

Not only is it possible, it has degraded humanity. But it has also provided benefits. First, the bad news: People live relatively long lives today, thanks to modern technology and plentiful food. But if you took away all that technology, people would start falling over dead by the thousands. Thousands of years ago, people with various illnesses or "...


3

I suspect that happiness is pretty much what you get when you have good relationships with other people, including any people having power or authority over you. To the extent that people isolate themselves with technology, I would say that "Yes, modern technology makes us unhappy." But I would not say that this is a purely up-to-date modern thing; after ...


2

Philip Klöcking has a decent technical answer, but it's much simpler. Humans can't violate the second law of thermodynamics. We're part of the system too. If humans can generate "value" nonetheless, so can machines. Depending on details, maybe they can generate a lot more per input of energy or capital or whatever. One formulation of the 2nd law is that ...


2

In "The Fabric of Reality", David Deutsch noted that the most fundamental ideas about how the world work are more unified than at any previous time in human history. To understand each of those fundamental ideas properly you have to understand the others. But this doesn't make knowledge harder to understand because having a unified set of ideas means there ...


2

This depends on one's definition of "being" (along with those terms related to it such as "alive", "sentient", and "life"). If one considers entities within the simulation which display sufficiently complex behaviour (where one must then precisely mark what exactly is sufficient) to be sentient, then yes, those beings would have been alive, and you would be ...


2

If you wanted to approach this question as a pure Heideggerian, it would be a matter of deciding whether a new epoch of being has overtaken us, determined by some change in our relationship to technology, or whether we are still immersed in the same epoch described by Heidegger. He describes modern technology as completely determining the possibilities of ...


2

I understand by the term Gestell in Heidegger the framing of our world. I take it to be a protean reference to hermeneutics as the idea that we have "horizons." To word it another, Gestell is Heidegger's way of saying the Kantian point that we have no epistemic access to the thing in itself. One thing that is confusing is that in the "question concerning ...


2

There's an entire subfield of Philosophy of Technology. For your specific question, you might be especially interested in the work of Langdon Winner and Shannon Vallor's new book Technology and the Virtues.


2

Heidegger was much concerned with this. A central text is : 'The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, ed., trans., William Lovitt (New York: Harper & Row, 1977). David Edward Tabachnick has a useful article: 'Heidegger's Essentialist Responses to the Challenge of Technology', Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de ...


2

What is technology ? (is it only material? aren't abstractions and cognitive processes also technologies in a way?) What about the importance of rationality in Western thought ? Can we think technology as separated of rationality? See the idea of techno-capitalism for instance to grasp the moral universe (understand it as ethos) gravitating around the ...


2

Some very crude calculations: The most basic measurement of wealth I can think of is GDP per capita. The world's GDP is about 87.55 trillion US dollars per year. The world population is about 7.674 billion people. If you divide one by the other, you get about $11,400 per person. The international poverty line is set at $1.90 per day, or about $700 a year. ...


1

I've worked with Bitcoins, and I want to give a technical point here before answering. Bitcoins is a virtual currency, completely different for what we have known as currency until now. It's not an archive, or similar. Then, how does it work? It starts when anyone that's already in the bitcoins red, gives you bitcoins (or a part of a bitcoin) in exchange ...


1

Technology has neither the aim nor the impact to make people acting more morally. Technology is a means to apply our scientific knowledge to control the natural forces. There are technicians who develop technology, people who apply their results, and people who benefit or suffer from these applications. In any case technology is a means in the hand of ...


1

Here are some disjointed ideas (they were too long to fit in a comment): I think comparing the last messiah and the last man is on the right track, though perhaps the minimizing suffering aspect should be dropped. Zarathustra is the advocate of suffering, but that does not mean, as far as I can tell, that he wants to not minimize suffering. It's just that ...


1

Nietzsche introduces the last man in the prologue, chapter 5, of Nietzsche, Friedrich: Thus Spoke Zarathustra. See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm#link2H_4_0004 Zarathustra came down from the mountains to give his first sermon about SUPERMAN. But the people in town do not show any reaction to his words. Hence Zarathustra appeals to ...


1

As others pointed out, in its original form, the question dissolves, because since people can't violate the second law of thermodynamics, it doesn't matter that machines can't violate it either. However, there is a way of reformulating your question which makes it more relevant. Although the 2nd law holds for the universe as a whole, (open) systems can ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible