Move over, SawStop ...

... here comes BladeStop!

formatting link

formatting link

"BladeStop? improves band saw safety, with the ability to stop a bandsaw blade within a fraction of a second from when contact is made with the operator, reducing serious band saw blade injuries. BladeStop? mechanically stops the bandsaw blade when the control unit determines a person has come in contact with the blade -- stopping the blade operation within 9 milliseconds of sensing a person's finger or hand!"

Reply to
Spalted Walt
Loading thread data ...

I have to say, I am sorry to see that.

It means that all over the internet, in a high concentration here, and at t he old men's table at Woodcraft the teeth gnashing will start.

Screams of civil rights violations, chest thumping of those declaring that their generation had no guards or safety devices and they were fine, the pa ranoids buying saws now before the nanny state Commie/weenies make safety s ome kind of bullshit issue... all of it.

Ready for the first 250 thread here for a long, long time. Nothing like ge tting a good bitch on to fire one up, though.

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

the old men's table at Woodcraft the teeth gnashing will start.

t their generation had no guards or safety devices and they were fine, the paranoids buying saws now before the nanny state Commie/weenies make safety some kind of bullshit issue... all of it.

getting a good bitch on to fire one up, though.

I think it's a great idea.

There you go, I just canceled out your bitch and saved us 248 posts.

You're welcome. ;-)

Reply to
DerbyDad03

????

nb

Reply to
notbob

technophobia [tek-nuh-foh-bee-uh] noun -- abnormal fear of or anxiety about the effects of advanced technology.

formatting link

Reply to
Spalted Walt

replying to Spalted Walt, Iggy wrote: Wow, stops before you even get there. Not better than SawStop with the glove requirement, but mighty impressive in the right usage.

Reply to
Iggy

¡Gracias!

Robert

Reply to
nailshooter41

replying to Spalted Walt, Ernesto wrote: I recently read Max Tegmark's new book "Life 3.0" and have read others by Ray Kurzweil and other physicists and engineers that touch on this subject. As a result I know that everything in this video is accurate and disturbingly likely. I don't believe those who are never content with the amount of power and wealth they have will refrain from developing this technology, especially because in their ignorance and arrogance they will mistakenly believe they will be able to control it once they have it. As such, I don't think the efforts to restrict and guide the development of AI will be successful in keeping us safe from the dark side of strong AI.

Reply to
Ernesto

I'm not sure how this will work out on usenet, but I'm going to present a scenario and ask for an answer. After some amount of time, maybe 48 hours, since tomorrow is Thanksgiving, I'll expand on that scenario and ask for another answer.

Trust me, this will eventually lead back to technology, AI and most certainly, people.

In the following scenario you must assume that all options have been considered and narrowed down to only 2. Please just accept that the situation is as stated and that you only have 2 choices. If we get into "Well, in a real life situation, you'd have to factor in this, that and the other thing" we'll never get through this exercise.

Here goes:

5 workers are standing on the railroad tracks. A train is heading in their direction. They have no escape route. If the train continues down the tracks, it will most assuredly kill them all.

You are standing next to the lever that will switch the train to another track before it reaches the workers. On the other track is a lone worker, also with no escape route.

You have 2, and only 2, options. If you do nothing, all 5 workers will be killed. If you pull the lever, only 1 worker will be killed.

Which option do you choose?

Reply to
DerbyDad03

As my school bus driver explained nearly 50 years ago, the lessor of evils in this case would be to kill the lone worker... In the case of the bus, it would be to run over a kid on the side of the road rather than have a head-on collision with a large truck.

While troubling as a kid it made sense then and it still makes sense...

Just to throw this in: In real life a speeding train suddenly and unknowingly switching tracks is not a good thing... hundreds could be killed or injured if it were a passenger train!

Reply to
John Grossbohlin

Pull the lever, Choosing to do nothing is the choice to kill 5.

Reply to
Leon

The short answer is to pull the switch and save as many lives as possible.

The long answer, it depends. Would you make that same decision if the lone person was a family member? If the lone person was you? Five old people or one child? Of course, AI would take all the emotions out of the decision making. I think that is what you may be getting at.

Reply to
Ed Pawlowski

I think humans have an aversion to harming others that needs to be overridden by something (artificial intelligence). By rational thinking we can sometimes override it -- by thinking about the people we will save, for example. But for some people, that increase in anxiety may be so overpowering that they don't make the utilitarian choice, the choice for the greater good.

Reply to
Spalted Walt

AI will not take *all* of the emotion out of it. More on that later.

Reply to
DerbyDad03

When do we get to the 'pushing the fat guy off the bridge' part of this moral dilemma quiz? ;')

formatting link

Reply to
Spalted Walt

On 22-Nov-17 10:08 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote: ...

Will depend up what is encoded as "intelligence"; there's always a bias of some sort; just what and how much dependent upon who's doing the doing.

Reply to
dpb

On 22-Nov-17 9:39 AM, Spalted Walt wrote: ...

But if the one happens to Einstein or similar vis a vis the five "just ordinary folks" what's utilitarian?

Reply to
dpb

After we get enough "Pull the lever" answers. ;-)

Oh, well, no sense in waiting...

2nd scenario:

5 workers are standing on the railroad tracks. A train is heading in their direction. They have no escape route. If the train continues down the tracks, it will most assuredly kill them all.

You are standing on a bridge overlooking the tracks. Next to you is a fairly large person. We'll save you some trouble and let that person be a stranger.

You have 2, and only 2, options. If you do nothing, all 5 workers will be killed. If you push the stranger off the bridge, the train will kill him but be stopped before the 5 workers are killed. (Don't question the physics, just accept the outcome.)

Which option do you choose?

Reply to
DerbyDad03

The problem with this is that if I am the one pulling the switch I can see more than what is being presented.

If all the workers are wearing prison uniforms and busy working, and I pull the switch to kill the one who has ten kids verses the 5 who have none?

Or I see that the one alone never left the detail and the other five are escapee's then I leave it as is. I'm the one with the shotgun. :)

However, based on just your statement alone then I would leave the switch alone, it is locked, so I couldn't change it anyhow, and the five are working where they should not be as the train always runs on schedules so the five are not to be there in the first place.

Reply to
OFWW

Well I have mentioned this before, and it goes back to comments I have made in the past about decision making. It seems the majority here use emotional over rational thinking to come up with a decision.

It was said you only have two choices and who these people are or might be is not a consideration. You can't make a rational decision with what-if's. You only have two options, kill 5 or kill 1. Rational for me says save 5, for the rest of you that are bringing in scenarios past what should be considered will waste too much time and you end up with a kill before you decide what to do.

Reply to
Leon

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.