I think what the OP is getting at is that if you can only prompt the model and aren't bringing anything to the table yourself, you're going to get a generic answer that looks like all of the others. The point is to figure out what differentiates you as a developer. Yes, that will favor those with more experience, but that's always been the case.

But pure math is a game that only cares about the rules and definitions as you choose to define them. It's not about understanding the world at all. The application of math in science (which is about understanding the world) is usually (but admittedly not always) after the fact.

Pure math may be that, but I was referring to the human beings behind pure math.

Thank you. The OP is urging others to take an ethics class, when they need to be taking a history class. The golden rule apparently didn't apply to the guy whose heart you had to eat to keep the sun rising.

The law isn't and never has been a moral benchmark. At best, a law reflects social consensus at the time of its enactment, but even that's not a given.

And proportionality matters. Community service and counseling, loss of time (imprisonment), and loss of a hand have all been used to punish theft. Which is correct? Which is the more moral, because it doesn't seem to me that they're the same?

I think there cannot be an objectively most correct punishment for a given crime. The closest we could maybe get is "undo the harm that you have caused", but some harm cannot be undone.

Hence morality and ethics, I guess.

Right, and that's the point.

The law isn't a moral benchmark, because morality shifts over time, both for what constitutes a crime, and what constitutes appropriate punishment. At various points in time, it's been legal to own slaves, illegal to be homosexual, and illegal for certain groups to vote (and I consider voting at all to be a subset of this); those laws (and ideas) were eventually updated, largely on moral grounds.

Similarly, most western countries no longer execute criminals.

But those ideas aren't universal, even today. Assuming that they are is imo, extraordinarily foolish, because there's ample evidence to show that they're not.

Hogwash. We don't even have a consistent set of ethics on how to treat animals today, in the age of the Internet. We have people who refuse to eat meat because of how the animals are treated, and we have places where the locals make sport out of torturing animals to death, and indeed, our own recent history includes that as well (look up badgering).

Not to mention, the variation in treatment of homosexuals (including what constitutes homosexuality), people of different skin colors, handedness, how rape is treated in various cultures (often tied in with notions of property and ownership of all things), or even the various definitions of rape... The list goes on.

Maybe there's a core there in terms of how we treat a given in-group, but equally important is who belongs in that group and why, and that part seems to be tremendously flexible. Ditto for what constitutes acceptable treatment of outsiders.

You seem to be arguing that the one socially acceptable way to do something is not constant, rather than that moral imperatives truly do change. The reason there are still so many competing philosophies from hundreds or thousands of years ago is because they all more or less make their own kinds of good points to different people or in different situations. That largely doesn't change over time.

One example is the trolley problem and its variations. There's no one correct answer. There are people who believe that interacting with the switch would make you responsible, and there are people who believe that not interacting with the switch when you had the chance would make you responsible. There are other beliefs too, but my point is there's no one single way to view it.

I tend to have a variety of views in general about all things, in part due to being multiple entities (see profile) but also depending on circumstances, rather than sticking to any one philosophy.

That we vary doesn't mean that there is no consensus. There is consensus on many things, and the disagreements we encounter are a source of strife exactly because of the groups that do agree on each side.

Who the consensus extends to is really the heart of the matter. Most people agree that killing certain people is wrong, but if they disagree on who those certain people are, there's no useful commonality. Some people believe that all killing of others is wrong, some believe that it's okay to kill others under certain circumstances (which can range from a threat to one's life, to petty "dishonor"), and some people historically believed that killing was a necessary duty (e.g. human sacrifice). There is no useful commonality to be had there. You can't appeal to the humanity of someone who doesn't see you as being the same as them, and the restrictions for inclusion as one of them can be arbitrary, broad, and fickle.

By definition, variation is the opposite of consensus.

That people's beliefs about X vary is not evidence that X itself varies. People have different beliefs about whether vaccines cause autism, but this doesn't mean that sometimes vaccines cause autism and sometimes they don't. Rather, some people are wrong.

Similarly, people have different beliefs about whether it's okay to inflict massive suffering on animals in exchange for some pleasure for us. But this doesn't necessarily mean that sometimes it's okay to do that and sometimes it isn't. It could just be that some people are wrong.

Ditto for other moral issues. It could be that the people who say (e.g.) homosexuality should be punished by death are wrong about this.

> That people's beliefs about X vary is not evidence that X itself varies.

That works with things where "X" exists outside of people's beliefs.

Like where X is "gravity". It doesn't matter what you believe why an apple falls down, it will fall down the same.

But where X is "ethics" that doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs about it.

In one culture if you have a guinea pig, you kill it and then roast it that is just and proper. A sucullent meal. In an other culture if you do the same you will be forever known as the "monster who eat his guinea pig", will be harassed and likely even reported to authorities. Try it. Get a guinea pig from the pet store, roast it and serve it to your guests. See what they think of you in the Andes, or in California. The apple falls the same in both places, but the guinea pig doesn't taste the same in both places.

There is no "ethics as the ethicometer measures it". Just "ethics as the society around you recognises it".

You seem to believe that there's one consistent set of moral guidelines that separate people into wrong and right camps. This is not true, and most likely never will be true. Instead, there are many competing moral philosophies, many from hundreds or thousands of years ago, that do or don't encourage certain behavior. People tend to pick philosophies, or at the very least act consistently with some set of them, and different people pick or act with different ones.

Vaccines causing autism is simply false though, regardless of any philosophy. It's rather the inverse, much like violence can cause video games.

Moral absolutism doesn't exist.

A fixed wing drone only needs one motor, the control is easier, and the physics are more favorable for carrying high ordnance. I'm skeptical that this is going to change much.

It's cool in that it can hover and do quadcopter type flight with only a single motor, and it's that second part that is interesting, because a fixed wing can also do a prop hang, but it can't do quadrotor-like flight from there.

It's usefulness is likely to be in other areas -- mainly applications where that flight mode is important.

A fixed wing drone needs at least one extra motor for the control surfaces. More likely two or three.

This design still requires an additional servo for rotor actuation, so the minimum number of actuators is the same as for a fixed wing (roll and yaw are coupled, so the bare minimum is a single rudder servo).

No, the rotors are tilted by timing the acceleration from the single motor - there's no servo in the design in the video.

My bad. I skimmed the early part of the video with the sound down on the train this morning and thought I saw a servo in there. That's clever, but it doesn't really change much. There's not really any advantage in terms of payload or performance over existing designs.

Larger fixed wing drone could deliver many smaller quadcopters that don't have the long range.

A good engineering course would cover most (if not all) of the skills necessary to do this. This is notable because the person is young and wielding a broad slice of the discipline with maturity.

What exactly would you want to regulate? And keep in mind that regulations are very effective at protecting incumbents, which, as of right now, also includes openAI.

This is a track car for the uber wealthy. It's only rarely going to be on public roads, and it'll probably have some unlock mechanism for the truly stupid stuff. Honestly, I'm here for it. Automakers have gotten complacent. Between Chinese automakers and stunts like this, we might see the return of outrageous engineering just to prove a point.

It’s a lot cheaper than a Ferrari or Lamborghini or Koenigsegg.

I'm not even an EV guy, and this is the coolest thing to come out of the automotive space in years. This is almost a throwback to the homologation days of rallying, when automotive companies sold unchained racing cars to the general public because the FIA and WRC deemed it so. Impractical cars in every sense of the word, but phenomenal engineering.