Concerns RE: Car Chase

originally published June 20, 2007

On May 15, a front-page article in the Athens Banner-Herald reported a woman being run over and badly injured by a car that a law enforcement vehicle had “bumped” into in order to get it to pull over. It was reported that this was a chase spanning three counties and that the maneuver was done in a relatively unpopulated area before getting into Athens proper in order to lessen the chance of someone getting hurt. Unfortunately, they did not see two people walking and the woman suffered broken ribs and spine along with other injuries when the car ran over her.

I was witness to the ordeal from across the train tracks that run parallel to Jefferson Road where the incident took place. It was twilight and I did not see details, but two things were clear. The first thing that caught my attention was a loud crash. This was the “bump” described in the article. The second thing is that the police lights from several law enforcement vehicles came on immediately AFTER the crash. No sirens had been used either. I can’t help but wonder why there were no lights or sirens used to get the car to pull over before crashing into him. And if the chase had been going on through three counties, it seems particularly strange that lights and sirens weren’t used in order to warn other traffic and pedestrians to get out of the way.

Name Withheld

Athens

Editor’s note: Georgia State Patrol Sgt. A.W. Marlowe tells Flagpole that the State Patrol regrets the injuries caused, and that the patrol cars’ sirens and lights were on for the duration of the chase.

Fred Drafter

originally published June 20, 2007

I think Mr. Chapman seriously missed the mark in his article about Fred Thompson’s potential presidential bid [Comment: "Fred Thompson Calling," June 13]. He states that things get trickier when a candidate has to actually start staking out clear positions in his campaign. While he’s correct that this was part of Wesley Clark’s problem, I think he’s quite wrong that it will be Thompson’s. One of the main reasons that Fred is so appealing to so many people is that he already has staked out clear, firm positions on most, if not all, of the big issues facing our nation. This is not because he is forced to, but because he is strong, intelligent and principled. It is because his positions are an honest reflection of his beliefs and his leadership ability, and are truly his, as opposed to what he needs to say to look good. It is because his positions are defendable and supported by his political record. He’s no mystery candidate. For anyone who wishes to know, his opinions are readily available, and this puts his potential run for president in a whole other league from Clark’s, as well as from the vast majority of the current field of both Republican and Democratic candidates.

Rebecca Kreisler

Athens

Robots Response.1

originally published June 20, 2007

The real issue in dealing with robots in human society is more an issue of humano-roboto compatibility [Letter "One Hundred Robots," June 6]. It has been proven in various studies (Slaughter 9:12, and Jurgens 4:3 for example) that the compatibility is an inverse ratio when determined randomly, and an obverse ratio when those involved are allowed to make choices. Thus, one must draw the conclusion that free will and robotics cannot coexist in the same system whenever humans are present.

There is no problem with the logistics of building robots to perform most tasks humans perform today. Robots, of one sort or another, fly planes, drive cars, engineer trains, sail ships, pilot rockets and even mine the deep sea floors. However, in all of these situations the interaction with humans is minimal. Humans may be present, humans may push the start buttons, if such buttons need to exist, but there is very little actual interaction.

Letting loose robots in agricultural settings (Bonner 19:7) will in fact necessitate this interaction in ways that flying airplanes does not. Choices will have to be made and once made lived with or else the whole experiment will fail. Will those who find their interactions with cold machines unpalatable still believe that the synergy gained through these confabulations supersedes their own happiness? Somehow I doubt it.

The choices to be made in a humano-roboto society will prove complex, and as we have not even entered that society I am dubious that we can even begin to frame the questions which will seem obvious the morning after the switch is thrown. Frankly, though this all sounds like an easy fix, I would caution everyone to take a step back and take a deep breath. Take a deep breath while you still have lungs with which to breathe.

Janice Johnson

Norcross

Robots Response.2

originally published June 20, 2007

Since you can’t write a rebuttal to something that hasn’t been addressed yet, I will limit my comments to points Keith Priest made in his June 6 letter. I don’t know if I know more about robotics and human nature than Mr. Priest, but maybe I can shed a little light on some things he has oversimplified.

“Ten to 15 years from now, we will see self-replicating (and self-repairing) robots.” Oh, really. From what I have seen on the Discovery Channel and on-line, we are barely able to make a robotic arm with even rudimentary hand movements, and you want us to believe that we will have full-scale robots which will be able to perform the intricate wiring and assembly of an incredibly complicated piece of machinery (Mr. Priest doesn’t seem to be talking about a robot that is part of an assembly line and performs a few limited functions over and over again, but of one robot that is able to do everything necessary to build an entirely new robot.) Where will these robots get the parts and supplies to “self-replicate?” Miles and miles of wiring, circuit boards and CPUs, nuts and bolts, large amounts of metal for the frame and exterior covering: surely you are not suggesting that the robots will grow all these supplies, are you?

“Housing, food and medical needs of humans can be met by robots. Programs to meet all of these needs should evolve simultaneously.” Programs to get robots to plant and water seeds and ones to get them to perform brain surgery to remove an aneurysm will evolve simultaneously? Will they be able to meet the food needs of people who live in Alaska as easily as those who live in Kansas? What about people who live in the desert or nowhere near a viable water supply?

“Approximately 20 percent of 2.5 acres available per person should be utilized to meet all basic human needs. Some law of this sort should be implemented worldwide.” Where would the 2.5 acres per person be available from? Do we take it from people who own the land now? What happens if I suddenly have triplets after 20 years of marriage? Where will they find the extra 7.5 acres if I am already up against my neighbor’s property? What if I want to move to another part of the country? Do I have to wait until 12.5 acres opens up where I want to move to? And what worldwide government will implement this law? The one that will be in place in 10–15 years when the self-replicating robots are around? We can’t hardly get countries to agree on much of anything. What makes you think they will agree to limit themselves to 2.5 acres per person?

“If the same robots made the rebars and utilized locally acquired aggregates and cement to make concrete….” Made the rebars? You mean like opening up a slot in their backside, squatting down and pinching off a few rebars like they were turds? Or do you mean going miles under the earth and digging for iron ore, putting it in a blast furnace, heating it several hundred degrees, pouring out the red-hot molten metal into rods and then cooling them with gallons and gallons of water? This “locally acquired aggregates and cement” that you speak of, is that just laying by the side of the road so the robots can just scoop it up, or do you need to go to “Aggregates ’R’ Us” to find it? I need to put an extension on my driveway, so I sure could use some of the stuff that you seem to think is just lying around for the taking.

You talked about people being able to purchase 100 self-replicating robots. Where would someone keep 100+ robots? You couldn’t just leave them out in the rain or they would rust or short-circuit. I would think you would need a building larger than the cozy concrete and rebar house they built on your “half an acre per person of rural land.” How would you power 100+ robots? Would they just “make it” in the same place they “make” the rebar? Oh, wait, the “10 kilowatts of carbon-free power” ought to do the trick. Especially from “solar panels with 20 percent efficiency” that are located in Alaska during the winter, when they only have a few hours of daylight each day.

Mr. Priest, did you think any of this stuff through before writing it down? Normally, I don’t waste my time responding to such drivel, but the overwhelming amount of misinformation in just a few paragraphs made me feel it must be addressed. I have no patience for people who try to pass themselves off as progressive, forward-thinking individuals who struggle to understand the deeper issues of life by simply making outlandish statements bolstered by pseudo-scientific gobbledygook or mathematical equations intended to impress or intimidate others in an effort to keep anything they have said from being challenged. Consider me the one who tries to tell you that you can’t sing before you make a fool of yourself at an audition for “American Idol.”

Philip Weinrich

Bogart

Editor’s note: Keith Priest’s letter was edited for length in the June 6 issue of Flagpole. It’s possible that some of Mr. Weinrich’s complaints were addressed in the sections that were edited out, but the letters editor confesses to an ignorance of robotic technology and policy that prevents him from knowing for sure. [Ben Emanuel]