A robot will kill the wrong one

21

October

2016

No ratings yet.

Imagine, you drive a car. The trip is going well and it looks like you’re coming home safely. Until suddenly a child is running on the road. Stopping is not possible. Immediately you throw the steering wheel, drive off the dike and ends up in the water. Electric windows block your right and you forget where the hammer was located to break out. A casual person nearby can just save you on time.
It is a scenario that can happen to anyone. You choose in a fraction of a second for the life of the child and throws the steering wheel, risking your own life. That’s a human reaction. Because when you drive you can be sure that someone is going to die; the child. There are few people who choose for this option.

Still going to change this. When we see self-driving cars on the road in ten years, there will be other choices in traffic. Because they are made by someone else, namely a robot. And those choices may substantially differ from those of men.
Mercedes-Benz presented last week at the Paris AutoShow the self-driving car, a robot so, to always opt for the safety of the occupants. That would mean in this example, the car will make an accidented with the child, because stopping – what a self-driving car basically always does when it encounters ‘an obstacle’ – is not a option.

Mercedes-Benz received criticism at the second, while the carmaker (commercially) has no choice. The company chooses the life of the customer. Simply because no one buys a car that puts the safety of other road users, as revealed earlier this year even though from an article in the scientific journal Science. For those who drive dangerously aware you do not have to risk your life. Which again shows how difficult it is causing a computer to make ethical choices.

Ethical choices can never be left to a robot.  People can make these kinds of choices. For example, a robot of two roads will always choose the path where he kills the fewest people, while a man seeing preparing two men with a bomb belt for themselves, is another choice when a playing child jumps to the car.

The question here is how we humans let keep control, while the control of the steering wheel control will be the responsibility of the machine. Merecedes-Benz is the first car company that dares to put their finger on the sore spot. It is time that the others also mix herein. Otherwise it remains a future car with just a trendy thing, and we’ll be there until ten years after making the essential choices which we can not live by. And then it’s too late.

 

Source:
www.wsj.com/articles/can-we-create-an-ethical–robot-1437758519, retrieved on October 21th 2016
http://www.nature.com/news/machine-ethics-the-robot-s-dilemma-1.17881, retrieved on October 21th 2016

Please rate this

Is Geo-blocking still from this time?

19

October

2016

No ratings yet.

You have probably already read it: the next year within the EU roaming costs, the additional costs that we pay when we use our mobile phones abroad, will disappear. Good news for people like me who travel a lot in Europe (yes it is possible being a student an travelling a lot), but also for less regular travelers with teenage children. Also good news for Brussels, which can polish tarnished image again.

The next logical step seems, after the phone and the Internet, also to make the television accessible at no extra cost. The so-called Geo-blocking has prevented us watching our favorite television programs abroad, a major source of annoyance as we just sat in the middle of an exciting series, or want to see an important football match. No wonder people in Brussels are thinking to ban geoblocking.

However attractive it may seem, it seems to good to be true. Unlike telecommunications companies, where the abolition of roaming charges is indeed annoying but pose no real threat, stopping geoblocking in the EU could lead to major deforestation among European broadcasters. The big winners are the internet giants such as Netflix, Amazon and YouTube.

Where is the problem? A national television channel buys the expensive rights to TV series and movies, for example Hollywood studios. If a station in a neighboring country also buys those rights of a popular series, such as Game of Thrones, rather transmits on the Internet, chances are that you and I already go see it without geoblocking the latest episodes. This means that our national broadcaster will have fewer viewers and thus less income. The foreign radio deserves nothing extra with the viewers from neighboring countries, because most TV advertisers pay only for viewers in their own country. The same problem occurs when one country buys expensive sports rights and the same race will be broadcast by the public broadcasters in the other country. The pay-TV channel goes wrong, and the citizens of the other country pay through their license fee contribution.

These dilemmas do not apply to the major Internet players, because they can buy at the same time rights across Europe, and their presence in almost all European countries have asked for subscription everywhere. Moreover, different than TV channels, they are able to deliver customized individual ads on the viewer, regardless of where it resides.

Raising geoblocking seems in the short term so attractive to the viewer, but on the long term it will lead to an impoverishment of the TV schedule. Indeed, the national channels will always have less money to create their own programs.

Does this mean that should stick to the old model? Initially, it should be possible, for example for the citizens of one country, for example through a login, their national television to view anywhere in Europe. These stations would increase their own audience and eliminate frustration without undesirable arbitrage effects.
Eventually this will not be enough to compete with the Internet giants. These Internet giants begin to produce their own global programs at this moment. Ultimately, the European television stations will have to cooperate much more, or go together, and should create a joint venture. In this way, the market, and not Brussels, can end Geo-blocking.

Sources

Robinson, D. (2016) EU sets out plan to shake up Europe’s digital market, Financial Times. Available at: https://www.ft.com/ [Accessed: 19 October 2016].
Dalley, E. (2016) Who wants to buy online for less? Choice. Available at: https://www.choice.com.au/ [Accessed: 19 October 2016].

 

Please rate this

Sharing economy: doing business with anti-trade

11

October

2016

No ratings yet.

Sharing Economy: doing business with anti-trade

The ‘sharing economy’, the mutual exchange of goods and services will have an increasing impact on business. Sharing works primarily in products that often go unused, such as cars, rooms and pressure washers. But sharing is also based on knowledge, time and energy.

Sharing brings a new mindset with them: by sharing you buy less, but can still lead a richer life. You have more attention to the things one uses. You get better contact with the people you share and they will find you more amusing. And you still enjoy plenty of luxury thanks to the beautiful things you borrow from others.
Just to be clear, I’m talking about really share without payment. So couchsurfing and not Airbnb. And Peerby but not Marktplaats or Ebay.

According to our current commercial model every person buys everything he or she needs. All for their own use, and protected from others. But what do we want? Does it make sense that we have to buy everything ourselves? According to the Central Bureau of Statistics lives one in ten households in the Netherlands under the low-income. These people at the bottom of society feel that they are excluded. They are trying to explore alternative business models, such as different types of parts. There is a possibility that the rest of the population can learn from them.

The terrifying technology behind the share is the Internet, and increasingly the internet of things. The Internet makes it easier to find people who have a popular product and are willing to share it. If that product is connected to the internet, the use by multiple people can easily be managed. The internet offers many websites to encourage the sharing: places to sleep, trimmers, clothes, electricity, bicycles, cars, music, ideas, pets, and so on.

The sharing economy is connected to the “maker movement ‘: networks of innovative free spirits who have access to advanced production equipment such as 3D printers, which goes through FabLabs and other shared spaces. Striking in the maker movement is how strongly people here prefer share over trade.

A Dutchman who enjoys worldwide respect in the maker movement is Dave Hakkens. His best ideas and designs he shares are for free. Such as “precious plastics”, devices that make new products of stray plastic. And “phone blocks”, or modular and recyclable smartphones. He believes by sharing there is a greater chance that his ideas have an impact on the world. Dave earns by giving talks and advice and focus on the things what he really need. Furthermore, he also believes that the ultimate goal of government policy should be to increase the welfare of the population and therefore that the rise of the sharing economy, and not to stare blind to the GDP of a country.

The British New Economic Forum has gathered knowledge about the welfare of the population. Which describes the steps to more happiness. And indeed, “have more assets” is not among them. In the analysis of the NEF Dutch people do well relative to the German people, where it is more about social contacts and mindful living.

The “anti-trade” by sharing in his view very interesting new business opportunities. One condition is that companies also master the sharing mindset. For example by creating products that are easy to share. Or that can be purchased together. Or by inventing services – for example, on the Internet of Things – that help people share their belongings in a safe and fair manner.
This could all lead to more accurate demand for quality products that last. And that would be good news for the environmental objectives. Especially when the mainstream population always wants to share.

 

References

Langley, D, 2016. Sharing economy: zaken doen met anti-handel. Het Financieele Dagblad , 8 October 2016. 4.

The Economist . 2016. The rise of the sharing economy. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21573104-internet-everything-hire-rise-sharing-economy. [Accessed 10 October 2016].

Please rate this