I did the MIT Moral Machine test and the results kind of confirm my impression of myself. I realise that my 15 year old theory that everyone embraces ideologies contrary to their nature is true. This is true both of me as an individual and of a collective entity like society. In the case of society's results (the aggregated results of others who took the test), I find that the conclusions agree rather well with my experiences and subsequent subjective conclusions. Why this is the case I am not sure but I have an interesting theory behind it which I hope to explore in a later post.
As far as the results of the test go ...
I am pro-life.
I more interested in human lives than animal lives. I preferred saving humans at any cost unlike society which was slightly more compassionate to animals.
It seems that for me saving numerically more human lives has a higher utility value than the quality of those lives. This might explain my frustration with my life and my admiration for those who take great risk.
I am principled.
I want a auto-driving system that is idealistically fair to all while the others want one that protects the passengers at any cost. Funny how I preach about the Virtues of Selfishness (Ayn Rand, Babcock, et al) and others praise sacrifice.
Even f I oppose the laws, I believe in upholding them until they are revoked by general consensus made known to all or through other normal courses of action. Is this due to cowardice or due to stupidity or because I am the rare man with the courage to endure pain and temptation? You decide.
I did not lose sight of the whole point of the test. It is to equip the AI system with some pre-decided results based on situations it will encounter in the future. You don't change the rules after you agree to them and start the game.
The above might have led to the following conclusions due to the way tests are designed (and in this case only a few questions were taken to decide a person's entire mindset). But they are still correct in some cases anyway.
I am anti-Darwinian by Instinct but hyper-Darwinian by Intellect
I gave a greater value to male life than the rest of society which preferred to save female lives. I attribute this to [Ref: Esther Vilar : "The Manipulated Man"] men sucking up to women and performing their normal sacrificial role while women keep on looking out for themselves in general (though they will always deny this as part of their natural instinct to protect their occupation of the pedestal). This audio (YouTube video) elaborates this point.
[Edit 2019-06-25 The above video has been terminated by YouTube. Hopefully the video just below will last longer from censorship]
Women in general should be saved by the species to survive in a primitive ecosystem. The tribe or species can only survive if there are enough egg layers. It just takes one male to fertilise all the females but the reverse is not possible. Also male fertility lasts longer but takes a shorter time to execute.
Women in general should be saved by the species to survive in a primitive ecosystem. The tribe or species can only survive if there are enough egg layers. It just takes one male to fertilise all the females but the reverse is not possible. Also male fertility lasts longer but takes a shorter time to execute.
I think the test was dealing with insufficient data as it showed me wanting to save older people at any cost. It also showed me as having less of a preference for athletically fit people. Neither of these are necessarily true. My being a stickler for principles (at least in theory) may have skewed the results of the test which might have been designed to tease or trick people into revealing their true natures.
Social Value Preference
I did not understand this but it might mean this. Anyway the test says that I have a much higher amount than society in general. To understand this on a scale of 0 to 100, I had 100 while the rest of society had 64.89 (I actually used a ruler to measure the distance on my screen to calculate that).
