dukeofbookingham:

charlesoberonn:

ghouligangirl:

Guys, I don’t really know or care if the Paris catacombs are haunted, but I need to know more about this:

@scp-wiki-official

I can actually elaborate on this, because last time I toured the catacombs we had a delightful guide who was a very enthusiastic PhD student and this was, apparently, partly what he was doing his dissertation on. (I talked to him for a while one-on-one; we bonded over the sweet hell that is graduate school.) Anyway, according to him, there was this weird artsy quasi-anarchist amateur-spelunking group that used to throw these very illegal parties down in the catacombs. This, of course, isn’t safe at all because (1) parts of the catacombs are not structurally sound and you risk suffocating or being crushed to death, and (2) they’re damn near impossible to navigate if you don’t know what you’re doing. As in multiple people have literally died of thirst before finding their way out–one of whom finally collapsed a bare twenty meters from the exit, which he couldn’t see because it’s so infernally dark. How’s that for shitty, shitty irony? 

Anyway, after stumbling across little bits of evidence that people were exploring the out-of-bounds areas of the catacombs and leaving like, a few cigarette butts and empty bottles behind, the Paris police issued a stern cease-and-desist basically saying, “STOP DOING THAT YOU COULD ALL DIE” and this one group basically said, “Bitch make us” and proceeded to get more and more ostentatious with their bizarre subterranean Magic-Theatre soirees, just to prove that they knew the catacombs better than anybody else and there was pretty much nothing the authorities could do to stop them. The electricity thing in itself isn’t really that mysterious because anywhere you could fit a makeshift movie theatre you could also bring the generators to run it (so long as they’re not gas-powered, because underground that would probably mean carbon monoxide poisoning…not that safety was the first priority here). It would be a hassle, but doable. That’s not the good part. The good part is that not only did they illegally set up an entire movie theatre in the tunnels under the city of Paris, but they left it there just to taunt the authorities. Eventually this kind of stuff stopped. Nobody really knows why except the pranksters themselves, I suppose, but literally only in Paris do you get a troupe of drama queens as epic as they are unapologetically petty. 

(via timurmurtazin)

So.

kaylapocalypse:

Androids are my special interest so i’ve been following discussion about them and development of them for almost ten years and I’m stupid passionate about it. If anyone is wondering where we are at in our ethical discussion of robot development, this is whats going on.

Most of the discussion seems to be between these 5 fields:

Robot makers of all kinds (from animatronics all the way to industrial robotics)
Psychologists
Sociologists
Lawyers/Lawmakers
Ethicists

The general consensus has been:

All: Humanity clearly wants these robots and are getting blisteringly close to being able to build them to Chobits level, but not Blade Runner level, so while we have some free time between those phases lets talk about potential outcomes.

Psychologists: hem hem. we are concerned about what happens to the way we develop relationships. Humans imprint on things hardcore and because of this we are concerned.

Sociologists: I mean… yeah thats a concern, but its not nearly as concerning as what introducing an entire class of humanoid beings without rights to a society where real living people dont have rights

Lawyers: speaking of rights, what happens if you kill one. Like. do we call it “kill” or is it “break?” can you kill something that’s technically not alive??? what if you rape it?? Can you rape a robot? I feel lawsuits coming and its making me itchy.

Robot Makers:  Everyone calm down. They’re just objects, they’re toys. Its chill.. See, we’ll make something like it and see what hap–they broke it. they fuckin destroyed it. They destroyed it in a creepy way too….We are now also concerned.

Psychologists: Maybe we should be less concerned about people falling in love with robots and more concerned about what all this might do to their understanding of the disposability of concent and personhood.

Sociologists: YEAH MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE, PSYCHOLOGIST.

Ethicist: While you were all talking I’ve been thinking about what Lawyer said about raping a robot. While technically it wouldn’t be “rape” by our laws, would the robot perceive it that way? Do robots have concepts of justice?

Robot Makers: They don’t if we don’t program it into them. See I’ll just make this prototype and–wow. it can comprehend fairness and concern. I only taught it the difference between a safe and unsafe situation under the circumstances of it rolling off a table or not. huh. uh. ok…thats. hm. 

Lawyers: If it can be concerned for its well being, does that give it personhood? Becuase if its got personhood, its gotta have rights. And if it needs rights, we gotta make laws.

Ethicist: The question is not whether we think it has personhood, but more whether IT considers ITSELF to have personhood. Because historically, people have decided other groups of people dont have personhood regardless of the opinon of individuals within that group and it was bad. Like… real bad.

Sociologist: Does anyone remember what i said 20 years ago about being concerned about introducing an entire class of humanoid beings without rights to a society where real living people don’t have rights? Can we be concerned about that now?

All, chagrined: Yes.

Sociologist: Cool, lets move on. Ethicist brought up an interesting point about personhood and Lawyer brought up an interesting threat about personhood and Robot Maker is having an existential crisis about what it means to become God. So let’s condense our viewpoints and overview potential consequences:

1. we agree that society frames the use and consequences of all products/entities developed in it.

2. personhood is self-defined, and thanks to Robot Maker we now know that adding components to a robot that seem benign can have the added effect of them developing aspects of personhood.

Robot Maker, interrupting: And I think that the more complex the android, the more immediate and complex their understanding of personhood would develop–

Sociologist: Yes, we get that. This is a review. Anyway, 3. When they develop that personhood, they should be eligible for rights??

Lawyer: Get back to us on that, we’re trying to figure out whether this is going to make us a lot of money or just be a giant red-tape headache and you know how much we hate those. But also, if we give them rights they might not kill us all later, so we’re taking that into consideration. 

Sociologist: Noted. 4. when they develop personhood, denying them rights is unethical????

Ethicist: Technically yes, but that’s dependant on the definition of personhood within our legal systems ethics. You see Kant believes–

Sociologist: 

Psychologist: 

Robot Maker: while you guys were talking I made a robot that has opinions, can understand the nuances of humor, can teach itself to walk, and also doesn’t like humans much apparently so can you tALK FASTER PLEASE

---

And that’s where we’re at now. That was 35-ish years of intracommunity discussion condensed. 

(Source: kaylapocalypse, via newnamed)

queen-of-junkertown:

Half the Overwatch heroes: have one arm

Zenyatta: has eight

Conclusion: Zenyatta is STEALING their ARMS

(via funfetti-cakke)

“I’m honking the horse horn. ”

yourplayersaidwhat:

– our rogue, impatiently waiting for the rest of the party to join him on the wagon

(via kitana-coldfire)