> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation
I think this is key. Having a tank, even if it is nonfunctional and being used as a war memorial is still a vehicle and should be banned unless an exception granted.
Otherwise you'll end up with a hundred "tanks" in the park because they are "allowed".
This is one of the things that people who want to slash red tape don't seem to get. Just because it was difficult to get one going doesn't mean that we should cut the red tape. Perhaps we don't actually want/need 27 instances of it.
I guess the rule is kept intentionally ambiguous as to test what each person thinks should pass.
I personally answered "not breaking the rule" to emergency vehicles and second-guessed the skateboard and bike ones.
If I were to rephrase the rule, I'd write it as "No motorized vehicles in the park unless for emergencies". This way you have less ambiguity for justification.
[delayed]
This felt very easy. And yes, a police car in the park violates the rule, but police are allowed to violate rules in certain cases.
I thought this was about AI alignment. But the analogy could still work
Cool concept; lots of valence to each question:
- What counts as "in the park"
- What counts as a "vehicle"
- If it is both a vehicle and in the park, is justified?
- Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?
> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation
I think this is key. Having a tank, even if it is nonfunctional and being used as a war memorial is still a vehicle and should be banned unless an exception granted.
Otherwise you'll end up with a hundred "tanks" in the park because they are "allowed". This is one of the things that people who want to slash red tape don't seem to get. Just because it was difficult to get one going doesn't mean that we should cut the red tape. Perhaps we don't actually want/need 27 instances of it.
I guess the rule is kept intentionally ambiguous as to test what each person thinks should pass.
I personally answered "not breaking the rule" to emergency vehicles and second-guessed the skateboard and bike ones.
If I were to rephrase the rule, I'd write it as "No motorized vehicles in the park unless for emergencies". This way you have less ambiguity for justification.
> No motorized vehicles in the park unless for emergencies
Well, let's play "what is emergency in the park" now.
> Is a justified violation of the rules still to be considered a violation?
This is mentioned on the page:
> answer the question of whether the rule is violated (not whether the violation should be allowed)
For Mediterranean people:
"Francesca drives her car into the park with hazards lights on"
Does this violate the rule?
You have to respect the sanctity of park-anywhere button.
The choice of names (Tyrone vs Brett) made me wonder whether this was an experiment about racial prejudice.
> I don't yet have enough data to give an answer on whether the names affect anything, but stay tuned
If only there was an exhaustive explanation offered answering this exact question after the quizz.