I was playing a game called Prison Architect, a game that, in a world without trademarks, would be called SimPrison.
…I had built a small cell just outside of the execution chamber. The man on death row was going to spend the last day of his life there. So would other men when their time came. I put a toilet in there, too. I checked the plumbing. The toilet flushed.
All that I had done up to that big decision moment about the window had been required by the game. I was simply playing Prison Architect‘s tutorial, which was merely–right?–teaching me how to build parts of a prison. As with any other video game tutorial, I’d see a prompt, note a task, do the chore, check the box.
Building a window was an optional part of the tutorial. It would cost $200 in fake video game money. I could easily afford it. I had thousands.
I paused.
I thought about it.
It’s not a real prison. This isn’t a real guy. It doesn’t matter what I do. It’s just a window.
But who am I?
Am I the kind of person who thinks prisoners shouldn’t have windows in their cells? Wait. Is that a kind of person?
Full story from Stephen Totilo. h/t @blakehounshell
4 Responses
Hi there, the whole thing is going perfectly here and ofcourse every
one is sharing information, that’s in fact fine, keep up writing.
We are already experiencing similar ethical and legal issues arising from the invention of robots and toys: http://jacobageller.com/2012/10/it-may-become-illegal-to-torture-a-robot-sooner-than-you-think/
Basically, is it wrong to torture a robot that looks like a person? (Or, is it wrong to deprive a person in prison of human rights, in a video game?)
RT @cblatts: Existential questions generated by video games http://t.co/jZuk6nbgSH
RT @cblatts: Existential questions generated by video games http://t.co/jZuk6nbgSH