[jlgreco]

> Though I've figured out that just because someone left their safe open, doesn't mean you get to steal the gold.

True. Though on the other hand, if somebody figures out they they get free sodas when they hold down both the coke and sprite buttons, as far as I am concerned they get to have their free soda.

[kivikakk]

There is surely some cognitive dissonance here.

> > Though I've figured out that just because someone left their safe open, doesn't mean you get to steal the gold.

> True. Though on the other hand, if somebody figures out they they get free sodas when they hold down both the coke and sprite buttons, as far as I am concerned they get to have their free soda.

So, if the safe is left open, you don't get to take it, but if you press buttons that unintentionally make it open up, you get you have your free gold? uh.

[jlgreco]

If the teller gives you free money, that is on the teller, not you. Whether that teller is human or an automated machine doesn't particularly matter to me.

Just don't take money that the teller, automated or otherwise, does not volunteer. Regular safes and vaults, with no teller, have no agency and are not capable of giving you money.

[jacalata]

Does 'inserting a coat hanger into a vending machine' count as 'pressing the coke and sprite buttons together' or 'they left their safe open'?

[GhotiFish]

Exactly, it's not a solid line. The smarter the system gets, the more the blame goes from the user to the system.

I wonder what's going to happen to philosophy if/when we hit the event horizon.

[analog]

"If the teller gives you free money, that is on the teller, not you." That's not true in law, if a bank mistakenly credits your account they can retrieve the money.