https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/95626/the-turing-asimov-dilemma Stack Exchange Network Stack Exchange network consists of 181 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. Visit Stack Exchange [ ] Loading... 1. + Tour Start here for a quick overview of the site + Help Center Detailed answers to any questions you might have + Meta Discuss the workings and policies of this site + About Us Learn more about Stack Overflow the company + Business Learn more about our products 2. 3. current community + Philosophy help chat + Philosophy Meta your communities Sign up or log in to customize your list. more stack exchange communities company blog 4. 5. Log in 6. Sign up Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community [ano] Anybody can ask a question [ano] Anybody can answer [an] The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Philosophy 1. Home 2. 1. Public 2. Questions 3. Tags 4. Users 5. Unanswered 3. 1. Teams Stack Overflow for Teams - Start collaborating and sharing organizational knowledge. [teams-illo-free-si] Create a free Team Why Teams? 2. Teams 3. Create free Team Teams Q&A for work Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. Learn more about Teams The Turing-Asimov Dilemma Ask Question Asked 3 days ago Modified today Viewed 4k times 7 The Turing Test is a simple test devised by Alan Turing to check for AI. If a machine is able to fool a human into believing it's a human then that machine is AI. The 3 Laws of Robotics were laid down by sci-fi author Isaac Asimov. As per The 3 Laws of Robotics an AI (robot) must be able to distinguish human from robot(AI) otherwise it wouldn't be able to follow these laws. But AI perfectly mimics humans. The dilemma 1. Either AI can identify humans from AI or AI can't identify humans from AI. 2. If AI can identify humans from AI then AI is more intelligent than humans (AI cognitive capacity exceeds that of humans) 3. If AI can't identify humans from AI then AI can't follow the 3 laws of robotics Ergo, 4. Either AI is more intelligent than humans or AI can't follow the 3 laws of robotics. [1, 2, 3 constructive dilemma] Either way we have a problem on our hands (AI is superior or safety issues with AI). What sayest thou? * philosophy-of-mind * artificial-intelligence Share Improve this question Follow asked Dec 31, 2022 at 17:38 Agent Smith's user avatar Agent SmithAgent Smith 47522 silver badges1313 bronze badges 11 * Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. - Joseph Weissman yesterday * 2 Realistically the robots are built with stickers on their foreheads saying "I'm a robot". Any human who deliberately wears such a sticker is stupid enough that nobody will care if the robots violate Asimov's laws against them. Several Asimov stories were about the consequences of robots harming humans without realizing they were harming humans - I seem to recall one about a robot serving poisoned tea and then breaking down. - user253751 yesterday * 1 Your description of the Turing test is a paraphrase, and the notion that intelligence is a monolithic category on a spectrum suspect. It is also a false dilemma to presume that AI either can or cannot identify, since it is likely AI using statistical methods would assign a probability with a confidence interval (That's what I do, and I'm human). Your ultimate question is also a false dilemma. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma - J D yesterday * @JD, the Turing test then is inadequate. Do you propose a new, better test? - Agent Smith 21 hours ago * 1 I remember a story (Asimov or someone else?), where a robot is quizzed after hurting a human, and says 'Oh no! I thought it said "A robot may not immure a human being!"' - Michael Harvey 11 hours ago | Show 6 more comments 9 Answers 9 Sorted by: Reset to default [Highest score (default) ] 10 The intersection of AI research and deontic logic is nonempty. One preliminary example of the framework for such an intersection is Wieringa and Meyer's "Applications of Deontic Logic in Computer Science: A Concise Overview". Part of the abstract for this paper reads: Many applications move in the direction of programming a computer in deontic logic to make the computer prohibit, permit or obligate people to do something. We discuss conditions under which this possibility is realistic and conditions under which it would be admissible to do so. The essay "Toward ethical robots via mechanized deontic logic" more directly pertains to the OP question. "Automated Reasoning in Deontic Logic" has an "AI research" tag on arxiv.org. "Exploratory moral code : formalizing normative decisions using non-modal deontic logic and tiered utility" reflects on how the process of devising a deontic logic for AI can help clarify, or even testify on behalf of, various moral theories. Regarding the argument of the OP specifically, my counterargument would be that if the AI had been programmed to not harm us, it could be programmed to not harm other AI, too, and in fact would hopefully admit of being programmable to avoid harming any morally salient entities. This, then, even if the AI were unable, in some case, to tell a human apart from a cleverly disguised robotic mule, say. Share Improve this answer Follow answered Dec 31, 2022 at 19:04 Kristian Berry's user avatar Kristian BerryKristian Berry 4,94166 silver badges2525 bronze badges 12 * 1 I think if you programmed an AI to not harm anything, it would probably just go to sleep. - Scott Rowe Dec 31, 2022 at 21:30 * 2 I'm not sure how I would program "do no harm" into any current AI. One problem we are seeing is that the latest breed of deep models requires such gargantuan amounts of data to train that the cost to curate the training data and remove unpalatable bits of knowledge is prohibitive. The deep model is fed with the internet, and what comes out is a pretty accurate picture of humanity, with all its foibles, racism, biases, etc etc. Even if we could curate the training data set, the curation would only reflect the moral values of some, presumably. - Frank 2 days ago * 2 @KristianBerry There may be hope in robotics to program the robots to avoid some harmful physical moves. But even there it's not easy. Maybe the state of the art would be self-driving systems trying to e.g. avoid pedestrians. I don't know what such a system would do today if in a situation to either save the pedestrian or the passengers of the car. Surely the ensuing lawsuit would not stop at incriminating the self-driving system. - Frank 2 days ago * 3 This is a fascinating discussion about AI and ethics generally, but I don't see how it answers the specific question that was asked. The specific question is about the interaction between Asimov's Three Laws and the Turing test -- not about AI ethics in general. Asimov's Three Laws don't allow a robot to equally avoid harming both humans and robots; as many of Asimov's short stories illustrate, there are situations where a robot will be forced to choose between harming a robot or a human, and Asimov's law requires it to avoid harming the human -- which requires distinguishing humans from AI. - D.W. yesterday * 2 @Frank the answer is the system will drive so dang cautiously that it never gets into a situation where it has that choice. The other, alternative answer is that it will choose arbitrarily, having never been programmed to choose at all, and revert to manual control 50 milliseconds before impact so the manufacturer can say the car wasn't in self-driving mode at the time of impact. - user253751 14 hours ago | Show 7 more comments 13 The problem with this argument is that the three laws are a plot device and not laws at all. Not only has no robot been programmed with them, no robot could be. You can lay down a general rule that you get an average by dividing by the number of instances and then get a hard error because you neglected to special case zero instances, because numbers have been defined for it, but you can not tell a robot to not harm humans and then be surprised by what it considers harmful or not. You have to define harm for it, and the only way is enumeration in our current languages, or even purely theoretical languages. Share Improve this answer Follow edited Dec 31, 2022 at 20:20 answered Dec 31, 2022 at 17:57 Mary's user avatar MaryMary 1,52411 gold badge66 silver badges2424 bronze badges 12 * 3 Not in any programming language currently extent or even hypothesized. - Mary Dec 31, 2022 at 20:20 * 4 Oh yeah, and let's not forget the need to define "human" to begin with. Have fun arbitrating the edge cases for that mess. - Mr Redstoner 2 days ago * 3 @MrRedstoner Further evidence of its plot device nature. Asimov had a few with "what's human" but usually it was "what's harm." You might find the webcomic Freefall interesting. - Mary 2 days ago * 4 @AgentSmith just to complement Mary's correct answer, if you read Asimov you'll see that the laws don't work even in the books themselves! In real life, they are completely useless. This is a very good explanation why: youtube.com/watch?v=7PKx3kS7f4A& ab_channel=Computerphile - Gerardo Furtado yesterday * 1 @Acccumulation In programming it is. "To treat this as a special case" is too long for the number of times to have to say it. - Mary yesterday | Show 7 more comments 9 There is no dilemma. Turing Test requires the subject to sit in another room. The subject is not available for observation, only his/her/it's answers are. That limitation do not exist for Asimov's robots. They can examine the humans directly to know they are humans, and robots to know they are robots. A quick look at face suffices. Asimov's robots are not cyborgs or in anyway mimic humanity in body appearance. They are made of different material. Now if you are thinking about robots made of flesh then you are going against definition of robots in all fiction. If Asimov's robots are forced to analyze a subject on basis of subject's answers only, and they must use Turing Test, and the subject appears to be human in test results then I think the Asimov's robots will be confused. Their circuits will keep on deciding between two equally valid conclusions, getting in a feedback loop and after that just freeze if there is a fuse to burn to stop damage to circuit, or have their circuits burn. Given equally valid outcomes and forced to choose one there is either a freeze or a burn. Its because in absence of emotions there is nothing superior to logic sitting there solving conflicts. Share Improve this answer Follow answered 2 days ago Atif's user avatar AtifAtif 61177 bronze badges 12 * 2 Didn't one of the later Foundation books, which linked the Robot and Foundation universes, have a main character who was thought to be human, and only revealed to be an android near the end? - Barmar yesterday * 3 Any sane programmer would program it to default to "human in all cases of doubt" because it's a lot harder to fix the other way around. - Mary yesterday * 1 Some of his later robots could pass for human. However, that doesn't mean that said robots couldn't have sensory capabilities that could distinguish robot from human even if humans could not do so. - Loren Pechtel 21 hours ago * 1 @LorenPechtel And indeed, the other robots tended to fail safe in such cases, by assuming that R. Daneel (the humaniform robot) was human unless explicitly informed otherwise (informed by R. Daneel, if recollection serves, since it'd be a huge loophole if a human could bypass the first law by telling a robot, "That guy over there is really a robot. Go stab him.") - Ray 21 hours ago * 1 @Barmar Actually, it was already in Caves of Steel - and funnily enough, it was a very tentative disguise that relied mostly on people not considering a human-looking thing to actually be a robot (but mind, his human appearance was perfect). Heck, his name is literally "Robot Daneel Olivaw" :D If a human asked him if he's a robot, he would just say "yes" (until later, but... spoilers :D). - Luaan 12 hours ago | Show 7 more comments 9 Your reasoning is faulty. There is no dilemma. First and foremost, because your understanding of Asimov's laws is flawed. These are the imperatives which govern robot behavior in Asimov's fiction. They are not laws of nature. (Technically, they are incredibly simplified versions of how robots' positronic brains are programmed, but lets assume they are accurate in their simplified form). As is explored in many of his stories starting with Caves of Steel, most robots in fact can not distinguish between humans and convincing replicas. This does not cause any particular conflicts for commanded robots: their perception is that R. Daniel Olivaw is a human, so they treat him as a human (sometimes). There is no paradox here, the robots are simply mistaken. This also does not cause any particular safety issues. You have some weird edge cases where a robot might sacrifice itself to save another robot, but that is (mostly) an efficiency issue. You can set up a contrived trolley problem where some convincing AIs are on one track and a robot is manning the switch, but all such problems are described as inevitably driving the participating robots catatonically insane, and the AIs would refuse to participate. So, unsafe only in the sense that you can expend enormous resources to do violence in overly elaborate ways that you might otherwise do cheaply and simply. Secondly, your arguments are fallacious. "Either they can or they cannot" is a false dichotomy (This is hardly a clean all situations/ no situations binary choice). Even assuming that robots are oracularly gifted at spotting humans, you then generalize from that one task to "AIs are superior". It is wildly unclear how you make that leap, what "superior" means in this context, or why this supposed superiority would be bad. (AIs can already do complex calculations better and faster than I can. So could an abacus. Is an abacus "superior" to me? Is this a problem?) Finally, "AI can't follow the laws of robotics" is a non-starter. AI would have to be perfectly omniscient to follow the second half of the first law, and "harm" is poorly defined. If you want an exploration of how Asimov's robots interact with the world, read Asimov's fiction. He wrote about it more extensively than you would think possible. Start with I, Robot. Share Improve this answer Follow answered yesterday fectin's user avatar fectinfectin 21944 bronze badges 5 * Interesting points. Danke for the answer. - Agent Smith yesterday * Even perfect omniscience would cause first-law problems, the same as the Hippocratic Oath is non-viable. What do you do about actions which cause both help and harm? In the real world an awful lot of actions fall into this category and thus are prohibited to Asimov robots--but failing to take the action is also a first law violation. Thus any situation in which the robot must harm to help causes a lockup. - Loren Pechtel 21 hours ago * Perfect omniscience would make the problems worse, since there's always some harm being done. The short story "Liar!" examines a similar issue. - Ray 21 hours ago * @LorenPechtel It's brilliant you bring up the Hippocratic Oath, because it's very similar. Most people never read the oath, but they still they know what it says, because it's such a popular meme that "everyone knows". Now go and read it. You see how the popular simplification leads you to completely wrong ideas and assertions? It never even says "Do no harm"! :D It's much the same with the Three Laws. Everyone heard about them, but far fewer have actually read Asimov's fiction to understand what they actually say and mean. - Luaan 12 hours ago * 1 @LorenPechtel And yes, there's many such situations that befall Asimov's robots. A good chunk of the robot stories are about that. The most common result is that the robot chooses the action it perceives to cause the least harm (the robots certainly aren't omniscient nor omnipotent) and bricks. - Luaan 12 hours ago Add a comment | 3 I would say that a core issue here is that "intelligence" is not well defined. Is a system that does a single specific task as well as, or better than, a human "intelligent"? Or does the system need to exhibit human-like performance on multiple tasks at the same time be qualified "intelligent"? Does the system need to show something like creativity to be qualified "intelligent"? Conversely, if a human is very good at one task but very poor at another one, are they "intelligent"? Not "intelligent" when it comes to the task they can't do well? To me, unless we have a good definition of "intelligence", this kind of discussion is very hand-wavy and not very meaningful. As for current "AI" - very far from "intelligent". Take ChatGPT - I was testing it last week by feeding it various queries: it routinely makes gross mistakes when it writes code, invoked the thing I asked it to prove in a step of a mathematical proof, and generally revealed what it does which I'm not sure is "intelligent": regurgitate an average of what it has seen in its training set, with not a shred of "understanding" whether that average is accurate or not. It's just an impressionistic patchwork of more or less related tidbits that sometimes passes for reasonable, but usually falls apart when you probe deeper. Sorry if that's not as thrilling as all the hype you can hear in the media. Share Improve this answer Follow edited Dec 31, 2022 at 20:12 answered Dec 31, 2022 at 19:39 Frank's user avatar FrankFrank 41622 silver badges1212 bronze badges 14 * That is true, intelligence is a rather loose term here, but what do we mean when we say humans are intelligent animals? - Agent Smith Dec 31, 2022 at 20:28 * 1 Our intelligence is a lot like ChatGPT, it's just that it takes us 20 years to build the database with our 'robot' wandering around. - Scott Rowe Dec 31, 2022 at 21:25 * 1 @AgentSmith - yes - when we say "human are intelligent", I find also devoid of meaning. The fact is, "intelligence" is not very well defined at all. But it's a very popular term that causes a lot of ink to flow for sure. I think it would be good philosophy to focus on what "intelligence" could mean in the first place. - Frank Dec 31, 2022 at 21:32 * 2 For sure it's not new. We had expert systems a long time back. Then came statistics. Then statistics got renamed "machine learning" and superseded expert systems. And they got computers powerful enough to resuscitate the old neural nets ideas. And now they have "deep learning" which is just statistics on computer steroids and that generates so much hype. - Frank Dec 31, 2022 at 21:37 * 1 @Frank A common view among neuroscientists is that we have two systems: a fast intuitive one, and a slow reasoning one (the exact nature of their interaction is still up for debate). It's plausible that the former is replicable with techniques similar to those used in GPT-3. The slow system stuff probably requires a qualitatively different approach (possibly in addition to the other stuff)). - Ray 21 hours ago | Show 9 more comments 3 A speculation about the Turing Test is that a machine that can pass itself off as a human in text-only communication is 'intelligent' (or 'conscious' or similar - no consensus has been established). This does not mean it is indistinguishable from a human in all circumstances - it doesn't even have to look like a human. And a being that cannot pass the test could still be intelligent. (Someone who cannot type because their arms are broken could fail the Turing Test - this is not good evidence that they lack sentience.) On the other side, the laws of robotics only make sense if the robots aren't beings with the same feelings as humans - if they were, I think it would be immoral to program them to die rather than harm anyone in any way. Most of Asimov's fictional machines would fail the Turing Test - they couldn't lie if you ordered them to tell the truth, nor could they try to hurt anyone's feelings - but are still 'intelligent' in the sense they they can solve complex problems. So we have two different hypothetical concepts here. Firstly, machines that can pass for human in conversation, and are therefore presumed to be self-aware, and perhaps deserving of human rights. The other is machines that have no desire other than to serve humans and (less importantly) continue to exist. In the end, both are flawed concepts, and it doesn't matter if they're compatible or not. Modern GPT-based AIs can now pass the Turing Test to some extent, but most people still don't think that's a sign they're conscious beings, especially those who know a lot about how they work. The Three Laws are designed to make perfectly safe robots, but even if they had a perfect ability to judge harm and recognise humans, we probably wouldn't put those laws into them. Real-life applications for robots would be, for example, to replace soldiers on the battlefield, or to be someone's servant. Would the military want a soldier programmed with the First Law? Would you buy an expensive servant programmed with the Second Law, and therefore equally willing to obey any human order ("Come with me and forget your former master."), not just your own? Share Improve this answer Follow answered yesterday user3153372's user avatar user3153372user3153372 62111 gold badge44 silver badges22 bronze badges 2 * On point. Interesting corollaries. - Agent Smith yesterday * It definitely seems that U.S. Robots and Mechanical Men has far higher ethical standards than today's average executives and managers in the US :D Though do mind that the laws as spoken are not actually how the robots work. A robot will not follow your order to change ownership; it's not enough to just be human to get complete control of a robot (other than the very simplest and earliest models which were never meant for widespread use). But the point is definitely important considering the OP clearly only considers the popular Three Laws, rather than Asimov's actual stories :D - Luaan 11 hours ago Add a comment | 1 We do not have a problem; there is no dilemma and in fact, there is no Question, unless that Question be 'What sayest thou?' Oops... Asimov was clearly dealing with robots, not androids; certainly not with pretty-much perfect androids that might be mistaken for human beings. That difference invalidates both the Question and any premise that might have been built upon it. Without that distinction, I'd agree with your logic but like it not, robots are not androids. Share Improve this answer Follow answered 2 days ago Robbie Goodwin's user avatar Robbie GoodwinRobbie Goodwin 13466 bronze badges 2 * 1 Asimov actually was dealing with androids for many/most of his books, starting with Caves of Steel and (spoilers!) running through the Foundation series. - fectin yesterday * True, a few wrinkles ... can be ignored (steelman argument). - Agent Smith 16 hours ago Add a comment | 1 The Laws of Robotics essentially provide their own solution to the dilemma. Asimov's robots do not mimic human intelligence perfectly. Humans have free will, they can do whatever they want. Robots are bound by the Laws of Robotics, so they can't always do what they want. Thus, a simple way to make a robot fail the Turing Test is to ask it, "Are you a robot?" and command it to tell the truth. The 2nd Law requires it to obey this command, so unless it can come up with a way that this violates the 1st Law it must confess that it's a robot. Although one out would be that in the Turing Test scenario, the robot cannot tell that the questioner is a human -- both participants are in the dark about the other (the robot may believe that it's giving the Turing Test to the questioner). As others have answered, the Laws of Robotics are not realistic, they're a plot contrivance that Asimov and John W. Campbell came up with for his stories, many of which have plots that revolve around the difficulty of applying the Laws (much as faster-than-light travel /communication is a fiction that facilitates many stories about space travel, interstellar communities, etc.). The Laws of Robotics are to robots as ethics are to people, and both of these are extremely vague and difficult to implement. Philosophers have spent millenia trying to codify human ethics, but they're still murky. Share Improve this answer Follow answered yesterday Barmar's user avatar BarmarBarmar 62744 silver badges66 bronze badges 4 * Interesting observation. A robot is not the sake as AI. What if they were the same, what then? - Agent Smith 20 hours ago * The OP seems to presume that the robot's programming is AI. And I think Asimov's stories present them that way. - Barmar 17 hours ago * That's not how the laws work, though. Robots don't have to follow all orders of arbitrary humans. If you work with how the robots work in the actual stories (and not the popular version of the Three Laws), the solution to your test dilemma is very simple - the robot will be instructed not to reveal that it is a robot. The instructor's orders have a higher priority than the testee. The only thing the Three Laws as written reflect is a certain hierarchy, and even then, not a strict hierarchy. It's just marketing fluff, to keep people from fearing the robots, really. - Luaan 11 hours ago * @Luaan Good point. If the robot is given conflicting orders by different humans, it must resolve this conflict, so there must be a way of assigning priority (it could be that the owner gets priority, or maybe simple "first come, first served"). Like all human-devised laws, the Laws of Robotics are tricky and have loopholes. - Barmar 6 hours ago Add a comment | 0 Your second assumption is wrong. Ability to distinguish humans from AIs is not based on intelligence (although it might depend on definition of intelligence), but on pure processing power. Given enough (correct) robot and human input AI might be able to identify humans and robots regardless of its lack of understanding the idea of a robot and a human. It would not even know why it declares something as human or artificial - it just appears a bit more correct after processing amount of data that is impossible for humans to process consciously. So - machine doesn't have to be more intelligent than human (or intelligent at all) to do better at such tasks. Share Improve this answer Follow answered 10 hours ago w.s.ovalle's user avatar w.s.ovallew.s.ovalle 1 New contributor w.s.ovalle is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. 1 * Right! I guess it boils down how we define intelligence. - Agent Smith 10 hours ago Add a comment | You must log in to answer this question. Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged * philosophy-of-mind * artificial-intelligence . * Featured on Meta * Navigation and UI research starting soon Related 6 Do compatibilists consider robots to have freewill? 2 Is ESP, in particular telepathy, not computable? 5 Why doesn't the Chinese room learn Chinese? 2 Why did Turing promote ESP (extra sensory perception)? 2 In the Turing test how can the computer understand the interrogator? 0 Why did Turing say computers manipulate symbols? 2 An English room inside Searle's Chinese Room? 0 Turing Test and Functionalism Hot Network Questions * How would a holographic "touch-screen" work? * Is RSA longer supported in TLS 1.3 and are RSA and DH fundamentally different? * 1 Cor 15:20 - Is the Resurrected Jesus Singular or Plural? Is He the Firstfruit or the Firstfruits * What are "Russian nationalist military bloggers"? * Creating half normal probability distribution * What is the most efficient way to reduce interference drag when surface imperfections are unavoidable? * Blender camera sensor size physical equivalent? * How do Trinitarians respond to passages in the Bible that seem to clearly distinguish between God and Jesus after his ascension? * Why does Israel frequently attack Syria? * Evil In Clear River - Two Versions? * How to check is it mock runtime? * Idiom for a schoolboy being purposely overly verbose only to make an essay look longer * Novel or short story about space-travellers tapping in to stars for energy and it turns out that stars are living things * Is it possible for a lunar eclipse to occur before sunset * Should Pantone colors outside the RGB gamut be avoided? * How to get number bytes to write per row for FrameBuffer? * How can I create a shortcut to convert "normal Symbol" to Formal Symbol? * How do you motivate people to post flyers around town? * Can I, until now a non-Muslim, visit Mecca by declaring that Allah is one in front of 2 people? * Are hypermodern openings not recommended for beginners? * Which electoral systems minimise the extent to which political parties control who gets elected? * How to choose a specific nft to transfer * Why are "i.e." and "e.g." written in lower case with periods, while "NB" is typically written in CAPS with no periods? * Maximum of outer product of integer vectors (in linear time) more hot questions Question feed Subscribe to RSS Question feed To subscribe to this RSS feed, copy and paste this URL into your RSS reader. [https://philosophy.s] * Philosophy * Tour * Help * Chat * Contact * Feedback Company * Stack Overflow * Teams * Advertising * Collectives * Talent * About * Press * Legal * Privacy Policy * Terms of Service * Cookie Settings * Cookie Policy Stack Exchange Network * Technology * Culture & recreation * Life & arts * Science * Professional * Business * API * Data * Blog * Facebook * Twitter * LinkedIn * Instagram Site design / logo (c) 2023 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA. rev 2023.1.3.43129 Your privacy By clicking "Accept all cookies", you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy. Accept all cookies Customize settings