4 ms·
So what do we do about it?
by knowaveragejoe 11y ago
So what do we do about it?
- TeMPOraL 11y agoShoot people who game the system. Seriously, there is no solution to the problem of humans abusing systems that is not GAI-complete. We can't design solutions that strong, but we ourselves are that strong. We have a pretty good solution available, that we don't use as often as we should: recognize and punish assholes (or, more formally, people who defect in coordination problems).
- ericflo 11y agoWhat's GAI-complete? I'm assuming you don't mean getaddrinfo and a Google search doesn't reveal much.
- dllthomas 11y agoI assume GAI is "General Artificial Intelligence" - so that "GAI-complete" is "at least as hard as producing a general artificial intelligence."
- TeMPOraL 11y agoYou assume correctly.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoWhat 'dllthomas said. I'm sorry, I should have explained in the comment, it's an obscure term to use.
- AndrewKemendo 11y agoGAI complete is a term used by people who don't actually work in AI and assume that their use of GAI is somehow equivalent to AGI, which is the term of art for Strong AI - codified with the AGI Journal and AGI conference.
- bitJericho 11y agoIn the real work we have systems of checks and balances. Simply hire a team of compliance checkers. Those checkers are kept in line by their management. If management is not up to task it'll come out eventually in a fabulous scandal, but in the mean time it'd be better than nothing.
- TeMPOraL 11y agoCompliance checking is a formal way of identifying and firing assholes. As for "checks and balances", yes, separating powers between several groups of people to enforce coordination between them is a good thing, but it also gets gamed at a meta-level, which again means you need to find and punish meta-level assholes.
- eru 11y agoActually, simpler metrics are better. It's more obvious, when you game them.
- astazangasta 11y agoDesign systems that rely on human conversation instead.