4 ms·

I wonder whether "a human in the loop" is some kind of illusion; for longer than we have had recorded history, we have killed our neighbours because an authorit

I wonder whether "a human in the loop" is some kind of illusion; for longer than we have had recorded history, we have killed our neighbours because an authority have told us to. In the latter half of the 20th century we nearly perfected the conditioning needed to make soldiers shoot to kill when told to. I wonder whether it will make a difference if the order is given by a human a or an AI. And if the soldier is going to shoot to kill regardless, why not just have an AI do that as well.

kyllo 11y ago
Yeah that is an interesting paradox. It feels wrong for an algorithm to decide whether to kill a human, but what is so much better about that decision being made by a human? If that seems extreme, consider the self-driving car problem. 30,000 people in the US alone are killed per year in car accidents involving human drivers. What is the acceptable number of motor vehicle related deaths per year when all cars are self-driving?
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Yeah that is an interesting paradox. It feels wrong for an algorithm to decide whether to kill a human, but what is so much better about that decision being made by a human? Obviously because those humans then share and bear the moral dilemma of doing it or not. Which also affects the outcome, as opposed to just being some inconsequential detail. Humans can demand out of an injust war (as they've done time and again). Killing machines can not. It's the difference between blindly following orders (which not even all Nazi's did) and being able to have a change of heart. It's also the sheer (number of magnitudes) more killing efficiency of the killing algorithms, when a machine could kill 10000 people in the time it takes for a single human to make a decision about 1 of them -- until we find there's a != when we needed == in the algorithm.
  - spdionis 11y ago
    as another commenter noted there are currently physical limitations that would not allow e.g. drones to kill 10000 people in an instant. I don't think for example nukes will ever be under the control of AI algorithms ever...
- avar 11y ago
  > 30,000 people in the US alone are killed per year in car > accidents involving human drivers. What is the acceptable number > of motor vehicle related deaths per year when all cars are > self-driving? The right answer to that question is "29,999 and getting better", but unfortunately luddites abound even in modern hi-tech society.
WalterBright 11y ago
> In the latter half of the 20th century This is an odd statement. In my reading of historical battles, I've never seen a mention of the idea that soldiers before 1950 did not shoot to kill when ordered to.
- graeme 11y ago
  I've seen this figure before, and read that they changed firing range practices after the war to make killing more automatic. This was in Gwynne Dyer's "War", and he's normally reliable. However, the original statistic is apparently from a not so credible source, a study by SLA Marshall in WWII that's not so well regarded. This thread goes into some depth: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/48/t/000511.html http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_t... Not sure what the truth of it is.
coldtea 11y ago
Well, we'll still have Hitlers (or benevolent Trumans deciding to drop on Hiroshima etc). Those would be the ones building, enabling and deploying the combat AI. What we won't have would be Vasili Arkhipovs, Oskar Schindlers and Chris Taylors...

kyllo 11y ago

Yeah that is an interesting paradox. It feels wrong for an algorithm to decide whether to kill a human, but what is so much better about that decision being made by a human? If that seems extreme, consider the self-driving car problem. 30,000 people in the US alone are killed per year in car accidents involving human drivers. What is the acceptable number of motor vehicle related deaths per year when all cars are self-driving?

coldtea 11y ago
>Yeah that is an interesting paradox. It feels wrong for an algorithm to decide whether to kill a human, but what is so much better about that decision being made by a human? Obviously because those humans then share and bear the moral dilemma of doing it or not. Which also affects the outcome, as opposed to just being some inconsequential detail. Humans can demand out of an injust war (as they've done time and again). Killing machines can not. It's the difference between blindly following orders (which not even all Nazi's did) and being able to have a change of heart. It's also the sheer (number of magnitudes) more killing efficiency of the killing algorithms, when a machine could kill 10000 people in the time it takes for a single human to make a decision about 1 of them -- until we find there's a != when we needed == in the algorithm.
- spdionis 11y ago
  as another commenter noted there are currently physical limitations that would not allow e.g. drones to kill 10000 people in an instant. I don't think for example nukes will ever be under the control of AI algorithms ever...
avar 11y ago
> 30,000 people in the US alone are killed per year in car > accidents involving human drivers. What is the acceptable number > of motor vehicle related deaths per year when all cars are > self-driving? The right answer to that question is "29,999 and getting better", but unfortunately luddites abound even in modern hi-tech society.

WalterBright 11y ago

> In the latter half of the 20th century This is an odd statement. In my reading of historical battles, I've never seen a mention of the idea that soldiers before 1950 did not shoot to kill when ordered to.

graeme 11y ago
I've seen this figure before, and read that they changed firing range practices after the war to make killing more automatic. This was in Gwynne Dyer's "War", and he's normally reliable. However, the original statistic is apparently from a not so credible source, a study by SLA Marshall in WWII that's not so well regarded. This thread goes into some depth: http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_topic/f/48/t/000511.html http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/ubb/get_t... Not sure what the truth of it is.

coldtea 11y ago

Well, we'll still have Hitlers (or benevolent Trumans deciding to drop on Hiroshima etc). Those would be the ones building, enabling and deploying the combat AI. What we won't have would be Vasili Arkhipovs, Oskar Schindlers and Chris Taylors...