4 ms·

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 mad

by 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.

by kyllo 11y ago

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.