3 ms·
Yes. Remember, this isn't an AI judge, it's an AI advisor. The actual judge who decides to execute someone is still human. The AI advisor has no wants of its
by dustyleary 9y ago
Yes.
Remember, this isn't an AI judge, it's an AI advisor. The actual judge who decides to execute someone is still human.
The AI advisor has no wants of its own. It doesn't have personal opinions about politics, and we don't have to worry about whether the advice it gives is really to further some internal agenda so that it can take over the world.
- supermdguy 9y agoBy definition, an AI has to have some form of "wants", in the form of minimizing a loss function. Otherwise, it wouldn't do anything.
- dustyleary 9y agoYes, but this is qualitatively different from the AI being a 'person' whose motives you have to question. What are AlphaGo's motives? An AI judge will be optimizing for the things that we build an AI judge to optimize for, the things we find desirable in our legal decisions. Consistency with past rulings, not issuing judgements that open up tricky interactions with other laws/judgements, erring on the side of caution when the sentence will ruin the defendant's life, etc. But it still won't have "motives". We won't wonder if it issues a particular judgement because 5% of its investment portfolio is allocated to pharmaceutical companies, or if it believes that the USA would be a better place if all the black people "went back to Africa".
- supermdguy 9y agoIn an ideal world, I think this would work out. The problem is, I can't trust anyone to create an AI that's truly unbiased. > the things we find desirable in our legal decisions. Who is "we"? Everyone has different motives, so having a human create an optimization function won't create a truly unbiased machine. I think any good AI will have to create its own "opinions" to be of any worth.