5 ms·
Yes, but at least the person bearing the cost is the same that decided to let the AI drive. That doesn't mean what you describe is desirable, but the fall out i
by mseebach 9y ago
Yes, but at least the person bearing the cost is the same that decided to let the AI drive. That doesn't mean what you describe is desirable, but the fall out is rather contained to people who have consented to using the AI. Not so with the examples I listed.
- throwaway2048 9y agobut you are wrong, there are people who did not consent to using AI being injured in those situations, same as the police/sentencing example you brought up
- twblalock 9y agoWhat if the AI drove the car into a pedestrian? The pedestrian didn't consent to letting the AI drive.
- mseebach 9y agoIt's a spectrum, not black and white. The self driving car is a lot closer to one end, and the other examples are closer to the other. None are perfect examples of the extremities.
- jwatte 9y agoWhat if a drunk drives the car into a pedestrian? Not much content there, either.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> What if a drunk drives the car into a pedestrian? This is easy to explain. The driver is at fault. Explainability is what we are debating.
- megy 9y agoSo the AI is at fault then.
- throwaway2048 9y agothe question becomes what can you >do< about it if you have no understanding of the logic it operates on.