5 ms·

You can develop whatever you want, just don't subject people to arbitrary binding decisions without appeal. The default attitude is one of skepticism, skepticis

by mnm1 9y ago

You can develop whatever you want, just don't subject people to arbitrary binding decisions without appeal. The default attitude is one of skepticism, skepticism towards technology that could potentially affect human lives in very nasty ways. If you want your technology adopted instead of banned, it might be a good idea to listen to the people who will ultimately have to deal with the consequences of such technology. Otherwise, why should society adopt a technology that they cannot understand, that possibly no one understands or can explain or will explain? How can society trust you as the creator of such technology when it's a black box?

amarkov 9y ago
Your basic premise, that society as a whole ought to approve of new technologies before anyone is allowed to use them, seems very strange.
- jackvalentine 9y ago
  There is nothing in it about approval, only adoption.
- mnm1 9y ago
  This isn't a case of ought or ought not to, it's just what happens. Society does indeed either approve or disapprove of certain technologies, not always before they are used. Say you develop ai to replace judges. Don't you think society needs to approve this before we replace human judges? What if someone trained the ai to give all non white people sentences 20% longer than white people? Society will, hopefully, balk at this idea and such a system will not be implemented or scrapped if it has been. If, on the other hand, they don't know the system is biased because its decisions are hidden from the public, it'll be a system that society might accept on false pretenses, leading to mass suffering. For technology that could potentially be used to oppress people, I think people have the right to know how it works and to ask for a human to verify or carry the actual task out. Otherwise it wouldn't be surprising that they would want to ban or severely restrict something so potentially harmful.
- Thiez 9y ago
  How so? Organizations such as the FDA do the exact same thing.

by mnm1 9y ago

amarkov 9y ago

Your basic premise, that society as a whole ought to approve of new technologies before anyone is allowed to use them, seems very strange.

jackvalentine 9y ago
There is nothing in it about approval, only adoption.
mnm1 9y ago
This isn't a case of ought or ought not to, it's just what happens. Society does indeed either approve or disapprove of certain technologies, not always before they are used. Say you develop ai to replace judges. Don't you think society needs to approve this before we replace human judges? What if someone trained the ai to give all non white people sentences 20% longer than white people? Society will, hopefully, balk at this idea and such a system will not be implemented or scrapped if it has been. If, on the other hand, they don't know the system is biased because its decisions are hidden from the public, it'll be a system that society might accept on false pretenses, leading to mass suffering. For technology that could potentially be used to oppress people, I think people have the right to know how it works and to ask for a human to verify or carry the actual task out. Otherwise it wouldn't be surprising that they would want to ban or severely restrict something so potentially harmful.
Thiez 9y ago
How so? Organizations such as the FDA do the exact same thing.