3 ms·
Your basic premise, that society as a whole ought to approve of new technologies before anyone is allowed to use them, seems very strange.
by 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 agoThere is nothing in it about approval, only adoption.
- mnm1 9y agoThis 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 agoHow so? Organizations such as the FDA do the exact same thing.