4 ms·

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. After all people act “crazy” sometimes, and we have constructs to undertstand it. It is unreasonable to spe

by ska 8y ago

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. After all people act “crazy” sometimes, and we have constructs to undertstand it. It is unreasonable to spect that we will be able to create an computer that doesn’t make surprising calls sometimes. The trade off between type I and II errors is fundamental, expecting to engineer our way out of it is naive. Now that isn’t to say I believe we can have higher performance systems. It they will also have a version of this behaviour. Making them behave worse to hide some of the cases won’t make it go away either. Nobody was suggesting blind trust.

joe_the_user 8y ago
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. After all people act “crazy” sometimes, and we have constructs to undertstand it. It is unreasonable to spect that we will be able to create an computer that doesn’t make surprising calls sometimes. If a person acts crazy, we certainly do blame them. However, the point is people accept the position "if a computer is irrational no more often than a person, it's no worse a situation" in the abstract but have a harder time accepting a situation where a computer irrationally kills someone than when a person irrationally kills someone. Moreover, having a person make the mistake "gives you someone to blame." If computer builds a system and that system can be shown to gratuitously kill a person, the amount of liability a jury is inclined to hand out may be quite large since it's spread about a large amount of people. Also, in the self-driving car situation, you really are going to have to have situation where blind is required.
- ska 8y ago
  It in the abstract it isn’t “no more irrational”, it is “on average, clearly better” that is the target. So while I agree on the psychology being different it’s entirely plausible that we have to figure out how to communicate this on i dear to have measurable improvement.

by ska 8y ago

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. After all people act “crazy” sometimes, and we have constructs to undertstand it. It is unreasonable to spect that we will be able to create an computer that doesn’t make surprising calls sometimes. The trade off between type I and II errors is fundamental, expecting to engineer our way out of it is naive. Now that isn’t to say I believe we can have higher performance systems. It they will also have a version of this behaviour. Making them behave worse to hide some of the cases won’t make it go away either. Nobody was suggesting blind trust.

joe_the_user 8y ago

I think you missed the point I was trying to make. After all people act “crazy” sometimes, and we have constructs to undertstand it. It is unreasonable to spect that we will be able to create an computer that doesn’t make surprising calls sometimes. If a person acts crazy, we certainly do blame them. However, the point is people accept the position "if a computer is irrational no more often than a person, it's no worse a situation" in the abstract but have a harder time accepting a situation where a computer irrationally kills someone than when a person irrationally kills someone. Moreover, having a person make the mistake "gives you someone to blame." If computer builds a system and that system can be shown to gratuitously kill a person, the amount of liability a jury is inclined to hand out may be quite large since it's spread about a large amount of people. Also, in the self-driving car situation, you really are going to have to have situation where blind is required.

ska 8y ago
It in the abstract it isn’t “no more irrational”, it is “on average, clearly better” that is the target. So while I agree on the psychology being different it’s entirely plausible that we have to figure out how to communicate this on i dear to have measurable improvement.