4 ms·
Though I agree in principle, I think tools can’t be considered in isolation, but rather in the context of iterated game theory. Is Instagram inherently evil? O
by lukifer 8y ago
Though I agree in principle, I think tools can’t be considered in isolation, but rather in the context of iterated game theory.
Is Instagram inherently evil? Obviously not; but through the lens of pre-existing human social dynamics, including status competition, mating drives, social signaling, etc, the capabilities introduced by that particular tool almost inevitably lead to the perverse incentives of lifestyle facades, “influencers”, Fyre Festival, etc. Do we have to do these things? Of course not. But it’s naive to not think about the “realpolitik” scenarios, and what could be done to mitigate them, rather than assuming perfectly ethical and rational actors.
What makes AI even more complicated than previous technological changes to our game landscape, is the potential not for new tools, but for new players: at best, these artificial players are proxies for each of our interests (though see the side effects of “flash crashes” from high-frequency trading bots); at worst, we may have to contend with vastly intelligent new players with emergent interests of their own, which we can’t necessarily predict. While I don’t think it’s inconceivable that A.I. will always be subject to human understanding and control, we’re in such new territory that that’s fundamentally an assumption (see the arguments from Bostrom, etc).
- dogma1138 8y agoAI isn’t s player it’s as dumb as a rock. The players are still humans that build, maintain, operate and can switch it off.
- adjkant 8y agoAI today is that dumb, but I think the parent comment is discussing a theoretical AGI nearing or possessing consciousness. A bit irrelevant for today's moral conversation on AI but a very interesting one down the line if we ever do get to that point.
- dogma1138 8y agoLet’s have this talk in 3 centuries then.
- coldtea 8y ago>AI isn’t s player it’s as dumb as a rock. That's a religious view of AI and humans, where humans have special qualities (like soul and consciousness) perhaps evolved "magically" or "god given", that a machine can't have. There are no serious arguments why an AI can't have perfect human-like consciousness, feelings and everything. Inversely, there are no serious arguments why humans are special in any way, and their brain mappings can't be replicated by technical AI (eg. artificial neurons) or emulated by software.
- dogma1138 8y agoHumans aren’t special but what we have as an AI today and for foreseeable future is capable making as many decisions as your microwave.
- coldtea 8y agoWe already have AI that can make the decision or not to step on a kid passing the street in self driving cars. The ethical/conscious part is a matter of degree, not necessarily of quality.
- dogma1138 8y agoNo we don’t, the “AI” didn’t made any decisions it only follows its programming. It also doesn’t know what a kid is nor does it makes any decisions based on the info even if it did. It is tasked with avoiding collisions it does not make ethical decisions any more than my microwave makes an ethical decision of not to burn my food when I use a fixed program to defrost chicken.