4 ms·

Ethics is subjective. If ethics could be codified I think we'd have one ruleset everyone agrees on. The article mentions trying to have a human enforce ethics,

Ethics is subjective. If ethics could be codified I think we'd have one ruleset everyone agrees on. The article mentions trying to have a human enforce ethics, but then that person has to be an example of ethical excellence; something you can't test for. And in the end, they say every man has his price, so no. I don't think "ethical AI" is possible. I think "ruthlessly efficient AI" is the goal. Maybe it should only be used in situations where ethics don't matter

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
> Ethics is subjective I'm really glad you raised this point. I don't know if there's a uniquely good ethic or not. But for sure there's no consensus about what constitutes ethical behavior. It drives me crazy when companies make preachy policy statements that beg this question.
wetpaws 8y ago
What's even worse, ethics vary from culture to culture and tend to change over time.
darkpuma 8y ago
Ruthlessly efficient AI is the next "big stick". Nuclear weapons brought us relatively close to world peace (after burning up hundreds of thousands of people and scaring the whole world shitless) maybe ruthless AI can do the same. I'm not particularly eager to see what an AI arms race and cold war looks like though. Things are decent enough right now, it could be a lot worse; do the upsides of creating ruthless AI justify the risks? Is it an eventuality anyway? At this stage could we conceivably prevent it?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
bellerose 8y ago
> If ethics could be codified I think we'd have one ruleset everyone agrees on. People want to deeply believe this as true. I find it false because I see free will as an illusion. Majority of people think free will exists. Agreement on ethics cannot exist with this conflict because it inherently effects morality.
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Well, if no one has free will it doesn't really matter what you think, does it? Any agreement or disagreement must also be an illusion, because no one involved can do otherwise. In fact, "I find it false" is meaningless, since you have no alternative.
  - bellerose 8y ago
    No. What I see people describing as ethical is not correct when people have no choice. It's also not meaningless to live with knowing free will is an illusion. Hard to really reply to such a dismissive assertion.
ben_jones 8y ago
Also important is that both Government and Industry are often intentionally unethical such that neither would actually want ethical AI to be the standard. * You can't ethically undermine a democratically elected government for a dictator who will better fit your economic interests. * You can't ethically avoid health and privacy laws just enough that you make more irregardless of legal fees. * You can't ethically discriminate hiring efforts based on race and gender. * You can't ethically discriminate against employees with families.
grecy 8y ago
Exactly. The question should be "Is a (universal) Ethical person even possible?". And of course, it entirely depends on whose culture and historical norms you're looking at and who is doing the judging. So really, no.
- lemagedurage 8y ago
  Yet murder is a punishable offense and people seem just fine with that. The law is an accepted and used set of actions that are considered bad, with associated repercussions. It's a best effort and it _works_. Why would AI have to reinvent the wheel here?
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Great, murder is one tiny issue in the huge ethical problem space, and probably the simplest as dead and not dead is pretty binary. Now define suffering algorithmically.
    - lemagedurage 8y ago
      Well there's laws that to about hurting people
  - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
    Murder is the taking of a life in a manner/context which is considered bad by definition. If you consider there are many situations where the taking of a life is considered politically or economically expedient, ethically justified, or a social or cultural necessity, the ethics of life-taking become a lot less straightforward. One of the greatest potential benefits of AI is that having to define our ethics explicitly, instead of wrapping them up in layers of propaganda, manipulation, and self-serving lies, has the potential to transform society. It's currently a very remote potential, but it does exist.
    - lemagedurage 8y ago
      In Holland we have a law which states that you can drink a maximum amount of alcohol before driving. This amount is based on research of how the alcohol concentration affects a human's ability to do things like driving. This is a sensible approach. How could AI ever reach such a specific conclusion?

DoofusOfDeath 8y ago

> Ethics is subjective I'm really glad you raised this point. I don't know if there's a uniquely good ethic or not. But for sure there's no consensus about what constitutes ethical behavior. It drives me crazy when companies make preachy policy statements that beg this question.

wetpaws 8y ago

What's even worse, ethics vary from culture to culture and tend to change over time.

darkpuma 8y ago

Ruthlessly efficient AI is the next "big stick". Nuclear weapons brought us relatively close to world peace (after burning up hundreds of thousands of people and scaring the whole world shitless) maybe ruthless AI can do the same. I'm not particularly eager to see what an AI arms race and cold war looks like though. Things are decent enough right now, it could be a lot worse; do the upsides of creating ruthless AI justify the risks? Is it an eventuality anyway? At this stage could we conceivably prevent it?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

bellerose 8y ago

> If ethics could be codified I think we'd have one ruleset everyone agrees on. People want to deeply believe this as true. I find it false because I see free will as an illusion. Majority of people think free will exists. Agreement on ethics cannot exist with this conflict because it inherently effects morality.

wool_gather 8y ago
Well, if no one has free will it doesn't really matter what you think, does it? Any agreement or disagreement must also be an illusion, because no one involved can do otherwise. In fact, "I find it false" is meaningless, since you have no alternative.
- bellerose 8y ago
  No. What I see people describing as ethical is not correct when people have no choice. It's also not meaningless to live with knowing free will is an illusion. Hard to really reply to such a dismissive assertion.

ben_jones 8y ago

Also important is that both Government and Industry are often intentionally unethical such that neither would actually want ethical AI to be the standard. * You can't ethically undermine a democratically elected government for a dictator who will better fit your economic interests. * You can't ethically avoid health and privacy laws just enough that you make more irregardless of legal fees. * You can't ethically discriminate hiring efforts based on race and gender. * You can't ethically discriminate against employees with families.

grecy 8y ago

Exactly. The question should be "Is a (universal) Ethical person even possible?". And of course, it entirely depends on whose culture and historical norms you're looking at and who is doing the judging. So really, no.

lemagedurage 8y ago
Yet murder is a punishable offense and people seem just fine with that. The law is an accepted and used set of actions that are considered bad, with associated repercussions. It's a best effort and it _works_. Why would AI have to reinvent the wheel here?
- pixl97 8y ago
  Great, murder is one tiny issue in the huge ethical problem space, and probably the simplest as dead and not dead is pretty binary. Now define suffering algorithmically.
  - lemagedurage 8y ago
    Well there's laws that to about hurting people
- TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
  Murder is the taking of a life in a manner/context which is considered bad by definition. If you consider there are many situations where the taking of a life is considered politically or economically expedient, ethically justified, or a social or cultural necessity, the ethics of life-taking become a lot less straightforward. One of the greatest potential benefits of AI is that having to define our ethics explicitly, instead of wrapping them up in layers of propaganda, manipulation, and self-serving lies, has the potential to transform society. It's currently a very remote potential, but it does exist.
  - lemagedurage 8y ago
    In Holland we have a law which states that you can drink a maximum amount of alcohol before driving. This amount is based on research of how the alcohol concentration affects a human's ability to do things like driving. This is a sensible approach. How could AI ever reach such a specific conclusion?