4 ms·

Because these problems for humans started existing with absolutely modest level of AI development and nothing remotely similar to super-intelligence. So the arg

Because these problems for humans started existing with absolutely modest level of AI development and nothing remotely similar to super-intelligence. So the argument is - if we have serious problems now as small-level, narrow-focused AI "does not consider" some of the side-effects, imagine the problems if we reach high-level, narrow-focused AI...So author's argument is that we need to change the way we're building it so we either set the goals to more broadly ensure human benefits, or build something else other then the narrow-focused AI (which surely is another Pandora's box).

cf 7y ago
I think applying agency to the software in my examples is actually very pernicious. It's not the software that dislikes the ethnic minority, it's the Chinese government. Blaming the software lets bad actors off the hook. Perhaps what's really needed is ethical standards for technology. This would have the added advantage of being applicable even if the technology doesn't feel like AI to some people.
- alluro2 7y ago
  I agree and I think similar reasoning is behind some of the working groups for AI that Musk and others advocate for - "let's make sure that if we're breaking new ground, we're doing so with proper ethical and safety standards"...But we're nowhere near that level of social maturity on global level for such initiatives to take precedence over potential gain / profit of getting "there" first. As is evident from still such a large division even over the question if risk exists at all...
joe_the_user 7y ago
Unexpected problems appear often when giving automated decision making free reign to make decisions without human intervention. It is simply that I see zero evidence that the Nick Bostron, Lesswrong, and etc. school of thought provides any insight in regard to these problems. The thing the "AI might become autonomous" school doesn't seem at all interest in the processes of human bureaucracy or in even AI as it exist now but rather views as simply a god, devil or Genie which grants wishes or damns to hell. If anything, the approach seems counter-productive.

cf 7y ago

I think applying agency to the software in my examples is actually very pernicious. It's not the software that dislikes the ethnic minority, it's the Chinese government. Blaming the software lets bad actors off the hook. Perhaps what's really needed is ethical standards for technology. This would have the added advantage of being applicable even if the technology doesn't feel like AI to some people.

alluro2 7y ago
I agree and I think similar reasoning is behind some of the working groups for AI that Musk and others advocate for - "let's make sure that if we're breaking new ground, we're doing so with proper ethical and safety standards"...But we're nowhere near that level of social maturity on global level for such initiatives to take precedence over potential gain / profit of getting "there" first. As is evident from still such a large division even over the question if risk exists at all...

joe_the_user 7y ago

Unexpected problems appear often when giving automated decision making free reign to make decisions without human intervention. It is simply that I see zero evidence that the Nick Bostron, Lesswrong, and etc. school of thought provides any insight in regard to these problems. The thing the "AI might become autonomous" school doesn't seem at all interest in the processes of human bureaucracy or in even AI as it exist now but rather views as simply a god, devil or Genie which grants wishes or damns to hell. If anything, the approach seems counter-productive.