4 ms·

No, it's a severe malfunctioning of a complex and too powerful AI system which detected the subjects it had to protect as threats. It's similar to what immunolo

No, it's a severe malfunctioning of a complex and too powerful AI system which detected the subjects it had to protect as threats. It's similar to what immunologists call auto-immune reactions. For it to be murder according to criminal law, at least the engineer responsible for the AI, or the architect, have to be found guilty of purposeful negligence of monitoring and reporting proper functioning/behavior of said AI. So, it's not the AI that is "guilty", but their makers. The criminal law is not applicable for AIs, but for their programmers/makers, for now. For the laws to be applicable for AIs, they need to be competent or sentient enough for us to acknowledge them as equal to us from the perspective of rights, and therefore law (similar to age of majority). Until then the engineers are responsible for whatever an AI does wrong.

teekert 7y ago
Any smart AI learns that our biggest risk is our freedom, to protect us, it needs to put us in cages. Theme of many many SciFi stories.
- adamsea 7y ago
  I’m going to write a sci fi story where it gets us all therapy and backpacking trips and Hawaiian vacations instead :)
  - pjc50 7y ago
    That's basically the Iain M Banks universe, where humanity delegate running the machine civilization to "minds" and are almost entirely free to enjoy themselves.
sunir 7y ago
The question projects moralism onto the process of justice; the word “guilt” perhaps carries with it a demand for a sentient being making moral choices. However what is important is what has to be done to protect society. The question is does the system merit exile or destruction or some other remediation to restore order. The answer is based on evidence and observed behaviour... yes. HAL should be decommissioned. It is exactly similar to the question “is the 737MAX guilty of murder?” Guilt and murder are concepts related to conscious thought but the behaviour and outcomes is what really matters in that case. The reason why guilt and murder matter is as humans, we have instincts around managing each other that these concepts extend with the power of Reason and Process. If it was a different species such as a sentient ant colony, could we project the concepts of guilt and murder equivalently? Probably not.
- pjc50 7y ago
  The reason why most legal systems distinguish various grades of causing unlawful death is precisely because intent matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter Mapping this onto complex systems is hard, but usually we presume that the system is under the control of the designer and therefore the intent or carelessness of the designer is what matters. AI systems offer the disconcerting possibility that at some point the designers will start explicitly disclaiming fore-knowledge and therefore responsibility for what the system is doing. Nontransparent neural networks are a particularly awkward problem here.
  - dschuetz 7y ago
    > AI systems offer the disconcerting possibility that at some point the designers will start explicitly disclaiming fore-knowledge and therefore responsibility for what the system is doing. Nontransparent neural networks are a particularly awkward problem here. Exactly my point. When there is a black-boxed AI involved an engineer (as of now) cannot precisely determine whether it functions properly (according to specifications, from which safety rules are derived) or not. So, the monitoring technology is not as advanced as it should be to let black-boxed AIs handle important functions. So, until any AI is not as competent as we are, we should not employ black-boxed AI in algorithms at all, because it is irresponsible (before the law, as consequence). We cannot say it (the AI) is responsible for odd behavior, when we programmed/trained it that way. Same goes for children, parents are responsible for their children. Gross negligence (like letting the kid skipping school repeatedly) is punishable before the law, and parents are responsible, not the child.
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Parents are responsible to a extent they could have predicted the actions of the child. There are many cases where parents are clearly not held responsible by law, including outright cases of murder. (Usually considered as manslaughter with equivalent of insanity defense.) Unless you are of the position that everyone is guilty, by induction. In case of HAL, the negligence case is clear because there existed a perfect simulator - SAL. SAL was not given the secret orders, which is clearly endangering the crew. Whoever is responsible for that difference clearly knew that changing the orders made the simulation invalid. It's similar to Boeing 737 MAX case.
criddell 7y ago
> For the laws to be applicable for AIs, they need to be competent or sentient enough for us to acknowledge them as equal to us How do you know HAL wasn't at that level?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dschuetz 7y ago
  Was he acknowledged as equal to people before the law? Until then: no, he wasn't.
  - criddell 7y ago
    The first sentient AI won't immediately be acknowledged as equal to people before the law until they are.
- the_af 7y ago
  There is in fact some indication in the movies that HAL and similar computers are indeed sentient enough. HAL claims to be afraid. If we admit this is a real feeling and not something HAL is just echoing, an entity than can feel fear can also murder. Moreover, there are a couple of poignant scenes in the film 2010 The Year We Make Contact: Dr. Chandra has the following dialogue with SAL-9000, an AI in the same class as HAL. He is disconnecting SAL as a test for what will happen with HAL: "Will I dream?" "Of course you will. All intelligent beings dream. Nobody knows why." [0] Later in the movie Chandra is asked the same question by HAL, but gives a more honest answer: "Will I dream?" "I... don't know" [1] This leaves room in the mind of Dr. Chandra, an AI specialist, to wonder whether these are truly "sentient" beings or not. If they are, they are certainly capable of murder. ---- [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2E7sxGAmuo [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OlCzxFuV9c
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    The big question that is not answered is whether HAL is capable of ignoring direct orders. If not, then no matter the sentience he cannot be guilty of obeying bad orders. That one bit literally deprives him off free will in this matter. We can argue that HAL was too dumb to find other alternate solution. If that is the case, he would be tried in this matter like a child or intellectually deficient person, perhaps an unusually smart animal. Law determines if that applies by reference group and expert opinion.

teekert 7y ago

Any smart AI learns that our biggest risk is our freedom, to protect us, it needs to put us in cages. Theme of many many SciFi stories.

adamsea 7y ago
I’m going to write a sci fi story where it gets us all therapy and backpacking trips and Hawaiian vacations instead :)
- pjc50 7y ago
  That's basically the Iain M Banks universe, where humanity delegate running the machine civilization to "minds" and are almost entirely free to enjoy themselves.

sunir 7y ago

The question projects moralism onto the process of justice; the word “guilt” perhaps carries with it a demand for a sentient being making moral choices. However what is important is what has to be done to protect society. The question is does the system merit exile or destruction or some other remediation to restore order. The answer is based on evidence and observed behaviour... yes. HAL should be decommissioned. It is exactly similar to the question “is the 737MAX guilty of murder?” Guilt and murder are concepts related to conscious thought but the behaviour and outcomes is what really matters in that case. The reason why guilt and murder matter is as humans, we have instincts around managing each other that these concepts extend with the power of Reason and Process. If it was a different species such as a sentient ant colony, could we project the concepts of guilt and murder equivalently? Probably not.

pjc50 7y ago
The reason why most legal systems distinguish various grades of causing unlawful death is precisely because intent matters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter Mapping this onto complex systems is hard, but usually we presume that the system is under the control of the designer and therefore the intent or carelessness of the designer is what matters. AI systems offer the disconcerting possibility that at some point the designers will start explicitly disclaiming fore-knowledge and therefore responsibility for what the system is doing. Nontransparent neural networks are a particularly awkward problem here.
- dschuetz 7y ago
  > AI systems offer the disconcerting possibility that at some point the designers will start explicitly disclaiming fore-knowledge and therefore responsibility for what the system is doing. Nontransparent neural networks are a particularly awkward problem here. Exactly my point. When there is a black-boxed AI involved an engineer (as of now) cannot precisely determine whether it functions properly (according to specifications, from which safety rules are derived) or not. So, the monitoring technology is not as advanced as it should be to let black-boxed AIs handle important functions. So, until any AI is not as competent as we are, we should not employ black-boxed AI in algorithms at all, because it is irresponsible (before the law, as consequence). We cannot say it (the AI) is responsible for odd behavior, when we programmed/trained it that way. Same goes for children, parents are responsible for their children. Gross negligence (like letting the kid skipping school repeatedly) is punishable before the law, and parents are responsible, not the child.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Parents are responsible to a extent they could have predicted the actions of the child. There are many cases where parents are clearly not held responsible by law, including outright cases of murder. (Usually considered as manslaughter with equivalent of insanity defense.) Unless you are of the position that everyone is guilty, by induction. In case of HAL, the negligence case is clear because there existed a perfect simulator - SAL. SAL was not given the secret orders, which is clearly endangering the crew. Whoever is responsible for that difference clearly knew that changing the orders made the simulation invalid. It's similar to Boeing 737 MAX case.

criddell 7y ago

> For the laws to be applicable for AIs, they need to be competent or sentient enough for us to acknowledge them as equal to us How do you know HAL wasn't at that level?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dschuetz 7y ago
Was he acknowledged as equal to people before the law? Until then: no, he wasn't.
- criddell 7y ago
  The first sentient AI won't immediately be acknowledged as equal to people before the law until they are.
the_af 7y ago
There is in fact some indication in the movies that HAL and similar computers are indeed sentient enough. HAL claims to be afraid. If we admit this is a real feeling and not something HAL is just echoing, an entity than can feel fear can also murder. Moreover, there are a couple of poignant scenes in the film 2010 The Year We Make Contact: Dr. Chandra has the following dialogue with SAL-9000, an AI in the same class as HAL. He is disconnecting SAL as a test for what will happen with HAL: "Will I dream?" "Of course you will. All intelligent beings dream. Nobody knows why." [0] Later in the movie Chandra is asked the same question by HAL, but gives a more honest answer: "Will I dream?" "I... don't know" [1] This leaves room in the mind of Dr. Chandra, an AI specialist, to wonder whether these are truly "sentient" beings or not. If they are, they are certainly capable of murder. ---- [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2E7sxGAmuo [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OlCzxFuV9c
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  The big question that is not answered is whether HAL is capable of ignoring direct orders. If not, then no matter the sentience he cannot be guilty of obeying bad orders. That one bit literally deprives him off free will in this matter. We can argue that HAL was too dumb to find other alternate solution. If that is the case, he would be tried in this matter like a child or intellectually deficient person, perhaps an unusually smart animal. Law determines if that applies by reference group and expert opinion.