3 ms·

True, insofar as there's no such thing as an 'ethical human being'. And yet, no one would claim that nullifies the pursuit of behaving ethically. In "Life 3.0

True, insofar as there's no such thing as an 'ethical human being'. And yet, no one would claim that nullifies the pursuit of behaving ethically. In "Life 3.0" and his recent lectures, Max Tegmark repeatedly stresses the pursuit of safe AI requires that we articulate the world we want to live in. In his concluding crie du coeur, Tom Chatfield writes, > give me the capacity to contest passionately the applications and priorities of superhuman systems, and the masters they serve If Tom or anyone else wants a seat at this table -- to participate in developing and defining ethical AI -- by all means describe the world you want to live in. Until then, it's just tantrum-throwing.

sebastianconcpt 7y ago
When you say describe the world you want to live in you mean describe in terms of defining its rules or something else?
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  In terms of anything at all. If his position is that what he wants in the world can never be reduced to a set of rules, that’s something that could be reasonably debated. If he’s right, maybe ethical AI needs to be built with control systems to ensure humans are in the loop for decisions with high ethical impact. You could imagine a world where everyone just has to pick how much risk their self driving car will take, in the same way they pick how much risk to take when driving today. But there’s really no way to debate with “hey, it’s impossible, you can’t do it!” Someone still has to decide what AI systems are going to do, and as they get more complex that’s going to implicate ethics more and more.
kijin 7y ago
"We" are fundamentally incapable of describing the world we want to live in, because each of us has a different idea about what kind of world each of us wants to live in. There are large overlaps in those descriptions, but also significant incompatibilities. That's what Tom Chatfield is talking about here. There is not only no such thing as an ethical human being, but also no such thing as a consistent set of ethical anything. The only "safe AI" that I can think of is one that has a healthy dose of intellectual humility built into it, and can resist the urge to map-reduce conflicting expectations into a single solution.

sebastianconcpt 7y ago

When you say describe the world you want to live in you mean describe in terms of defining its rules or something else?

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
In terms of anything at all. If his position is that what he wants in the world can never be reduced to a set of rules, that’s something that could be reasonably debated. If he’s right, maybe ethical AI needs to be built with control systems to ensure humans are in the loop for decisions with high ethical impact. You could imagine a world where everyone just has to pick how much risk their self driving car will take, in the same way they pick how much risk to take when driving today. But there’s really no way to debate with “hey, it’s impossible, you can’t do it!” Someone still has to decide what AI systems are going to do, and as they get more complex that’s going to implicate ethics more and more.

kijin 7y ago

"We" are fundamentally incapable of describing the world we want to live in, because each of us has a different idea about what kind of world each of us wants to live in. There are large overlaps in those descriptions, but also significant incompatibilities. That's what Tom Chatfield is talking about here. There is not only no such thing as an ethical human being, but also no such thing as a consistent set of ethical anything. The only "safe AI" that I can think of is one that has a healthy dose of intellectual humility built into it, and can resist the urge to map-reduce conflicting expectations into a single solution.