4 ms·

There is no such thing as "ethical technology". A controlled fire can be used to cook food, repel predators, and torture enemies.

mkolodny 7y ago
I think it's implied that people mean ethical use of A.I. rather than just ethical A.I.
- ekianjo 7y ago
  Isn't AI by itself able of decision/action? That's the point.
  - mkolodny 7y ago
    Intelligence != Action
saamm 7y ago
While I agree that most technologies can be used in both ways that are good and those that are evil, some technologies "appear to require, or to be strongly compatible with, particular kinds of political relationships" [0]. I find it reasonable to say that a technology may be more or less moral/ethical depending on what it encourages. 0: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
coldtea 7y ago
That's because a fire is used by people. Whereas an AI is a person of some sort (when speaking of generic AI, but also at the limited level of decision making of a less capable AI). So one could legitimately ask whether there's an ethical AI.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Technology that can process information to make ethical decisions can be ethical. Is it ethical if it is just emulating is a bit of a philosophical question, but other than the pedantics of 'ethical' vs 'imitation ethical', AI is one of the first technologies we have that can attempt to do such. Attempt. Meaning neither inherent not guaranteed even with effort. I think what the article is saying (as compared to the title) is that a universally agreed upon as ethical AI cannot exist. But this seems obvious given that a universally agreed upon set of ethics does not exist. >Depending upon your priorities, your ethical views will inevitably be incompatible with those of some other people in a manner no amount of reasoning will resolve. If we say there is no such thing as an ethical A.I. because we cannot all agree upon a standard, then it seems we should also say there is no such thing as an ethical human.
raverbashing 7y ago
Also, ethics has nuances to it (see the Trolley problem for one basic example)
lazyjones 7y ago
True AGI will be as comparable to existing technology as human beings are to simple biological processes. The issue with it isn't that it will be very advanced technology, but that it'll likely be more efficient (smart, intelligent, whatever you want to call it) than humans at many things and we might begin to consider our ethical principles liabilities making us inferior to intelligent machines.
christiansakai 7y ago
This view is too simplistic. Technology gives and technology takes away. Technology takes forms depending on functions. Read "Technopoly" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman for a good treaty on this subject.
jakobegger 7y ago
Your argument breaks down as soon as you move away from the most abstract concepts like "fire", and start looking at slightly more concrete things like "gas stove" or "napalm bomb". One of these is not like the other.
etiam 7y ago
> There is no such thing as "ethical technology". Commonly expressed opinion, and for a reason of course. But I have come to think that rather there is pretty much no such thing as 'morally neutral' technology. Everything lends itself more or less well to different purposes, and can, and often will, interact with an immensely complex society rife with morally loaded choices and actions. There was an eloquently presented thought experiment I heard many years ago, for which I have unfortunately forgotten the exact context, but I suspect it may be from former US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. (If anyone recognizes this one, I'd be grateful if you refresh my memory) Play with the thought that someone comes to you and presents you a ground-breaking invention, namely a procedure to manufacture dirt cheap, compact atomic bombs. Nuclear weaponry needs no longer be beyond the means of even the humblest citizen. Well, that would be a stunning scientific and technological achievement. We should probably give this person the at the very least the Nobel Prize and an annual feast in their honor. Is that what would happen? No, more like it, we'd make sure we have all copies of the schematics and then lock him up in isolation and throw away the key. It's an extreme case, naturally, but I think it's a neat illustration that there are powers whose properties have a profile which give them a completely predictably huge and horrifying potential for abuse and great difficulty to use for good. And conversely, arguably those which have very readily apparent beneficial uses and would be much harder to use for nefarious purposes, though that direction may be tempered somewhat by the fact that there are many more ways for something to be broken than to be whole.

mkolodny 7y ago

I think it's implied that people mean ethical use of A.I. rather than just ethical A.I.

ekianjo 7y ago
Isn't AI by itself able of decision/action? That's the point.
- mkolodny 7y ago
  Intelligence != Action

saamm 7y ago

While I agree that most technologies can be used in both ways that are good and those that are evil, some technologies "appear to require, or to be strongly compatible with, particular kinds of political relationships" [0]. I find it reasonable to say that a technology may be more or less moral/ethical depending on what it encourages. 0: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652 https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652

coldtea 7y ago

That's because a fire is used by people. Whereas an AI is a person of some sort (when speaking of generic AI, but also at the limited level of decision making of a less capable AI). So one could legitimately ask whether there's an ethical AI.

SkyBelow 7y ago

Technology that can process information to make ethical decisions can be ethical. Is it ethical if it is just emulating is a bit of a philosophical question, but other than the pedantics of 'ethical' vs 'imitation ethical', AI is one of the first technologies we have that can attempt to do such. Attempt. Meaning neither inherent not guaranteed even with effort. I think what the article is saying (as compared to the title) is that a universally agreed upon as ethical AI cannot exist. But this seems obvious given that a universally agreed upon set of ethics does not exist. >Depending upon your priorities, your ethical views will inevitably be incompatible with those of some other people in a manner no amount of reasoning will resolve. If we say there is no such thing as an ethical A.I. because we cannot all agree upon a standard, then it seems we should also say there is no such thing as an ethical human.

raverbashing 7y ago

Also, ethics has nuances to it (see the Trolley problem for one basic example)

lazyjones 7y ago

True AGI will be as comparable to existing technology as human beings are to simple biological processes. The issue with it isn't that it will be very advanced technology, but that it'll likely be more efficient (smart, intelligent, whatever you want to call it) than humans at many things and we might begin to consider our ethical principles liabilities making us inferior to intelligent machines.

christiansakai 7y ago

This view is too simplistic. Technology gives and technology takes away. Technology takes forms depending on functions. Read "Technopoly" and "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman for a good treaty on this subject.

jakobegger 7y ago

Your argument breaks down as soon as you move away from the most abstract concepts like "fire", and start looking at slightly more concrete things like "gas stove" or "napalm bomb". One of these is not like the other.

etiam 7y ago

> There is no such thing as "ethical technology". Commonly expressed opinion, and for a reason of course. But I have come to think that rather there is pretty much no such thing as 'morally neutral' technology. Everything lends itself more or less well to different purposes, and can, and often will, interact with an immensely complex society rife with morally loaded choices and actions. There was an eloquently presented thought experiment I heard many years ago, for which I have unfortunately forgotten the exact context, but I suspect it may be from former US Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara. (If anyone recognizes this one, I'd be grateful if you refresh my memory) Play with the thought that someone comes to you and presents you a ground-breaking invention, namely a procedure to manufacture dirt cheap, compact atomic bombs. Nuclear weaponry needs no longer be beyond the means of even the humblest citizen. Well, that would be a stunning scientific and technological achievement. We should probably give this person the at the very least the Nobel Prize and an annual feast in their honor. Is that what would happen? No, more like it, we'd make sure we have all copies of the schematics and then lock him up in isolation and throw away the key. It's an extreme case, naturally, but I think it's a neat illustration that there are powers whose properties have a profile which give them a completely predictably huge and horrifying potential for abuse and great difficulty to use for good. And conversely, arguably those which have very readily apparent beneficial uses and would be much harder to use for nefarious purposes, though that direction may be tempered somewhat by the fact that there are many more ways for something to be broken than to be whole.