2 ms·

This could go wrong in so many ways. Perfect way for un-accountability: the algorithm decided and we don't know why because it isn't transparent. But there's s

This could go wrong in so many ways. Perfect way for un-accountability: the algorithm decided and we don't know why because it isn't transparent. But there's some good potential too. It is a tool, it depends how we wield it or more precisely "who".

oneplane 7y ago
Depending on what tool it would be comparable too and how it was used an algorithm or ML model or "AI" would probably end up in the same dual-use discussions as we have now. A hammer that hammers is a good hammer. So if a system of ML/AI were to be optimised to hammer well (and 'be' a hammer) that is fine. If someone then would decide to use that hammer to attack someone and break their bones, would that be the hammer's fault? Probably not. But when you get a hammer that is optimised for bone-breaking the discussion changes. Same with a kitchen knife vs. hunting knife vs. kabar which are all knives but are also all 'named' with different intentions. And suddenly it's no longer dual-use or 'who is at fault' but in the very grey area of 'what was the intention'. And that brings us back to 'transparency' which loops back in to "what if it is just a tool". Darn circles.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
Certainly more quantitatively scruitable than any human system. A human can tell you a more or less convincing narrative about why they did something, but you have fewer independent and objective ways to measure that than you do basically any conceivable computing system.
- gigicontra 7y ago
  Yes sure, but the data and interpretation might be meaningless when explained back to humans, it's like a an intellectual showing off with terms and formulas: "the algorithm did this because ..." followed by a debatable and unintelligible formula + data + stats that nobody would really understand and a new science needs to be invented to understand and so on

2 ms·

This could go wrong in so many ways. Perfect way for un-accountability: the algorithm decided and we don't know why because it isn't transparent. But there's s

by tartoran 7y ago

oneplane 7y ago
Depending on what tool it would be comparable too and how it was used an algorithm or ML model or "AI" would probably end up in the same dual-use discussions as we have now. A hammer that hammers is a good hammer. So if a system of ML/AI were to be optimised to hammer well (and 'be' a hammer) that is fine. If someone then would decide to use that hammer to attack someone and break their bones, would that be the hammer's fault? Probably not. But when you get a hammer that is optimised for bone-breaking the discussion changes. Same with a kitchen knife vs. hunting knife vs. kabar which are all knives but are also all 'named' with different intentions. And suddenly it's no longer dual-use or 'who is at fault' but in the very grey area of 'what was the intention'. And that brings us back to 'transparency' which loops back in to "what if it is just a tool". Darn circles.
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
Certainly more quantitatively scruitable than any human system. A human can tell you a more or less convincing narrative about why they did something, but you have fewer independent and objective ways to measure that than you do basically any conceivable computing system.
- gigicontra 7y ago
  Yes sure, but the data and interpretation might be meaningless when explained back to humans, it's like a an intellectual showing off with terms and formulas: "the algorithm did this because ..." followed by a debatable and unintelligible formula + data + stats that nobody would really understand and a new science needs to be invented to understand and so on