4 ms·

Nor should we fool ourselves that it's important for a machine to take over. We don't "suuuck" at driving -- or at killing other people, for that matter: as a

Nor should we fool ourselves that it's important for a machine to take over. We don't "suuuck" at driving -- or at killing other people, for that matter: as a species, on average, we're fairly competent at both tasks. The fact that a machine might have a lower failure rate isn't a singular reason to embrace the tech.

Waterluvian 6y ago
I agree with that. I was also referring to how much we suck at not killing the wrong people. I imagine systemic racism would still exist, but at least the robots are making decisions consistently.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  > I imagine systemic racism would still exist, but at least the robots are making decisions consistently. We program our robots with our prejudices[1]. If you don't control the machines, you can't change their programming. It's entirely possible that such prejudices are cemented through machines that cannot be influenced or changed except through actions of their owners. What happens when the owners of these machines are indifferent towards, or outright supportive of, prejudice? History is rife with owners of companies, industries and governments exploiting and furthering prejudice for their own benefit. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2020/winter/ai-and-judges-ethical-obligations/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/jud...
  - penetraitor69 6y ago
    Exactly. If your fire-control system is trained on a dataset that (through carelessness or malice) has some bias, you could end up with a racist machine gun turret.
  - marshmallow_12 6y ago
    the problem with this is, our prejudices can change, sometimes very quickly. A person who loves dogs, for example, might hate them after being mauled by one. Simply put, i don't think we can simply write down our emotional processes easily enough to make advanced ai relevant.

Waterluvian 6y ago

I agree with that. I was also referring to how much we suck at not killing the wrong people. I imagine systemic racism would still exist, but at least the robots are making decisions consistently.

heavyset_go 6y ago
> I imagine systemic racism would still exist, but at least the robots are making decisions consistently. We program our robots with our prejudices[1]. If you don't control the machines, you can't change their programming. It's entirely possible that such prejudices are cemented through machines that cannot be influenced or changed except through actions of their owners. What happens when the owners of these machines are indifferent towards, or outright supportive of, prejudice? History is rife with owners of companies, industries and governments exploiting and furthering prejudice for their own benefit. [1] https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/judges_journal/2020/winter/ai-and-judges-ethical-obligations/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/publications/jud...
- penetraitor69 6y ago
  Exactly. If your fire-control system is trained on a dataset that (through carelessness or malice) has some bias, you could end up with a racist machine gun turret.
- marshmallow_12 6y ago
  the problem with this is, our prejudices can change, sometimes very quickly. A person who loves dogs, for example, might hate them after being mauled by one. Simply put, i don't think we can simply write down our emotional processes easily enough to make advanced ai relevant.