3 ms·

I can't get past the first paragraph! > At the recent conference on the ethics of AI-enabled weapons systems at the U.S. Naval Academy, well over half the talk

I can't get past the first paragraph! > At the recent conference on the ethics of AI-enabled weapons systems at the U.S. Naval Academy, well over half the talks discussed meaningful human control of AI to some extent. But, but AI is sentient right?! What business is it of ours to try to exercise control over AI, with its many and various superior attributes? lol. > If you work among the AI ethics community, and especially among those working on AI ethics and governance for the military, you are hard-pressed to find an article or enter a room without stumbling on someone literally or metaphorically slamming their fist on the table while exalting the importance of human control over AI and especially AI-enabled weapons. AI ethics is only there to justify the unjustifiable. They do not have my ethics that's for sure, nor any normal person's. Its a bad joke that allows a corporation to say - 'but it has been subject to an ethical review!' - and the political class can allow themselves to be bamboozled and provide their rubber stamp. > the ethics of AI-enabled weapons ... the ethical implications fall on those coding the dystopia. War is immoral, pretending that wars are real is immoral, handing over decision of life and death to a machine is immoral - regardless of how efficient the machine may be. So, any of those people involved in that circle are immoral. Soldiers may think they are working to defend their 'country' - but 'country' is a fiction and 'defence' is an inversion. People act this way for money.. at least that reason makes sense - but there is nothing moral about it. There are no ethics to be found there.

astrange 4y ago
> Soldiers may think they are working to defend their 'country' - but 'country' is a fiction and 'defence' is an inversion. Meaning is collaborative. It doesn’t matter if you’re a nihilist and want to declare your country doesn’t exist; the guy invading you makes it real. You can be a quisling, but defecting to the invader seems to admit they exist, at least.
- verisimi 4y ago
  Who's invading who now? What are the soldiers "defending"? Do you think that 'Department of Defense' is a misnomer? Howabout 'military aid'? Are these the sorts of linguistic meanings we are meant to collaborate on? I'm no collaborator, you know..
a9h74j 4y ago
Didn't follow your argument, but if AI: 1) gets advanced enough; and 2) goes out of control; won't it 3) take out the human at the off switch first?
- verisimi 4y ago
  I'm pointing out that the messages on ai and 'ethics' are mixed, confusing. That it is impossible to believe what is being stated. On the out of control thing, for me, ai is just a machine (a special machine, but not sentient as we are sometimes told) and will do whatever is most successful, as per the criteria it is given. If it is capable and can kill people, and that is stated as its goal, I'm sure it would do so. Its just a machine, it has no moral compass. I don't buy the hype that it would be able to choose its own goals - it can never be conscious, even if it can do a passable impression. What does happen is that the (moral) responsibility for ai deaths is shifted onto those who train and code it. Developers might not think of themselves as killers (like soldiers do), but in working on these projects that is what they become. When I point out the moral repercussions of coding, eg here and many other examples, eg privacy erosion, gameification, people don't like it. They want to take the money but not the responsibility or culpability their actions. They will pretend that they can defer their morality to an 'ethics committee'. So these sorts of articles are just a form of distracting entertainment, that do nothing, fail to talk about the important parts of life, and ultimately facilitate the creation of an even greater dystopia for ourselves and future generations.
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    I've wondered if things might be compartmentalized enough in certain BigCorps that developers don't realize they are working on classified (or funded as dual-use) projects. For AI-in-the-loop, similarly for a long time I have framed that as an extension of heuristic-based-control-system development. I suppose implicitly that puts some or all of the onus on the developers.
    - verisimi 4y ago
      Things are absolutely compartmentalised. If devs genuinely believe that they are working for the greater good, what's to answer? But, pretending that you don't know what you do know, that you don't realise you are doing something that will negatively impact others, esp when it is easy to find these things out, won't wash. Remaining ignorant is a choice after all. I suspect that we will judge ourselves. If you find yourself wanting, there's time to change. > For AI-in-the-loop, similarly for a long time I have framed that as an extension of heuristic-based-control-system development. I suppose implicitly that puts some or all of the onus on the developers. Well, yes - AI doesn't come out of nowhere, it didn't invent and code itself. At least, I don't think that's how it occurred :) People have choices about what they do. They can choose to believe they live in a materialistic, amoral reality - as they are taught at school - and then pretend that they are 'good' with no culpability because they are doing what they are told (coding dystopia). Or they can try to become individuals and try to uncover the nature of reality for themselves and according to their principles and truth.

astrange 4y ago

> Soldiers may think they are working to defend their 'country' - but 'country' is a fiction and 'defence' is an inversion. Meaning is collaborative. It doesn’t matter if you’re a nihilist and want to declare your country doesn’t exist; the guy invading you makes it real. You can be a quisling, but defecting to the invader seems to admit they exist, at least.

verisimi 4y ago
Who's invading who now? What are the soldiers "defending"? Do you think that 'Department of Defense' is a misnomer? Howabout 'military aid'? Are these the sorts of linguistic meanings we are meant to collaborate on? I'm no collaborator, you know..

a9h74j 4y ago

Didn't follow your argument, but if AI: 1) gets advanced enough; and 2) goes out of control; won't it 3) take out the human at the off switch first?

verisimi 4y ago
I'm pointing out that the messages on ai and 'ethics' are mixed, confusing. That it is impossible to believe what is being stated. On the out of control thing, for me, ai is just a machine (a special machine, but not sentient as we are sometimes told) and will do whatever is most successful, as per the criteria it is given. If it is capable and can kill people, and that is stated as its goal, I'm sure it would do so. Its just a machine, it has no moral compass. I don't buy the hype that it would be able to choose its own goals - it can never be conscious, even if it can do a passable impression. What does happen is that the (moral) responsibility for ai deaths is shifted onto those who train and code it. Developers might not think of themselves as killers (like soldiers do), but in working on these projects that is what they become. When I point out the moral repercussions of coding, eg here and many other examples, eg privacy erosion, gameification, people don't like it. They want to take the money but not the responsibility or culpability their actions. They will pretend that they can defer their morality to an 'ethics committee'. So these sorts of articles are just a form of distracting entertainment, that do nothing, fail to talk about the important parts of life, and ultimately facilitate the creation of an even greater dystopia for ourselves and future generations.
- a9h74j 4y ago
  I've wondered if things might be compartmentalized enough in certain BigCorps that developers don't realize they are working on classified (or funded as dual-use) projects. For AI-in-the-loop, similarly for a long time I have framed that as an extension of heuristic-based-control-system development. I suppose implicitly that puts some or all of the onus on the developers.
  - verisimi 4y ago
    Things are absolutely compartmentalised. If devs genuinely believe that they are working for the greater good, what's to answer? But, pretending that you don't know what you do know, that you don't realise you are doing something that will negatively impact others, esp when it is easy to find these things out, won't wash. Remaining ignorant is a choice after all. I suspect that we will judge ourselves. If you find yourself wanting, there's time to change. > For AI-in-the-loop, similarly for a long time I have framed that as an extension of heuristic-based-control-system development. I suppose implicitly that puts some or all of the onus on the developers. Well, yes - AI doesn't come out of nowhere, it didn't invent and code itself. At least, I don't think that's how it occurred :) People have choices about what they do. They can choose to believe they live in a materialistic, amoral reality - as they are taught at school - and then pretend that they are 'good' with no culpability because they are doing what they are told (coding dystopia). Or they can try to become individuals and try to uncover the nature of reality for themselves and according to their principles and truth.