3 ms·

> Laws are not algorithms, because a human legal system has wiggle room. Is this "wiggle room" the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms, so funda

> Laws are not algorithms, because a human legal system has wiggle room. Is this "wiggle room" the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms, so fundamental that we have to fear values withering when algorithms rule, but not when laws rule? Is it the reason the ruling class can't operate through laws, only through algorithms? Does it prevent humans executing policies from saying that "it's not my fault, it's just policy"?

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> this "wiggle room" the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms, so fundamental that we have to fear values withering when algorithms rule, but not when laws rule? Yes. No rule is clairvoyant. All exceptions cannot be anticipated; exceptions have to be adapted to or stomped out. The law aims to do the former. Algorithms deliver the latter. > the ruling class can't operate through laws, only through algorithms Dictators’ decrees are closer to algorithms than law. They’re absolute in a way laws are not. To the degree they diverge, it’s in the enforcement, which is a sloppier version of the law.
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> Is this "wiggle room" the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms, so fundamental that we have to fear values withering when algorithms rule, but not when laws rule? It's more that human values have never been formalized before. It's not clear they can be formalized in a succinct form. This is actually the core problem of AI safety: if (when) we build a human-level-smart general AI, it will have some set of values, but unless those values are perfectly in line with ours, this exercise will most likely turn lethal to humanity. Or, conversely, it seems that fully specifying what human values are is equivalent to building an aligned, human-level general AI. Thus, the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms is that laws are executed by humans. The shared value system is implicitly embedded in the system. Even the best algorithms we can come up with today can't replicate that, which means treating their output as binding will result in judgements we'd generally consider immoral, unjust and wrong.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> this "wiggle room" the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms, so fundamental that we have to fear values withering when algorithms rule, but not when laws rule? Yes. No rule is clairvoyant. All exceptions cannot be anticipated; exceptions have to be adapted to or stomped out. The law aims to do the former. Algorithms deliver the latter. > the ruling class can't operate through laws, only through algorithms Dictators’ decrees are closer to algorithms than law. They’re absolute in a way laws are not. To the degree they diverge, it’s in the enforcement, which is a sloppier version of the law.

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> Is this "wiggle room" the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms, so fundamental that we have to fear values withering when algorithms rule, but not when laws rule? It's more that human values have never been formalized before. It's not clear they can be formalized in a succinct form. This is actually the core problem of AI safety: if (when) we build a human-level-smart general AI, it will have some set of values, but unless those values are perfectly in line with ours, this exercise will most likely turn lethal to humanity. Or, conversely, it seems that fully specifying what human values are is equivalent to building an aligned, human-level general AI. Thus, the fundamental difference between laws and algorithms is that laws are executed by humans. The shared value system is implicitly embedded in the system. Even the best algorithms we can come up with today can't replicate that, which means treating their output as binding will result in judgements we'd generally consider immoral, unjust and wrong.