8 ms·

AI will always need humans in the loop to intervene. Remember the old IBM motto: 'A computer isn't accountable so a computer should never make a management deci

AI will always need humans in the loop to intervene. Remember the old IBM motto: 'A computer isn't accountable so a computer should never make a management decision'.

mcculley 4y ago
You think no company, government, organization, or religion will ever allow algorithms to make choices on how to deploy capital or otherwise affect the world without human approval?
- mattkrause 4y ago
  No, they absolutely will---and already do. The "moral" buck doesn't stop with the algorithm though. Whoever built, configured, or authorized the system is ultimately responsible. By analogy, my oven controls its heating element, but if dinner gets burnt, that's on me. That shouldn't change just because the control policy is more complicated.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    I agree. This is why I am surprised by the assertion and asking the person who made it.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    We already have a mechanism for absolving responsibility: the corporation. It allows shareholders to profit and not lose more than invested. When they invest in tobacco companies, for example, the system is working as designed.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > allows shareholders to profit and not lose more than invested To a degree. (See: piercing the veil.) Also, corporations need an authorised signer, who under current law must be a natural person.
      - mcculley 4y ago
        I am not talking about situations where there is really a bad human at the helm. I can buy shares in BP or Altria and not suffer any consequences beyond losing my investment no matter how many people those corporations kill. Having algorithms and AI models decide how to profit regardless of how it harms humans is the inevitable next step.
  - vkou 4y ago
    > Whoever built, configured, or authorized the system is ultimately responsible... That shouldn't change just because the control policy is more complicated. A poetic sentiment, but does not hold in reality. Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes being a square peg in a round hole can surely recall their frustration when a bureaucrat is refusing to do the common-sense thing, because The Computer is telling them something that is complete and utter nonsense. Once The Computer is part of any human process, its decisions, be they inscrutable, insane, or simply stupid are not to be questioned. The line drone that is using The Computer has no agency to countermand it, the line drone's manager has no agency in rebuilding, or re-configuring it, and the executive that authorized the system will never even be made aware of the problem. These problems exist when The Computer is simply executing the rules the programmer fed it, and will persist in the same way when The Computer is executing an inscrutable neural network. Except it'll be worse, because neural networks are capable of executing even more tasks poorly. ----- In theory you are responsible for, and control the heating element, but in practice, we're the society from Idiocracy that cooks everything by sticking it into the microwave, and pressing the 'Popcorn' button on it. I'm much of a mind that Frank Herbert's thought experiment had the right doctrinal approach to the question of artificial intelligence. Thou Shalt Not Make A Machine In The Likeness Of A Human Mind.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      > frustration when a bureaucrat is refusing to do the common-sense thing Bureaucracy-induced frustration predates computers by centuries.
      - vkou 4y ago
        Computers have, just like they have with a lot of other things, made insane enforcement of inapplicable rules more faster, cheaper, and more efficient, and have entirely diluted responsibility for them to the nebulous, unimpeachable, unreachable 'vendor'. A sufficiently large quantitative difference turns into a qualitative difference. We're becoming a people that, at work, are turning all of our thinking over to machines.
        4y ago
- moolcool 4y ago
  Algorithms deploy capital all the time. Some massive chunk of the stock market is just algorithmic trading, as is pricing on plane tickets, and on marketplaces like ebay and amazon.
  - juve1996 4y ago
    Algorithms are easily understood, not blackboxes like much of AI is.
  - mcculley 4y ago
    I agree. This is why I am surprised by the assertion and asking the person who made it.
krapp 4y ago
But they won't. Once AIs become advanced enough to be useful, humans will be removed from the loop wherever it becomes profitable to do so. Even before then, it will be attempted just because the potential reward is worth the risk. That's the entire goal of automation through AI, both in terms of centralizing the capture of value and distributing risk. Who do you blame when a fully autonomous AI corporation commits tax fraud? Who do you put in jail? Certainly not a person.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  Isn’t this how Google and Facebook bans already work? Maybe not using AI, but it’s automated and there’s no accountability or appeal or due process.
Oxidation 4y ago
"Should never" doesn't mean "will never", and one company's training slide doesn't have any more practical weight than Asimov's Laws do. Besides, it's predicted on accountability being something a large company would want. There's already a whole industry around accountability-washing as it is: management consultancy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rnk 4y ago
That's extremely naive. There's no leader of major companies today that would follow that in practice. They'd probably brag about doing the opposite (scaling our management by using AI to make easy decisions).
yamtaddle 4y ago
Noooooo. Absolutely not. The second it's a significant advantage in business or war to hand the reigns over to AI, no human in the loop, it will happen. Because the side that doesn't do it will lose, badly.
gremlinsinc 4y ago
What if man interfaces with an ai, and creates a brain that's 500x enhanced over modern humanity, and perhaps even 'linked' to other brains? Creating some sort of hive brain? Neuralink is already testing on humans or about to, and doesn't seem a far off notion that we'll be able to google or ask chatgpt questions directly from our thoughts, eventually our inner monologues might be an actual ai talking to us, etc.

AI will always need humans in the loop to intervene. Remember the old IBM motto: 'A computer isn't accountable so a computer should never make a management decision'.

mcculley 4y ago

You think no company, government, organization, or religion will ever allow algorithms to make choices on how to deploy capital or otherwise affect the world without human approval?

mattkrause 4y ago
No, they absolutely will---and already do. The "moral" buck doesn't stop with the algorithm though. Whoever built, configured, or authorized the system is ultimately responsible. By analogy, my oven controls its heating element, but if dinner gets burnt, that's on me. That shouldn't change just because the control policy is more complicated.
- mcculley 4y ago
  I agree. This is why I am surprised by the assertion and asking the person who made it.
- mcculley 4y ago
  We already have a mechanism for absolving responsibility: the corporation. It allows shareholders to profit and not lose more than invested. When they invest in tobacco companies, for example, the system is working as designed.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > allows shareholders to profit and not lose more than invested To a degree. (See: piercing the veil.) Also, corporations need an authorised signer, who under current law must be a natural person.
    - mcculley 4y ago
      I am not talking about situations where there is really a bad human at the helm. I can buy shares in BP or Altria and not suffer any consequences beyond losing my investment no matter how many people those corporations kill. Having algorithms and AI models decide how to profit regardless of how it harms humans is the inevitable next step.
- vkou 4y ago
  > Whoever built, configured, or authorized the system is ultimately responsible... That shouldn't change just because the control policy is more complicated. A poetic sentiment, but does not hold in reality. Anyone who has spent more than ten minutes being a square peg in a round hole can surely recall their frustration when a bureaucrat is refusing to do the common-sense thing, because The Computer is telling them something that is complete and utter nonsense. Once The Computer is part of any human process, its decisions, be they inscrutable, insane, or simply stupid are not to be questioned. The line drone that is using The Computer has no agency to countermand it, the line drone's manager has no agency in rebuilding, or re-configuring it, and the executive that authorized the system will never even be made aware of the problem. These problems exist when The Computer is simply executing the rules the programmer fed it, and will persist in the same way when The Computer is executing an inscrutable neural network. Except it'll be worse, because neural networks are capable of executing even more tasks poorly. ----- In theory you are responsible for, and control the heating element, but in practice, we're the society from Idiocracy that cooks everything by sticking it into the microwave, and pressing the 'Popcorn' button on it. I'm much of a mind that Frank Herbert's thought experiment had the right doctrinal approach to the question of artificial intelligence. Thou Shalt Not Make A Machine In The Likeness Of A Human Mind.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    > frustration when a bureaucrat is refusing to do the common-sense thing Bureaucracy-induced frustration predates computers by centuries.
    - vkou 4y ago
      Computers have, just like they have with a lot of other things, made insane enforcement of inapplicable rules more faster, cheaper, and more efficient, and have entirely diluted responsibility for them to the nebulous, unimpeachable, unreachable 'vendor'. A sufficiently large quantitative difference turns into a qualitative difference. We're becoming a people that, at work, are turning all of our thinking over to machines.
      - 4y ago
moolcool 4y ago
Algorithms deploy capital all the time. Some massive chunk of the stock market is just algorithmic trading, as is pricing on plane tickets, and on marketplaces like ebay and amazon.
- juve1996 4y ago
  Algorithms are easily understood, not blackboxes like much of AI is.
- mcculley 4y ago
  I agree. This is why I am surprised by the assertion and asking the person who made it.

krapp 4y ago

But they won't. Once AIs become advanced enough to be useful, humans will be removed from the loop wherever it becomes profitable to do so. Even before then, it will be attempted just because the potential reward is worth the risk. That's the entire goal of automation through AI, both in terms of centralizing the capture of value and distributing risk. Who do you blame when a fully autonomous AI corporation commits tax fraud? Who do you put in jail? Certainly not a person.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
Isn’t this how Google and Facebook bans already work? Maybe not using AI, but it’s automated and there’s no accountability or appeal or due process.

Oxidation 4y ago

"Should never" doesn't mean "will never", and one company's training slide doesn't have any more practical weight than Asimov's Laws do. Besides, it's predicted on accountability being something a large company would want. There's already a whole industry around accountability-washing as it is: management consultancy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rnk 4y ago

That's extremely naive. There's no leader of major companies today that would follow that in practice. They'd probably brag about doing the opposite (scaling our management by using AI to make easy decisions).

yamtaddle 4y ago

Noooooo. Absolutely not. The second it's a significant advantage in business or war to hand the reigns over to AI, no human in the loop, it will happen. Because the side that doesn't do it will lose, badly.

gremlinsinc 4y ago

What if man interfaces with an ai, and creates a brain that's 500x enhanced over modern humanity, and perhaps even 'linked' to other brains? Creating some sort of hive brain? Neuralink is already testing on humans or about to, and doesn't seem a far off notion that we'll be able to google or ask chatgpt questions directly from our thoughts, eventually our inner monologues might be an actual ai talking to us, etc.