4 ms·

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 ulti

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.
    - Eleison23 4y ago
      [dead]

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.
  - Eleison23 4y ago
    [dead]