4 ms·

The difference regarding computers is that they absolutely cannot make a mistake a human would have avoided easily (like driving full speed into a lorry). That'

The difference regarding computers is that they absolutely cannot make a mistake a human would have avoided easily (like driving full speed into a lorry). That's the threshold for acceptable safety.

ajross 4y ago
I agree in practice that may be what ends up been necessary. But again, to repeat: that's because of the "HN Front Page Freakout" problem. The unambiguously correct answer to the problem is "is it measurably more safe by any metric you want to pick". Period. How much stuff is broken, people hurt, etc... Those are all quantifiable. (Also: your example is ridiculous. Human beings "drive full speed" into obstacles every single day! Tesla cross that threshold years ago.)
- danenania 4y ago
  This is not necessarily true on an individual level though. Driving skills, judgment, risk-taking, alcoholism, etc. are nowhere close to evenly distributed. It's likely we'll go through a period where autonomous vehicles can reduce the overall number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities if widely adopted, but will still increase someone's personal risk vs. driving manually if they're a better than average driver.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  But we don't live by a purely utilitarian principle of ethics. "I'm sorry Mrs Jones, I know your son had an expectation of crossing that pedestrian crossing in full daylight in a residential area without being mown down by a machine learning algorithm gone awry, but please rest assured that overall fewer people are dying as a result of humans not making the common set of different mistakes they used to make". All sorts of other factors are relevant to the ethics: who took the decision to drive; who's benefiting from the drive happening; is there a reasonable expectation of safety.
  - ajross 4y ago
    Yeah yeah, I get it. Moral philosophy is full of gray areas. I don't see how that remotely supports "AI cannot be allowed to make mistakes some humans would not", which was your decidedly absolutist position above. How about: "We should allow autonomy in most cases, though perhaps regulate it carefully to better measure its performance against manually-directed systems"

The difference regarding computers is that they absolutely cannot make a mistake a human would have avoided easily (like driving full speed into a lorry). That's the threshold for acceptable safety.

ajross 4y ago

I agree in practice that may be what ends up been necessary. But again, to repeat: that's because of the "HN Front Page Freakout" problem. The unambiguously correct answer to the problem is "is it measurably more safe by any metric you want to pick". Period. How much stuff is broken, people hurt, etc... Those are all quantifiable. (Also: your example is ridiculous. Human beings "drive full speed" into obstacles every single day! Tesla cross that threshold years ago.)

danenania 4y ago
This is not necessarily true on an individual level though. Driving skills, judgment, risk-taking, alcoholism, etc. are nowhere close to evenly distributed. It's likely we'll go through a period where autonomous vehicles can reduce the overall number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities if widely adopted, but will still increase someone's personal risk vs. driving manually if they're a better than average driver.
hgomersall 4y ago
But we don't live by a purely utilitarian principle of ethics. "I'm sorry Mrs Jones, I know your son had an expectation of crossing that pedestrian crossing in full daylight in a residential area without being mown down by a machine learning algorithm gone awry, but please rest assured that overall fewer people are dying as a result of humans not making the common set of different mistakes they used to make". All sorts of other factors are relevant to the ethics: who took the decision to drive; who's benefiting from the drive happening; is there a reasonable expectation of safety.
- ajross 4y ago
  Yeah yeah, I get it. Moral philosophy is full of gray areas. I don't see how that remotely supports "AI cannot be allowed to make mistakes some humans would not", which was your decidedly absolutist position above. How about: "We should allow autonomy in most cases, though perhaps regulate it carefully to better measure its performance against manually-directed systems"