6 ms·
Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.
by aftbit 4y ago
Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.
- mirchibajji 4y agoThis is a case of people actively building and deciding to use a tool with plausible deniability built-in. How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? It is much more reasonable to require that people use a tool that shows its work.
- everforward 4y ago> How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? This happens with or without AI. It's not too hard to make an algorithm that discriminates against people without doing so explicitly. You can use certain bits of data as proxies for whatever characteristic you want to discriminate against (e.g. ZIP code, household income, marital status, etc). Due to the myriad of ways to arrive at a discriminatory conclusion, it's easier to regulate results than tools. One potential solution to your question is to make the laws carry strict liability (I'm assuming the EU has something along those lines). Plausible deniability no longer exists because intent doesn't matter. The company is liable if someone can demonstrate discrimination, regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental. That ends up pushing towards something similar to what you want. It encourages a tool that can show its work to fend off lawsuits without being directly tied to the tool itself. The other alternative is extensive testing to make sure discrimination doesn't happen, but I think that will still be worrying to companies due to the inability to prove a negative.
- ip26 4y agoHow about harmful tools with no practical uses to the general public? Mortars, tanks, ketamine, ICBM GPS units… You’re taking an absolutist position, so I’d like to explore it.
- M4v3R 4y agoCurious that you’ve put ketamine, a well known anesthetic used primary by the vets but recently also used in depression treatment [1], in that list of “harmful tools with no practical uses”. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine-assisted_psychotherapy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine-assisted_psychotherap...
- ip26 4y agoVets and psychotherapists are not “the general public”. Every item I listed has a clear and valuable purpose, but only in specific contexts.
- M4v3R 4y agoYeah I would consider pet owners and people with depression (so groups of people that benefit from this specific tool) a part of general public, both are fairly large groups.
- ip26 4y agoAnd ketamine is employed by trained professionals appropriately in veterinary hospitals and psychotherapy contexts. The public does not need unregulated access to ketamine for this to happen.
- neural_thing 4y agoComputers are employed by trained professionals appropriately in military contexts. The public does not need access to computers for this to happen.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoThere's no task I cannot complete without ketamine, except for the consumption of ketamine itself. Without a computer I cannot perform my job, nor basically perform any modern professional job.