4 ms·

The main issue I see is terminology. Ethics is a broad field. “AI Ethics” has come to mean mostly eliminating different kinds of bias from AI models. However

The main issue I see is terminology. Ethics is a broad field. “AI Ethics” has come to mean mostly eliminating different kinds of bias from AI models. However, AI raises multitudes of ethical questions, and merely being unbiased is far from enough for an AI model (or a person) to be acting ethically.

skissane 4y ago
Whenever I hear the word “ethics” I always ask myself “whose”. I hate how people talk about ethics as if it was some non-controversial topic where everyone can clearly see what the “right” answers are. This world features a competition between radically opposed ethical systems. We don’t agree on whether ethics is objective (i.e. some people’s ethics are superior to those of others) or subjective (i.e. “superior” is just another way of saying “same as my own”), and even those who agree that it is objective, often can’t agree on who is objectively more correct, even though they both agree that in principle someone must be. I much prefer those who talk about ethics while making clear which brand of ethics they are selling - whether their name is John Rawls or Robert Nozick or Peter Singer or Edward Feser - than people who pretend we all agree on what is ethical, and leave their actual ethics as something to be inferred rather than openly advertised. From what I’ve seen, “AI ethics” fails at this completely
- narag 4y ago
  Often when they say ethics they mean politics, their politics specifically. For me, democracy is a system where persons can vote for their interests. Different persons have different interests and that's good. You must compromise with others so everybody gets partly satisfied. Others see democracy as a way to establish truth, those are the ones talking about ethics. Even if they lose, they still believe they must win, because they're right and the others wrong.
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    Partly satisfied is not ethical enough. An ethical version would end up with equitable compromises... (I probably do not have to spell out economic implications of that.)
- hgsgm 4y ago
  The brand is obvious- it's the author's ethics. Why shoehorn into someone else's brand? Sam Bankman-Fried claimed "Effective Altruiat" ethics. What is the value in demanding someone lie about their vrand?
  - skissane 4y ago
    Someone like Peter Singer - he’s very clear about what his first principles are, and that his first principles are very different from those of many other people. I think some of the conclusions he draws from those principles are horrific - e.g. painless infanticide should be legal with parental consent. But, whatever you think of him, nobody could accuse him of being non-transparent about what his principles are. By contrast, these “AI ethics” people aren’t clear about what their first principles are, or how those principles differ from those of other people. In that regard, as horrible as Singer’s conclusions may be, he’s vastly more honest and transparent and self-aware than the average “AI ethicist”

skissane 4y ago

Whenever I hear the word “ethics” I always ask myself “whose”. I hate how people talk about ethics as if it was some non-controversial topic where everyone can clearly see what the “right” answers are. This world features a competition between radically opposed ethical systems. We don’t agree on whether ethics is objective (i.e. some people’s ethics are superior to those of others) or subjective (i.e. “superior” is just another way of saying “same as my own”), and even those who agree that it is objective, often can’t agree on who is objectively more correct, even though they both agree that in principle someone must be. I much prefer those who talk about ethics while making clear which brand of ethics they are selling - whether their name is John Rawls or Robert Nozick or Peter Singer or Edward Feser - than people who pretend we all agree on what is ethical, and leave their actual ethics as something to be inferred rather than openly advertised. From what I’ve seen, “AI ethics” fails at this completely

narag 4y ago
Often when they say ethics they mean politics, their politics specifically. For me, democracy is a system where persons can vote for their interests. Different persons have different interests and that's good. You must compromise with others so everybody gets partly satisfied. Others see democracy as a way to establish truth, those are the ones talking about ethics. Even if they lose, they still believe they must win, because they're right and the others wrong.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Partly satisfied is not ethical enough. An ethical version would end up with equitable compromises... (I probably do not have to spell out economic implications of that.)
hgsgm 4y ago
The brand is obvious- it's the author's ethics. Why shoehorn into someone else's brand? Sam Bankman-Fried claimed "Effective Altruiat" ethics. What is the value in demanding someone lie about their vrand?
- skissane 4y ago
  Someone like Peter Singer - he’s very clear about what his first principles are, and that his first principles are very different from those of many other people. I think some of the conclusions he draws from those principles are horrific - e.g. painless infanticide should be legal with parental consent. But, whatever you think of him, nobody could accuse him of being non-transparent about what his principles are. By contrast, these “AI ethics” people aren’t clear about what their first principles are, or how those principles differ from those of other people. In that regard, as horrible as Singer’s conclusions may be, he’s vastly more honest and transparent and self-aware than the average “AI ethicist”