6 ms·

I think what's missing is an axis for humanness. There are jobs where the fact you're hiring a literal human actually matters. For one, humans can be responsibl

I think what's missing is an axis for humanness. There are jobs where the fact you're hiring a literal human actually matters. For one, humans can be responsible in a legal way. Pilots, various kinds of certification officials, accountants, lawyers. Two, being done by a human can be the very thing that makes the service worth buying. Masseurs, high class escorts, and butlers are all roles that machines can somewhat cater to, but the real thing is real because it's done by a person.

CamelCaseName 4y ago
But why should humans carry liability? Why not have a company (e.g. a self-driving car company) hold all the liability.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Thing I didn't mention is aligned incentives. "Pilot also wants to arrive safely so he can see his family."
  - ljlolel 4y ago
    true for pilots but not true for your other examples: "officials, accountants, lawyers"
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      But we've constructed other incentives for those people, like being allowed to keep your certification. What you say makes sense though, you should believe the pilot is in the same boat as you. Your lawyer... well there's a reason jokes about lawyers focus on why they screw over everyone else.
  - protomolecule 4y ago
    Unless he doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
    - arroz 4y ago
      Congrats on finding a corner case
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tel 4y ago
  Some forms of liability only scale with the ability of the justice system to mete out suitable punishment. Murder is disincentivized because the punishment is, essentially, losing your freedom and sovereignty entirely. This plays both a role individually and socially. It's important to the individual's calculus to understand what is at stake and it's importance to them. It's also important socially for people to feel safe that punishment is commensurate and sufficient. This doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that scales to companies or AI. It's not clear to me what the analogue would be, it's not clear that these analogues would serve the important social purposes they must, and it's not clear that the justice system has the power or capability to deliver these punishments. Today's society is, in large part, based on the ability for society/governments to enact brutal violence on bad actors at a scale commensurate, in the worst cases, with their entire being.
G_z9 4y ago
[flagged]
- mejutoco 4y ago
  > if any country doesn’t allow AIs to do such jobs because of legal or liability reasons, then some other country will Some other country _might_. Let's look at the past. Which country has allowed fully autonomous vehicles without the driver being responsible in case of accidents?
  - G_z9 4y ago
    There is no such thing as a fully autonomous vehicle. There are only highly autonomous vehicles that require a human to be present in the case of an emergency, ie trains. That will no longer be the case. The AIs will eventually be much better at handling emergencies, driving, everything than humans. Which country in history had a habit of truly passing up on hugely significant economic or military resources based on some principled idea? None. Because all the ones that did couldn’t survive. You really are going to try to argue that geopolitics is powered by virtue?
    - arroz 4y ago
      That’s not true, there are fully autonomous vehicles. The reason we don’t see it daily — and I doubt we ever will - is that AI will always make mistakes. But you can’t put in jail an AI and the way they make mistakes is unpredictable to humans. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota-halts-all-self-driving-e-pallete-vehicles-after-olympic-village-accident-2021-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...
      - G_z9 4y ago
        You’re contradicting yourself. You say there are fully autonomous vehicles but they aren’t capable of autonomously driving themselves fully. Ie they aren’t fully autonomous. So that aren’t any fully autonomous vehicles. Ok so now you’re saying that AGI is impossible. That’s a completely different argument. And it’s wrong to reject regulation based on that argument because it can’t be proven. So you can’t reject regulation that way and you can’t reject it with your idea about humans having intrinsic value. So you are forced to support regulation of AI.
wslh 4y ago
Since the article is about "affected" and not specifically about "losing jobs" we can say that butlers, high class escorts, and masseurs will use ChatGPT as well so they will be affected.
- KyeRussell 4y ago
  Just you wait until the fleshlight plug-in drops.

CamelCaseName 4y ago

But why should humans carry liability? Why not have a company (e.g. a self-driving car company) hold all the liability.

lordnacho 4y ago
Thing I didn't mention is aligned incentives. "Pilot also wants to arrive safely so he can see his family."
- ljlolel 4y ago
  true for pilots but not true for your other examples: "officials, accountants, lawyers"
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    But we've constructed other incentives for those people, like being allowed to keep your certification. What you say makes sense though, you should believe the pilot is in the same boat as you. Your lawyer... well there's a reason jokes about lawyers focus on why they screw over everyone else.
- protomolecule 4y ago
  Unless he doesn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanwings_Flight_9525
  - arroz 4y ago
    Congrats on finding a corner case
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tel 4y ago
Some forms of liability only scale with the ability of the justice system to mete out suitable punishment. Murder is disincentivized because the punishment is, essentially, losing your freedom and sovereignty entirely. This plays both a role individually and socially. It's important to the individual's calculus to understand what is at stake and it's importance to them. It's also important socially for people to feel safe that punishment is commensurate and sufficient. This doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that scales to companies or AI. It's not clear to me what the analogue would be, it's not clear that these analogues would serve the important social purposes they must, and it's not clear that the justice system has the power or capability to deliver these punishments. Today's society is, in large part, based on the ability for society/governments to enact brutal violence on bad actors at a scale commensurate, in the worst cases, with their entire being.

G_z9 4y ago

[flagged]

mejutoco 4y ago
> if any country doesn’t allow AIs to do such jobs because of legal or liability reasons, then some other country will Some other country _might_. Let's look at the past. Which country has allowed fully autonomous vehicles without the driver being responsible in case of accidents?
- G_z9 4y ago
  There is no such thing as a fully autonomous vehicle. There are only highly autonomous vehicles that require a human to be present in the case of an emergency, ie trains. That will no longer be the case. The AIs will eventually be much better at handling emergencies, driving, everything than humans. Which country in history had a habit of truly passing up on hugely significant economic or military resources based on some principled idea? None. Because all the ones that did couldn’t survive. You really are going to try to argue that geopolitics is powered by virtue?
  - arroz 4y ago
    That’s not true, there are fully autonomous vehicles. The reason we don’t see it daily — and I doubt we ever will - is that AI will always make mistakes. But you can’t put in jail an AI and the way they make mistakes is unpredictable to humans. https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota-halts-all-self-driving-e-pallete-vehicles-after-olympic-village-accident-2021-08-27/ https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/toyota...
    - G_z9 4y ago
      You’re contradicting yourself. You say there are fully autonomous vehicles but they aren’t capable of autonomously driving themselves fully. Ie they aren’t fully autonomous. So that aren’t any fully autonomous vehicles. Ok so now you’re saying that AGI is impossible. That’s a completely different argument. And it’s wrong to reject regulation based on that argument because it can’t be proven. So you can’t reject regulation that way and you can’t reject it with your idea about humans having intrinsic value. So you are forced to support regulation of AI.

wslh 4y ago

Since the article is about "affected" and not specifically about "losing jobs" we can say that butlers, high class escorts, and masseurs will use ChatGPT as well so they will be affected.

KyeRussell 4y ago
Just you wait until the fleshlight plug-in drops.