3 ms·
That’s fair, you’re totally right. But, this is exposing why the drug addict analogy isn’t a great analogy relative to use of AI. I went along with it to find c
by dahart 4y ago
That’s fair, you’re totally right. But, this is exposing why the drug addict analogy isn’t a great analogy relative to use of AI. I went along with it to find common ground, but I don’t believe the existence of drug addicts are evidence that we lack any choice when it comes to building, deploying, or using AI, like @Herval_freire implied. Do you? I think we do have the freedom to exercise caution, or regulate the use of certain dangerous machines, if we want.
- Herval_freire 4y agoWe lack choice in aggregate. As an individual you have the choice of doing a drug. If I talk about a population of people and I introduce highly addictive drugs to a population of people, then it's almost a guarantee that part of that population will get addicted. In this sense it is not a choice. For AI, if I introduce AI to a population of people then for sure part of the population will exploit and use AI. Logically speaking in order to compete, others will have to start using it as well.
- dahart 4y agoWe can and do choose to regulate addictive drugs, and we can similarly choose to regulate AI if necessary, right?
- Herval_freire 4y agoThe fact that corporations and businesses will utilize AI to it's maximum extent is completely deterministic. This will happen. Whether or not humanity in aggregate will launch a delayed immune response against AI via government regulation is not predictable. Regulating addictive drugs has a certain amount of clarity in moral action but regulating technology to prevent job loss is less clear. We didn't regulate calculators for replacing humans did we? As I said, aspects of aggregate human behavior are deterministic. But I have to emphasize the "aspects" part because there are other "aspects" that are actually not predictable.