3 ms·

The problem is not robots killing people but robots making the decision to kill or not. Freak accidents like in the article happened with purely mechanical mach

The problem is not robots killing people but robots making the decision to kill or not. Freak accidents like in the article happened with purely mechanical machinery as well.

solardev 3y ago
I'd rather a calculating robot make that decision based on available data on the scene and preprogrammed rules of engagement rather than some teenager in a trailer looking at blurry aerial photos or some scared kid who just saw his buddy blow up next to him. Somehow the cold efficiency seems less cruel than adrenaline fueled vengeance.
- fragmede 3y ago
  Until the ML model hallucinates that Dora the Explorer is a terrorist and goes after school children with that cold efficiency, rather than a teenager saying "this is wrong" and refuses to airstrike an elementary school.
  - feoren 3y ago
    I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the scenario you're imagining here. Are you really just completely fabricating nonsense scenarios as some sort of counterargument? Can we just make up anything we want? "Until the AI hallucinates that Christopher Walken is actually the Egyptian God-Emperor Ramses II and starts grinding human beings into cement to create a giant pyramid in his honor. Is that what you want, huh!?" Does the actual probability of that happening factor into your consideration at all? Compare that to the probability of human beings air-striking elementary schools, which humans have shown many times they're perfectly willing to do during war.
    - shortcake27 3y ago
      > Until the AI hallucinates that Christopher Walken is actually the Egyptian God-Emperor Ramses II and starts grinding human beings into cement to create a giant pyramid in his honor. Is that what you want, huh!? I’ve had a few beers, but this is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long while.
    - snypher 3y ago
      The comment was trying to convey a false positive in the targeting system that would result in many casualties. Given we have already seen AI mis-identify subjects and that we don't understand how an AI can "dream"/other edge cases, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine some xk-class/mass casualty scenario.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    Teenagers in “the land of the free” shoot up schools every week. So if your argument hinges on the idea that a teenager wouldn’t kill innocent people, I have very bad news for you.
  - solardev 3y ago
    For sure mistakes and accidents will happen. I sure hope we won't program them on purpose to go on school shooting sprees though, or massacre unarmed villagers, or pee on prisoners and torture them for fun... all I'm saying is we don't need to hypothesize about possible AI evils when humans are already there. Why is it given that an AI or algorithm has to be less ethical than humans? I don't think it has to be, and hell, ChatGpt (with or without guidance/censorship) already shows a greater capacity for moral reasoning than some (many?) humans. We didn't evolve for some sort of absolute moral superiority, we're just a smart violent ape with in and out groups, quite prone to otherization and dehumanization on a whim. And we elect, follow, and worship sociopaths that strongly exhibit those traits... over and over. Every parent hopes their children will be better people. With AI we might actually be able to make that happen, unbounded by human genetics, though of course other challenges will arise. Shrug. Maybe Skynet is around the corner. But maybe not. There's uncertainty and thus hope there, at least, whereas I guarantee you the human species, unchanged, will keep producing genocidal dictators every decade or three.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

The problem is not robots killing people but robots making the decision to kill or not. Freak accidents like in the article happened with purely mechanical machinery as well.

solardev 3y ago

I'd rather a calculating robot make that decision based on available data on the scene and preprogrammed rules of engagement rather than some teenager in a trailer looking at blurry aerial photos or some scared kid who just saw his buddy blow up next to him. Somehow the cold efficiency seems less cruel than adrenaline fueled vengeance.

fragmede 3y ago
Until the ML model hallucinates that Dora the Explorer is a terrorist and goes after school children with that cold efficiency, rather than a teenager saying "this is wrong" and refuses to airstrike an elementary school.
- feoren 3y ago
  I'm having a lot of trouble understanding the scenario you're imagining here. Are you really just completely fabricating nonsense scenarios as some sort of counterargument? Can we just make up anything we want? "Until the AI hallucinates that Christopher Walken is actually the Egyptian God-Emperor Ramses II and starts grinding human beings into cement to create a giant pyramid in his honor. Is that what you want, huh!?" Does the actual probability of that happening factor into your consideration at all? Compare that to the probability of human beings air-striking elementary schools, which humans have shown many times they're perfectly willing to do during war.
  - shortcake27 3y ago
    > Until the AI hallucinates that Christopher Walken is actually the Egyptian God-Emperor Ramses II and starts grinding human beings into cement to create a giant pyramid in his honor. Is that what you want, huh!? I’ve had a few beers, but this is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long while.
  - snypher 3y ago
    The comment was trying to convey a false positive in the targeting system that would result in many casualties. Given we have already seen AI mis-identify subjects and that we don't understand how an AI can "dream"/other edge cases, it doesn't seem much of a stretch to imagine some xk-class/mass casualty scenario.
- shortcake27 3y ago
  Teenagers in “the land of the free” shoot up schools every week. So if your argument hinges on the idea that a teenager wouldn’t kill innocent people, I have very bad news for you.
- solardev 3y ago
  For sure mistakes and accidents will happen. I sure hope we won't program them on purpose to go on school shooting sprees though, or massacre unarmed villagers, or pee on prisoners and torture them for fun... all I'm saying is we don't need to hypothesize about possible AI evils when humans are already there. Why is it given that an AI or algorithm has to be less ethical than humans? I don't think it has to be, and hell, ChatGpt (with or without guidance/censorship) already shows a greater capacity for moral reasoning than some (many?) humans. We didn't evolve for some sort of absolute moral superiority, we're just a smart violent ape with in and out groups, quite prone to otherization and dehumanization on a whim. And we elect, follow, and worship sociopaths that strongly exhibit those traits... over and over. Every parent hopes their children will be better people. With AI we might actually be able to make that happen, unbounded by human genetics, though of course other challenges will arise. Shrug. Maybe Skynet is around the corner. But maybe not. There's uncertainty and thus hope there, at least, whereas I guarantee you the human species, unchanged, will keep producing genocidal dictators every decade or three.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]