4 ms·

Intentionality is a central concept in AI philosophy - from debates between Dennet, Churchland and Searle going back to the 1980s. Aat this stage I agree that

Intentionality is a central concept in AI philosophy - from debates between Dennet, Churchland and Searle going back to the 1980s. Aat this stage I agree that we are dealing with "blind machines", with no more "intention" than a steam engine. However, the central argument in Schneier's piece seems to be that robots inherit the intentionality of their creators. If I create a machine that kills someone, my "intentionality" is fair game to be dissected in court, and ultimately I may be found guilty as if I had killed with my own hands. That is the kind of high bar I think society expects, and is certainly one that should scare the crap out of robotics developers (aside: I have been one) to ensure the highest standards of engineering discipline and industrial ethics.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Nah. Idiots walk into machinery all the time. Put up signs, do safety training, yell "Stop!" and still Darwin takes his share. It's definitely fair to consider the 'intentionality' of the idiot too.
- LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
  > Idiots walk into machinery all the time. Put up signs, do safety training, yell "Stop!" and still Darwin takes his share. It's still on leadership if they choose to hire idiots who get hurt. The solution is: don't hire idiots. If you look historically at manufacturing and the origins of signage and safety training, you'll find them mandated by the government (i.e. OSHA, etc.) because those things weren't always voluntarily provided by the employer. Upton Sinclair opened our eyes to this 100 years ago.
  - taneq 3y ago
    What you're missing here is the numbers game. The size of the operation vs. the tolerance for worker injuries has a massive impact on this stuff. When you run a shop with five experienced people, if each of them has a 1-in-a-million chance of getting seriously injured on any given day, each year you have a 1-in-548 chance of a serious injury. Any sane person would call this risk acceptable. If you run a shop with 5000 people of equal skill level to those five above, you're talking a couple of deaths or permanent disability injuries per year, just from the numbers. Any rational person would say hey, that's the same risk, why are you mad? But society isn't rational and if any legal entity no matter how large kills or maims a couple of workers a day, there's an outcry and executive heads will roll. So yeah, they try to do better. At this point maybe 'hire smarter people' works? Now imagine you're running a multinational company with 500,000 people. If you operate like that original shop you'll see a couple of hundred deaths in your first year and then get sued into oblivion or lynched, and remember those were skilled experts. There aren't 500,000 skilled experts available for hire, and most of these jobs are ahem less skilled anyway, so you're hiring people with much higher rates of personal injury. To operate at this level you need to do stuff that seems dumb to the uninitiated, like relying on layers of subcontracting companies for everything while implementing byzantine and ever-shifting safety regulations that each subcontractor must commit to following. Sure, it costs an order of magnitude more, but it's worth it for the severability.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Heavy machinery (in production) is designed that you cannot just walk into them and will stop, if you do. It is a bit different approach from software engeneering.
  - tstrimple 3y ago
    Folks who have grown up on the internet have likely seen plenty of video evidence to the contrary.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Well, I probably have to add, that my point of view comes from old school german engeneering (through my dad). His approach to building something vs. mine as a software dev are quite different .. And the accidents that I know of, are where the security mechanism have been tampered with. A proper designed and certified german machine is hard to get injured by if followed protocol (and the reasons are past accidents and suing the manufactor).
- iosono88 3y ago
  [dead]
- bbor 3y ago
  Wow, this is absurdly callous IMO. How dumb does one have to be to deserve death? Why do we have lines on the road when discerning drivers could just avoid other cars without them? I think the idea that industrial deaths are inevitable/NBD/the fault of the victim is more outlandish than it’s implied to be in your comment
  - TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
    It’s victim-blaming which apparently is still a thing, even though we practically banned that talk in regards to rape victims.
amelius 3y ago
Basically the same as when your company produced a pesticide that caused cancer and killed someone. There was no intent in the molecule, but there was at the very least negligence on the side of the producer; if they knew about any negative side effects but swept it under the rug, then I suppose it could qualify as manslaughter. In short, nothing really new here.
rob74 3y ago
> If I create a machine that kills someone, my "intentionality" is fair game to be dissected in court, and ultimately I may be found guilty as if I had killed with my own hands. The weapons industry (and its lobby organization, the NRA) would like to have a word with you...
- Yiin 3y ago
  weapons are made with intention to harm or kill and you using one wouldn't expect anything else, so this argument is weak at best.
  - webmaven 3y ago
    Any regulation aimed at reducing the odds of accidental death has been fought tooth and nail by the industry and its lobbyists. So not all that weak, really.
    - hnbad 3y ago
      The argument is weak. The industry's argument isn't that. The industry's argument is money. Money is a very strong argument.
gcanyon 3y ago
> Intentionality is a central concept in AI philosophy Sure (and thanks for pointing this out) but this isn’t a philosophical piece, it was written for the Atlantic, and he’s being careless with his language.

JoeAltmaier 3y ago

Nah. Idiots walk into machinery all the time. Put up signs, do safety training, yell "Stop!" and still Darwin takes his share. It's definitely fair to consider the 'intentionality' of the idiot too.

LapsangGuzzler 3y ago
> Idiots walk into machinery all the time. Put up signs, do safety training, yell "Stop!" and still Darwin takes his share. It's still on leadership if they choose to hire idiots who get hurt. The solution is: don't hire idiots. If you look historically at manufacturing and the origins of signage and safety training, you'll find them mandated by the government (i.e. OSHA, etc.) because those things weren't always voluntarily provided by the employer. Upton Sinclair opened our eyes to this 100 years ago.
- taneq 3y ago
  What you're missing here is the numbers game. The size of the operation vs. the tolerance for worker injuries has a massive impact on this stuff. When you run a shop with five experienced people, if each of them has a 1-in-a-million chance of getting seriously injured on any given day, each year you have a 1-in-548 chance of a serious injury. Any sane person would call this risk acceptable. If you run a shop with 5000 people of equal skill level to those five above, you're talking a couple of deaths or permanent disability injuries per year, just from the numbers. Any rational person would say hey, that's the same risk, why are you mad? But society isn't rational and if any legal entity no matter how large kills or maims a couple of workers a day, there's an outcry and executive heads will roll. So yeah, they try to do better. At this point maybe 'hire smarter people' works? Now imagine you're running a multinational company with 500,000 people. If you operate like that original shop you'll see a couple of hundred deaths in your first year and then get sued into oblivion or lynched, and remember those were skilled experts. There aren't 500,000 skilled experts available for hire, and most of these jobs are ahem less skilled anyway, so you're hiring people with much higher rates of personal injury. To operate at this level you need to do stuff that seems dumb to the uninitiated, like relying on layers of subcontracting companies for everything while implementing byzantine and ever-shifting safety regulations that each subcontractor must commit to following. Sure, it costs an order of magnitude more, but it's worth it for the severability.
hutzlibu 3y ago
Heavy machinery (in production) is designed that you cannot just walk into them and will stop, if you do. It is a bit different approach from software engeneering.
- tstrimple 3y ago
  Folks who have grown up on the internet have likely seen plenty of video evidence to the contrary.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Well, I probably have to add, that my point of view comes from old school german engeneering (through my dad). His approach to building something vs. mine as a software dev are quite different .. And the accidents that I know of, are where the security mechanism have been tampered with. A proper designed and certified german machine is hard to get injured by if followed protocol (and the reasons are past accidents and suing the manufactor).
iosono88 3y ago
[dead]
bbor 3y ago
Wow, this is absurdly callous IMO. How dumb does one have to be to deserve death? Why do we have lines on the road when discerning drivers could just avoid other cars without them? I think the idea that industrial deaths are inevitable/NBD/the fault of the victim is more outlandish than it’s implied to be in your comment
- TedDoesntTalk 3y ago
  It’s victim-blaming which apparently is still a thing, even though we practically banned that talk in regards to rape victims.

amelius 3y ago

Basically the same as when your company produced a pesticide that caused cancer and killed someone. There was no intent in the molecule, but there was at the very least negligence on the side of the producer; if they knew about any negative side effects but swept it under the rug, then I suppose it could qualify as manslaughter. In short, nothing really new here.

rob74 3y ago

> If I create a machine that kills someone, my "intentionality" is fair game to be dissected in court, and ultimately I may be found guilty as if I had killed with my own hands. The weapons industry (and its lobby organization, the NRA) would like to have a word with you...

Yiin 3y ago
weapons are made with intention to harm or kill and you using one wouldn't expect anything else, so this argument is weak at best.
- webmaven 3y ago
  Any regulation aimed at reducing the odds of accidental death has been fought tooth and nail by the industry and its lobbyists. So not all that weak, really.
  - hnbad 3y ago
    The argument is weak. The industry's argument isn't that. The industry's argument is money. Money is a very strong argument.

gcanyon 3y ago

> Intentionality is a central concept in AI philosophy Sure (and thanks for pointing this out) but this isn’t a philosophical piece, it was written for the Atlantic, and he’s being careless with his language.