4 ms·
"but if you're running an autonomous vehicle or a factory system or something similar, relying on mysterious weights and fuzziness to make critical decisions so
by hutzlibu 3y ago
"but if you're running an autonomous vehicle or a factory system or something similar, relying on mysterious weights and fuzziness to make critical decisions sounds like a disaster."
When your brain messes up and you have an accident, isn't that a pretty similar scenario?
Sometimes people make misstakes - some more than others and we do tests to determine whether a human can do a job good enough by its results, without examining their brains.
With autonomous cars it can be the same. Lots of tests - and if it safely can handle complex situations reliable - that would be good enough for me. (But I think we are currently pretty far from it)
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago> When your brain messes up and you have an accident, isn't that a pretty similar scenario? When LLM's start going to jail for killing people then we can consider them equivalent. Until that happens, they must be held to a higher standard specifically because the incentives aren't there otherwise.
- chii 3y agoIt's an interesting discussion point for autonomous driving: we set the bar quite high for it, but accept really shitty human drivers without question. What could be changed to make autonomous driving more acceptable without improving the underlying tech, but improving the blame game in law and civil liability?
- Exoristos 3y agoNo, we have traffic laws.
- ben_w 3y agoAI cars are on par with average of all humans. AI cars are not considered good enough. Many humans who are worse drivers than the AI are still on the roads despite the traffic laws.
- hutzlibu 3y ago"Many humans who are worse drivers than the AI are still on the roads despite the traffic laws." Instead of letting AI in alpha state on the streets, I rather vote for consequently removing the worse humans, by making regular tests for everyone mandatory. Not discriminate by age, but by skill. And AI can come, after we stop seeing all those fails of them on youtube.
- ben_w 3y agoGreat. Now, care to guess why this isn't already the case?
- chii 3y agoIt's hard to prove that they are a bad driver, since they did pass the existing driving test (at least once). The fact that they're a bad driver is only provable after they're in an accident from their own fault. And even then, it's only grievious fault that they get banned from driving (such as drunk driving). However, this standard is not applied to autonomous driving, since they can pass the human driving test and yet is not accepted as capable.
- hutzlibu 3y agoStrong lobby from the bad drivers?
- ben_w 3y agoInsufficient. How would they have the political power to do that in basically every country on the planet since the invention of the horseless carriage?
- ben_w 3y agoI doubt most drivers actually seriously consider the possibility of jail if they mess up. Nasty bump, might be late for work, can they afford the insurance etc., but "jail is for bad people and I'm not a bad person". And even if they did, AI are trained by rewiring their brains directly. It's not a 1:1 match to punishments for humans (or animals), but it is a de facto incentive.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoplenty of drivers have gone to jail over their driving.
- ben_w 3y agoHow many were incentivised is a different question to how many were punished. My previous example was intended to illustrate the threat of jail is not a huge incentive to humans because humans don't take it seriously even though it exists — we think it's for other people, not people like us. Further I would suggest LLMs can be incentivised by jail even without experiencing jail, just because they happened to have descriptions of jail in their training set.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y agoyou're certainly free to make that claim but that doesn't make it true.
- ben_w 3y agoI made two claims and I don't know which one you're dismissing with the intellectual equivalent of "no u".