2 ms·
Fair point. Your right to do something can clearly differ from your right to make a machine do something. A simple example would be you being allowed to walk d
by RandomLensman 3y ago
Fair point.
Your right to do something can clearly differ from your right to make a machine do something. A simple example would be you being allowed to walk down footpath, but letting your car traverse that path isn't allowed.
If we are talking hypothetical new rules, not immediately obvious to me what is optimal here, including differentiation of various use cases.
- close04 3y agoMore importantly the machine is usually allowed to do less than the human. Otherwise it would become an easier avenue for abuse. Whenever you can't do something just build a machine to do it, and the machine's capabilities are ever expanding. Maybe the starting point for legislating "machines" should be to take human capability as a baseline, make some humans eventually accountable, and go from there. If your machine is learning truly like a human (takes decades to learn then output results, forgets things, only one in a thousand can output something useful at the end of the learning process, etc.) and the "owners" take full accountability for what it does then why not like a human? But this reminds me of an old joke. A man comes into an inn and asks how much for a thimble of water. The inn keeper says a thimble is free. So he proceeds to ask for 1000 thimbles.