11 ms·

> This is why black box AIs should not be tolerated. Making a decision is one thing. Being able to explain that decision is something else. 99% of humans just

> This is why black box AIs should not be tolerated. Making a decision is one thing. Being able to explain that decision is something else. 99% of humans just follow tradition and couldn’t explain why they do the things they do other than that’s how everyone has always done it even when circumstances have changed and the original reason no longer applies.

__loam 2y ago
Maybe we don't need to bring up what humans do every time we talk about the limitations of this technology and what ought to be tolerated from it.
eszed 2y ago
True. I think other humans are better able to point out those cases, because they share context - they have, for instance, witnessed other humans following those detrimental traditions - and know, or collectively create, methods to push back against them. We have legal regimes and cultural mechanisms adapted (not perfectly, I'll grant!) to overcoming harmful equilibria. Humans, as a species, and over many many thousands of years, have learned (not infallibly, for sure!) to deal with human foibles and lapses of judgment. We have no similar intuitions for dealing with AI "reasoning", and attendant biases. To the extent that AIs are intelligent, they are alien to us. We have no (or very few) valid instincts about them, and they are impervious to our empathy. In fact, empathy - the engine that drives human-to-human cultural progress - is an active detriment in dealing with AI. As a species, we are maladapted to an AI future.
CJefferson 2y ago
I agree, but the legal system is designed that we can set up rules for humans, and punish them. It's hard to imagine how to introduce similar rules for AIs. My prefered route is I can sue the company if their AI misbehaves, but we are already seeing cases of companies saying "Oh yes, the chatbot said X, and the chatbot is the only way to communicate with us, but that's clearly just the AI being wrong so we will ignore it". Hopefully some cases will go to court, and side with consumers against companies and their black-box AIs, but I'm not hopeful.

__loam 2y ago

Maybe we don't need to bring up what humans do every time we talk about the limitations of this technology and what ought to be tolerated from it.

eszed 2y ago

True. I think other humans are better able to point out those cases, because they share context - they have, for instance, witnessed other humans following those detrimental traditions - and know, or collectively create, methods to push back against them. We have legal regimes and cultural mechanisms adapted (not perfectly, I'll grant!) to overcoming harmful equilibria. Humans, as a species, and over many many thousands of years, have learned (not infallibly, for sure!) to deal with human foibles and lapses of judgment. We have no similar intuitions for dealing with AI "reasoning", and attendant biases. To the extent that AIs are intelligent, they are alien to us. We have no (or very few) valid instincts about them, and they are impervious to our empathy. In fact, empathy - the engine that drives human-to-human cultural progress - is an active detriment in dealing with AI. As a species, we are maladapted to an AI future.

CJefferson 2y ago

I agree, but the legal system is designed that we can set up rules for humans, and punish them. It's hard to imagine how to introduce similar rules for AIs. My prefered route is I can sue the company if their AI misbehaves, but we are already seeing cases of companies saying "Oh yes, the chatbot said X, and the chatbot is the only way to communicate with us, but that's clearly just the AI being wrong so we will ignore it". Hopefully some cases will go to court, and side with consumers against companies and their black-box AIs, but I'm not hopeful.