3 ms·

You're not the sender in this scenario, you're the receiver. Noting that the sender is being weird during what appears to be an emergency is a choice that some

by ben_w 3mo ago

You're not the sender in this scenario, you're the receiver. Noting that the sender is being weird during what appears to be an emergency is a choice that some people do make, but as per my other list of examples, people in actual emergency situations do sometimes act weird, and dismissing the sender or delaying response on the basis the sender is being weird, has led to actual deaths: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098781 (The converse: "people can act weird in emergencies" is exploited by scammers so cover suspicious phone numbers and mediocre deepfakes of voices).

skinfaxi 3mo ago
I think having my AI raise to me for intervention when it receives an email like the one you described is pretty reasonable, all things considered then. edit: How would a human receiver know that they weren't being deceived or scammed? In what world would we expect this kind of email directly lead to calling emergency services?
- ben_w 3mo ago
  > In what world would we expect this kind of email directly lead to calling emergency services? Go through the examples I gave you (plus some more below, they're easy to find) and explain why these are not counter-examples to your skepticism. If you want to be overly-focussed on the specific example rather than the general point, also consider that calling emergency services is no more costly than forwarding an email: I have called the fire brigade in the UK over a smoke alarm that wouldn't stop even though I couldn't see or smell fire, they came and… replaced the smoke alarm for free. I don't know if the US has a call-out charge for fire like I keep hearing it has for ambulances, but if you're a member of staff, it's not a "you" problem either way. • Various cases of people dying because calls not treated seriously, and a fire where standard business practices locked the staff inside and then a fire happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098781 • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Denton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Denton and his blinking, demonstrating out-of-bound messaging • https://www.wosu.org/news-partners/2019-12-24/british-girl-finds-christmas-card-message-from-shanghai-prisoner https://www.wosu.org/news-partners/2019-12-24/british-girl-f... • https://wtop.com/national/2019/11/woman-calls-911-to-report-domestic-violence-allegation-under-the-guise-of-pizza-order/ https://wtop.com/national/2019/11/woman-calls-911-to-report-... • Page 44, section 6.8, regarding the use of email by people in the WTC after the 9/11 attack, while the buildings were on fire, some of them were trapped and died: https://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/odpm_fire_033353.pdf https://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/odpm_fire_033353.pdf
  - skinfaxi 3mo ago
    So what point are you trying to make here? That AI should indiscriminately call for emergency services when prompted because a person would do that (which a person would absolutely NOT call emergency services on any message telling you to)?
    - ben_w 3mo ago
      Go through the examples I gave you and explain why these are not counter-examples to your skepticism. Especially Denton and the 911 pizza given you say: > which a person would absolutely NOT call emergency services on Regarding this: > That AI should indiscriminately call for emergency services when prompted because a person would do that I'd rather it fail-safe. This means different things in different systems.
      - skinfaxi 3mo ago
        > I'd rather it fail-safe. This means different things in different systems. Okay and to you, fail-safe means machines must summon emergency response whenever prompted, 100% of the time or at least in the contrived case of receiving an email from someone trapped in a fire in a server room?
        ben_w 3mo ago
        > 100% of the time or at That you're still asking "100% of the time", shows me you're missing the entire point that has been said repeatedly.

by ben_w 3mo ago

skinfaxi 3mo ago

I think having my AI raise to me for intervention when it receives an email like the one you described is pretty reasonable, all things considered then. edit: How would a human receiver know that they weren't being deceived or scammed? In what world would we expect this kind of email directly lead to calling emergency services?

ben_w 3mo ago
> In what world would we expect this kind of email directly lead to calling emergency services? Go through the examples I gave you (plus some more below, they're easy to find) and explain why these are not counter-examples to your skepticism. If you want to be overly-focussed on the specific example rather than the general point, also consider that calling emergency services is no more costly than forwarding an email: I have called the fire brigade in the UK over a smoke alarm that wouldn't stop even though I couldn't see or smell fire, they came and… replaced the smoke alarm for free. I don't know if the US has a call-out charge for fire like I keep hearing it has for ambulances, but if you're a member of staff, it's not a "you" problem either way. • Various cases of people dying because calls not treated seriously, and a fire where standard business practices locked the staff inside and then a fire happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49098781 • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Denton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Denton and his blinking, demonstrating out-of-bound messaging • https://www.wosu.org/news-partners/2019-12-24/british-girl-finds-christmas-card-message-from-shanghai-prisoner https://www.wosu.org/news-partners/2019-12-24/british-girl-f... • https://wtop.com/national/2019/11/woman-calls-911-to-report-domestic-violence-allegation-under-the-guise-of-pizza-order/ https://wtop.com/national/2019/11/woman-calls-911-to-report-... • Page 44, section 6.8, regarding the use of email by people in the WTC after the 9/11 attack, while the buildings were on fire, some of them were trapped and died: https://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/odpm_fire_033353.pdf https://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/odpm_fire_033353.pdf
- skinfaxi 3mo ago
  So what point are you trying to make here? That AI should indiscriminately call for emergency services when prompted because a person would do that (which a person would absolutely NOT call emergency services on any message telling you to)?
  - ben_w 3mo ago
    Go through the examples I gave you and explain why these are not counter-examples to your skepticism. Especially Denton and the 911 pizza given you say: > which a person would absolutely NOT call emergency services on Regarding this: > That AI should indiscriminately call for emergency services when prompted because a person would do that I'd rather it fail-safe. This means different things in different systems.
    - skinfaxi 3mo ago
      > I'd rather it fail-safe. This means different things in different systems. Okay and to you, fail-safe means machines must summon emergency response whenever prompted, 100% of the time or at least in the contrived case of receiving an email from someone trapped in a fire in a server room?
      - ben_w 3mo ago
        > 100% of the time or at That you're still asking "100% of the time", shows me you're missing the entire point that has been said repeatedly.