Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 49 posts

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#11

Post by cproctor »

thriftwy wrote: post #2

I think that soon it will be considered a bad practice to possess a skill or to use some knowledge for decisions.. If you have learned to do something, you will proceed by teaching a machine learning system that. And then you will use that, and not your internal knowledge. The reason will be cited as follows: If you know something, this introduces bus factor. People can't get in your head to validate if you're applyi…

This is an interesting thought experiment, but I imagine it having precisely the opposite effect. Modernism, as a technology, works precisely by making power relationships seem obvious, natural, and therefore not something subject to critique. These relationships include definitions of gender, race, and class, as well as capitalist and colonial relationships, and many more. Probably the most salient power relationship to this article is deciding who should benefit from the work of robots. Acting through computers amplifies this effect, and makes it easier to uphold oppressive power relationships while keeping one's hands clean.

I recognize that this is not immediately an empirical claim, but I will observe that discarding it offhand in favor of the equally ideological dominant interpretation would be exactly the dynamic I'm pointing out.

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#12

Post by stefie10 »

thriftwy wrote: post #4
mholmes680 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if this adds or subtracts from your dystopian view, but the act of training the machine would introduce the same reasoning/bias flaws one has. (see the MIT moral machine)

At least it is repeatable and measurable. But yours isn't. I'm not sure it's dystopian. Maybe human decision making will be considered art . That's an awesome thing, but not necessary what you do in workplace.

Someone wise once told me, even after we have strong AI and don't need to program, he will still program, because the process of programming leads to understanding, and he will still want to understand things. The AI might be able to write the program better and faster, but it won't be able to help him gain the understanding he would have gotten from writing the program himself.

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#13

Post by thriftwy »

stefie10 wrote: post #12
thriftwy wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least it is repeatable and measurable. But yours isn't. I'm not sure it's dystopian. Maybe human decision making will be considered art . That's an awesome thing, but not necessary what you do in workplace.

Someone wise once told me, even after we have strong AI and don't need to program, he will still program, because the process of programming leads to understanding, and he will still want to understand things. The AI might be able to write the program better and faster, but it won't be able to help him gain the understanding he would have gotten from writing the program himself.

This is why you will learn to program, write the program, gain the understanding, train the ML system properly to reproduce your results, and then basically unlearn everything.

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#14

Post by jefurii »

thriftwy wrote: post #2

I think that soon it will be considered a bad practice to possess a skill or to use some knowledge for decisions.. If you have learned to do something, you will proceed by teaching a machine learning system that. And then you will use that, and not your internal knowledge. The reason will be cited as follows: If you know something, this introduces bus factor. People can't get in your head to validate if you're applyi…

Reminds me of a Karl Schroeder novel (Permanence) in which characters encounter an alien race (or the remains of an extinct one?) which evolved to have intelligence but not consciousness. Or are we turning ourselves into philosophical zombies?

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#15

Post by stefie10 »

thriftwy wrote: post #13
stefie10 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone wise once told me, even after we have strong AI and don't need to program, he will still program, because the process of programming leads to understanding, and he will still want to understand things. The AI might be able to write the program better and faster, but it won't be able to help him gain the understanding he would have gotten from writing the program himself.

This is why you will learn to program, write the program, gain the understanding, train the ML system properly to reproduce your results, and then basically unlearn everything.

Why would you unlearn though? Eventually the AI will do all of the above as well. Maybe eventually programming will be like blacksmithing or weaving is today...

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#16

Post by boundring »

The article is focused on robotic automation of menial tasks, primarily in industrial settings (factories, warehouses), not automation of judgements which could be subject to bias...

Thriftwy raises an interesting point, speculatively, but there's little bias to be found in supply logistics or assembly of parts.

Marginally touched upon in the article was the displacement of lower-class workers. Is expansion of automation going to lead humanity toward dispossession of low-income workers, or will universal welfare become the result of outmoded jobs?

I don't think Asimov's "Aurorans,"--elite-yet-few humans supported by legions of robotic servants--is possible, but it's a thing.

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#17

Post by fenwick67 »

stefie10 wrote: post #8
thriftwy wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes they will allow for a degree of inefficiency if it removes human factor. The reasoning will go, yes we are losing $1 on every automated transaction, but we can make more of them, and we certainly avert one $10,000 corruption case and one $100,000 case where we get sued for human decision. You can't sue machine learning algorighm (that how it would go). But human, you can, even frivolously.

Yes but you can sue the company that owns the machine learning algorithm, probably for much more money than you can sue an individual. You can even imagine class action law suites and the like. (I am one of the researchers mentioned in the article.)

It is much harder to ask an algorithm about it's reasoning than a person's.

"Joe, why did you fire Carla?"

"She was late to work every other day and spent all day on her phone"

"HR-bot 5000, why did you fire Carla?"

"Weights indices 59738, 837, and 28836 added to over 0.67, yielding a score of only .85, which is below the firing threshold"

Certainly you could look at the input data and try to convince a jury that her performance wasn't acceptable but you can't prove that is why the AI fired her.

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#18

Post by Danihan »

thriftwy wrote: post #2

I think that soon it will be considered a bad practice to possess a skill or to use some knowledge for decisions.. If you have learned to do something, you will proceed by teaching a machine learning system that. And then you will use that, and not your internal knowledge. The reason will be cited as follows: If you know something, this introduces bus factor. People can't get in your head to validate if you're applyi…

It already is.

For instance, let's say you pull up to a red light and the intesection is empty. No cars, no pedestrians.

Common sense tells you to just run the light, there is no reason not to.

But it's illegal for a human to use their own judgement to do this, and the instructions of the red light have to be followed regardless.

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#19

Post by Danihan »

stefie10 wrote: post #15
thriftwy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you will learn to program, write the program, gain the understanding, train the ML system properly to reproduce your results, and then basically unlearn everything.

Why would you unlearn though? Eventually the AI will do all of the above as well. Maybe eventually programming will be like blacksmithing or weaving is today...

Completely obscure?

Re: Welcoming Our New Robotic Overlords

#20

Post by stefie10 »

boundring wrote: post #16

The article is focused on robotic automation of menial tasks, primarily in industrial settings (factories, warehouses), not automation of judgements which could be subject to bias... Thriftwy raises an interesting point, speculatively, but there's little bias to be found in supply logistics or assembly of parts. Marginally touched upon in the article was the displacement of lower-class workers. Is expansion of automa…

I started working in robotics because I wanted to empower people and make the world a better place. But what I have started to appreciate is that increasing automation is by default a transfer of wealth from labor to capital owners. The two million long-haul truck drivers who are going to be replaced by self-driving trucks are going to lose income; the owners of the self-driving trucks are going to capture that wealth. I am not sure what the right social policies are to address this; retraining, basic income, and universal healthcare all seem reasonable. But I think a lot of people don't appreciate how automation leads to both increased productivity and also increased inequality.
Post reply on HN