There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
onezero.medium.com
There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
1–10 of 57 posts
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#2https://archive.fo/tbGNL
But it quotes Evgeny Morozov as if he were something other than a notorious troll, so don't bother reading it.
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#3https://archive.fo/tbGNL But it quotes Evgeny Morozov as if he were something other than a notorious troll, so don't bother reading it.
Why? The article is fine.
> This is the fact that there is no such thing as ethical A.I, any more than there’s a single set of instructions spelling how to be good — and that our current fascinated focus on the “inside” of automated processes only takes us further away from the contested human contexts within which values and consequences actually exist.
This rings true. A.I. is just another tool in the computational toolbox. We need expert practitioners just like we need expert statisticians, mathematicians, programmers, doctors, etc. Do all those other disciplines also have an ethics problem?
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#4I think the article can serve as a good opinion and an introduction to the subject. Certain ideas seem questionable enough - maybe the matter is inherently more complex than something which can be put in an article.
Does, for example, author argue that something which human can do the machine cannot?
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#5I think the article can serve as a good opinion and an introduction to the subject. Certain ideas seem questionable enough - maybe the matter is inherently more complex than something which can be put in an article. Does, for example, author argue that something which human can do the machine cannot?
Not really but he would be right if he did.
He argues that deep down the goal of the machine is to take decisions in humans contexts. Which by definition only can make sense for a human.
Ofc we can argue about a fictional theoretical human like machine to the point it is undifferentiated from a human... but then we created a human. Not a machine anymore.
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#6>This is the belief that A.I. codes are recipes for automating ethics itself; and that once a broad consensus around such codes has been achieved, the problem of determining an ethically positive future direction for computer code will have begun to be solved.
I can think of literally nobody who believes this. I don't think anyone working in ethical AI would pretend that ethics can be "solved."
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#7> And yet, when it comes to the ways in which A.I. codes of ethics are discussed, a troubling tendency is at work even as the world wakes up to the field’s significance. This is the belief that A.I. codes are recipes for automating ethics itself; and that once a broad consensus around such codes has been achieved, the problem of determining an ethically positive future direction for computer code will have begun to be solved.
Is anyone actually claiming that AI programs will "automate ethics"? The post seems rather pointless.
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#8>This is the belief that A.I. codes are recipes for automating ethics itself; and that once a broad consensus around such codes has been achieved, the problem of determining an ethically positive future direction for computer code will have begun to be solved. I can think of literally nobody who believes this. I don't think anyone working in ethical AI would pretend that ethics can be "solved."
For any point of view on AI, I can probably find a decent number of non technical people who hold that POV. Technical illiteracy is a significant problem imo.
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#9I think the article can serve as a good opinion and an introduction to the subject. Certain ideas seem questionable enough - maybe the matter is inherently more complex than something which can be put in an article. Does, for example, author argue that something which human can do the machine cannot?
Not really but he would be right if he did. He argues that deep down the goal of the machine is to take decisions in humans contexts. Which by definition only can make sense for a human. Ofc we can argue about a fictional theoretical human like machine to the point it is undifferentiated from a human... but then we created a human. Not a machine anymore.
> Not a machine anymore.
It's like failing to see the difference between human and machine. One can argue then there is no difference right now. So?
It's a time-honored discussion if machine can do all a human can. On the other hand, religion also has an associated long-living discussion. If we decide according to our beliefs, we should invent another mechanism - something other than reasoning, because it's not used here - to get to agreement.
Re: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Ethical A.I.’
#10I don’t mean to be controversial or annoying or contrarian, it is just my own personally reality that I am sick of everyone hand-waving away the downsides of AI. The outcome will be way worse than is widely appreciated. And academia is almost universally focused on the silly concept that AI will be fine if we just adhere to vague pie-in-the-sky ethical principles like transparency and collaboration. Every single company working on AGI has a little manifesto where they talk in circles about “ethics.” It’s not about ethics, it’s about societal economics so to speak. People don’t realize how much of our world is propped up by the fact that humans are the smartest and best. It will make all forms of human labor worthless and simultaneously turn everything upside down as new, earth shattering technologies are discovered daily, it will the most complete and acute chaos ever in the history of life... but it’s ok because google said they have it under control. And people act like none of this is true because AI is inevitable, which even if it were fundamentally true wouldn’t make sense anyway...