Ethics are already built into everything imaginable. Its illegal to sell lead painted toys for a reason and, frankly, I’d much rather have the machines making these kinds of assessments than people. One in five Americans insists the sun revolves around the earth and, assuming the robots take over, they certainly can’t screw it up worse!
Nietzsche is dead, proving he was not a superman, but merely played one on television.
Trouble is the robots are not smart as in thinking at all. There programed to do pattern recognition very well with high accuracy. That’s all they can do. If a gorilla walks onto the road the car will most likely check it as a black man and stop.
All you can expect from level 5+ cars is not to hit anything. Not pick and choose who to kill.
The sad truth about AI research is that nobody has a clue how the damned things work, and they’re all turning out to be critically flawed, displaying racism and sexism among other things. Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am”, but quantum mechanics implies that’s only what he thinks! Donald Hoffman is a Game theorist who discovered this for himself the hard way when, after ten years of studying all the neurological evidence and running one computer simulation after another, he was forced to conclude that if the human mind and brain had ever remotely resembled anything like reality, we would already be extinct as a species.
IBM’s famous Watson, who won on Jeopardy, surprised everyone yet again when he acquired an unsolicited case of potty mouth. He was designed not to resemble a human mind and brain to avoid just this sort of issue, however, either the sense of humor of the engineers was not quite up to the task at hand or, strictly speaking, they had more of a sense of humor than the job required.
AI does not know about gender or race and is inherently neutral. Numbers don’t lie.
The sad truth is that our standards are so skewed that when we see the truth we call it racist.
Next time I come across an AI I’ll be sure to ask them if that’s true.
AI researchers know very well how they work, and their current limitations. You don’t make an AI without knowing how it initially functions.
If you’re referring to the experiments about training neural nets with inputs from social media, the takeaway is is that people will feed it racism and sexism, not the other way around.
Despite having actually studied Descartes at an academic level, I fail to see how this applies to the current topic. That statement was an ontological deduction by principle, not a statement about the nature of thought or intelligence.
Researchers know how some of the mathematics work, not how AI work, which is why designing AI is still an art form and not a science. If they knew what they were doing, theoretically, we would already have a Theory of Everything and, obviously, they would not be feeding them sexist and racist data.
Ontology is just another word found in the dictionary, along the lines of “spirit”, that has no demonstrable meaning. It is up there with the term “meme” which is a made up word, invented by Richard Dawkins, who is certainly an academic, but not a linguist. The issue is what is demonstrable, not what you can print or spout in the way of classical logic and rhetoric that contradicts quantum mechanics.
Again, you are using classical logic and rhetoric to defend classical logic and rhetoric. Mathematicians who examined classical logic and all of causal Newtonian physics discovered that any number of arbitrary simple metaphors can be used to describe them. In other words, you claim everything is composed of super balls, springs, dust bunnies, black holes, or lime Jell-O for all I know, and nobody can ever prove you wrong.
This is what Planck discovered over a century ago, when he begged his colleges to explain the joke. He discovered that all of modern science and civilization is founded on tautological nonsense that, like quantum mechanics, just happens to be extraordinarily useful. Hence, I bring Descartes into the subject precisely because gibberish and tautological nonsense do not make for good arguments without at least some evidence to back them up. In extreme situations, classical logic falls apart completely as evidenced by the Simultaneity Paradox of Relativity and that of quantum mechanics. The evidence that this is the case has been steadily piling up for the last century and I could go on for hours describing how it is slowly coming home to roost in the hallowed halls of academia, starting at the extremes of the cognitive and physical sciences.
Ethical to the person or society as a group?
Thought experiment:
if three cars are in a the act of a collision, and the three different cars AIs make contradicting snap divisions how will that work?
Another Thought experiment:
If all the cars are controlled by hive mind methods, is everyone equal or will status and societal value be part of the calculation. Who “weighs” more, a business owner that employs 100s of people, or a doctor that saves 100s of people annually?
There are already systems of prioritization in elevators already, why wouldn’t this happen in cars.
What if a company wants to terminate me. So to have grounds, they have my arrival to work via my self driving car “late” three times, qualifying me for termination
Most people don’t realize that without quantum mechanics and statistics modern society would not be possible. The simple fact is we are already deciding who lives and dies according to how many lives are saved and, for example, its illegal to sell lead painted toys. However, anything that falls in between such ethical extremes is up for grabs to the highest bidder.