Slashdot Mirror
Can We Build Ethics Into Automated Decision-Making? (oreilly.com)
"Machines will need to make ethical decisions, and we will be responsible for those decisions," argues Mike Loukides, O'Reilly Media's vice president of content strategy:
We are surrounded by systems that make ethical decisions: systems approving loans, trading stocks, forwarding news articles, recommending jail sentences, and much more. They act for us or against us, but almost always without our consent or even our knowledge. In recent articles, I've suggested the ethics of artificial intelligence itself needs to be automated. But my suggestion ignores the reality that ethics has already been automated... The sheer number of decisions that need to be made means that we can't expect humans to make those decisions. Every time data moves from one site to another, from one context to another, from one intent to another, there is an action that requires some kind of ethical decision...
Ethical problems arise when a company's interest in profit comes before the interests of the users. We see this all the time: in recommendations designed to maximize ad revenue via "engagement"; in recommendations that steer customers to Amazon's own products, rather than other products on their platform. The customer's interest must always come before the company's. That applies to recommendations in a news feed or on a shopping site, but also how the customer's data is used and where it's shipped. Facebook believes deeply that "bringing the world closer together" is a social good but, as Mary Gray said on Twitter, when we say that something is a "social good," we need to ask: "good for whom?" Good for advertisers? Stockholders? Or for the people who are being brought together? The answers aren't all the same, and depend deeply on who's connected and how....
It's time to start building the systems that will truly assist us to manage our data.
The article argues that spam filters provide a surprisingly good set of first design principles. They work in the background without interfering with users, but always allow users to revoke their decisions, and proactively seek out user input in ambiguous or unclear situations.
But in the real world beyond our inboxes, "machines are already making ethical decisions, and often doing so badly. Spam detection is the exception, not the rule."
Ethical problems arise when a company's interest in profit comes before the interests of the users. We see this all the time: in recommendations designed to maximize ad revenue via "engagement"; in recommendations that steer customers to Amazon's own products, rather than other products on their platform. The customer's interest must always come before the company's. That applies to recommendations in a news feed or on a shopping site, but also how the customer's data is used and where it's shipped. Facebook believes deeply that "bringing the world closer together" is a social good but, as Mary Gray said on Twitter, when we say that something is a "social good," we need to ask: "good for whom?" Good for advertisers? Stockholders? Or for the people who are being brought together? The answers aren't all the same, and depend deeply on who's connected and how....
It's time to start building the systems that will truly assist us to manage our data.
The article argues that spam filters provide a surprisingly good set of first design principles. They work in the background without interfering with users, but always allow users to revoke their decisions, and proactively seek out user input in ambiguous or unclear situations.
But in the real world beyond our inboxes, "machines are already making ethical decisions, and often doing so badly. Spam detection is the exception, not the rule."
I'm not sure I consider the Amazon directing you to Amazon products as a very good example of "Automation", since that has a giant bias plugged into the engine by Amazon. You are trying to ascribe ethics to a system where humans are obviously in firm and direct control over results.
To me considering ethics and automation is more of a general concern where the automation is making derived choices that are pretty far removed from human directive. I think you can build in ethics to try and be kind to people, it's not impossible - but even the choice to try and include some kind of ethical directive, is still really at the mercy of humans and how much time and effort they are willing to put into such things...
Perhaps the most effective solution is for some company to come up with a really kick-ass ethical choice helper for automation, that becomes so popular that companies are clamoring to include it. Otherwise it will get placed in the asme leaky lifeboat that Accessibility is always placed in.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I assume the author wants asimovs three laws. Automation must destroy itself before allowing automation that calls itself human to come to harm. Are we going down such a path?
I suppose it's likely on the order of Monday not being the best day of our next week... ethical decisions made by artificial intelligence will not be above reproach.
Though, perhaps, like the standard realists have for automated vehicular piloting, all AI ethical decisions have to do to pass muster is exceed the effectiveness of decisions that would've been made by their biological inventors.
Fortunately for the future of the robot overlords, we haven't set this bar that high.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
"It's time to start building the systems that will truly assist us to manage our data."
I love these 'proclamations' from non-coders. Who is going to build these systems? My guess it isn't going to be Mike Loukides (whoever that is). People really need to learn how computers work. Computers aren't making "ethical decisions". They are just running programs. That is it.
I wrote that subject line as a lead-in:
Like 'mercy', 'ethics' requires understanding of human beings and human-related matters.
Since the poor, weak excuse for 'AI' they keep slinging around lately cannot 'think', and therefore is entirely incapable of understanding humans, they are also incapable of being 'ethical'.
Someone will now attempt to argue that 'ethics' is just a set of rules to follow -- or perhaps I should say 'laws' -- and there are always exceptions to rules and laws where there are humans and human lives to consider. Therefore: machines should not be involved in making decisions requiring 'ethics', they are entirely unqualified to do so by their very nature.
Furthermore: all so-called 'AIs' should be supervised by humans at all times; no 'autonomy'. There always needs to be at least one human being there to allow or disallow what any of these machines does.
Ethics = Pandering to the SJWs
The programmer is ethical.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Unethical animals programming ethics into a dumb machine?? Dog help us all!
Automated systems that apply 'known' and accepted rules equally, is maths. Those formulation of those rules is ethics and is fine as long as the majority are aware of the rules and approve of them. The more impactful the rules, the more it could favour one against the other, the greater majority required to apply that rule but the starting point should always be more that 50% of the eligible citizenry and the upper limit, depends which you favour mathematically fractions or decimal places, it make a difference, as in 2 out of 3, probably the upper limit of foolish majority restraint, (decimals is more a choice between 60% and 70% for whole numbers sake but doesn't read as well as 2 out of 3 or 2 to 1).
The difference between AI and straight maths, of course corrupted AI which makes unethical decisions to favour it's programmers, versus a simple spreadsheet, which applies the rules, that everyone is aware of and the majority have agreed to.
The silly bullshit waffling around about mob rule, what a crock of shit, who complains about mob rule, the 1% who consider the entirely of the 99% the mob, the opposite of mob rule (majority rule, which is just emptily slandered by calling it a mob), is entirely corrupt elite rule, who inevitable govern to suit themselves at the expense of the mob and fear the mob, the majority, will hole the elite, the extreme minority accountable for their corruption, avarice and very venal and abusive natures.
Yeah, I want automated decision making, fuck AI and fuck the cunts who propose it, you arseholes are just totally full of shit (AI as a layer of bullshit to hide decision making that favours a tiny minority at the expense of the majority, a new layer of bullshit added to the old elite lies). I want those maths rules to be open and clear and up for debate and affirmation or rejection by the majority, maybe a super majority in some cases 2 out of 3 or 2 for and 1 against.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
there are so many unethical people in any one "group" that we are sure to have unethical developers.
And who is going to decide what is ethical? Swerve the car and kill the driver or don't and kill the pedestrian?
Article link, please and thanks?
Can we build ethics into Human decision-making? Only once we have done this do we have any hope of building it into AI.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Seriously, how do you define "ethics" so that it would be an acceptable definition to, well, everyone?
Because it won't be accepted as "ethical" unless its decisions agree with you (for all values of "you", including "me").
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
How about all the so-called decision makers directly apply their brand of social justice to the unwashed programmers and only then do they get to use the phrase AI? Or would the garlic keep them away?
Asimov was NOT saying here are 3 simple laws you can program your robots with and everything will be hunky dory.
He was saying the Exact Opposite!
If you actually read and understood any of his robot stories, the theme was consistent: robots are no better than we program them to be and they can never be as good/smart/ethical as we are, period.
The 3 laws robot short stories are all well written (Asimov, after all) and tell compelling and educational stories about robotic potential when given decision making ability outside a well defined prescribed rules (such as in manufacturing where there are no real decisions to be made, just a script blindly followed).
I know none of you will actually read them and you will keep referring to them and getting it entirely backwards, but at least I tried.
and then you can start thinking about how to code it.
Things that were ethical when I was a kid would mortify today's people - bringing guns to school, designated smoking areas for students, nude swim class, bullying as a way life... no, ethics is a variable based on time, race, age, and income.... Build "ethics" into any algorithm and the masses will find it unethical.
Ethics are subjective. What flies in one place could be completely offensive in another.
You Marxists are so desperately hilarious! Grasping at every straw, the most subtle nuance, hoping against hope that maybe somewhere there is a sealed incident net with The Donalds name on it that will magically appear on your birthday and then your anti-Marxist nightmare will end and you will wake up to Hillary leading us forward through a series of Soviet style 5 year plans and making all outcomes equal and punishing everyone who every laughed at you in high school (everyone).
Well, bucko, forget it. It is over. No amount of tedious parsing will change that. Prepare for 4 more years when a whore (yes I mean that literally) like Kamala Harris is a top DNC 2020 option right now. Or Joe (lol). Or Bernie (who is the only man to ever lose to that felon, Hillary, in a national election). Or maybe She, The One, Our Queen Bitch Of Lies (and serious medical issues) will try again. It must finally be Her turn, right? (She is pre-dead but I will throw props to,Pocahontas since were here). Losers all.
Prepare yourself for 4 more years of Trump. Right now nothing can stop him.
You are more likely to get a fully self driving Tesla this year than Trump losing in 2020.
Where is AOC and her Jew hating girlfriends? Oddly quiet, no?
Hillary? After all, she said she lost because Ruissa! Russia! Russia! Youd think she might have a tweet or a short quote or two? Quiet.
Or Schiff and so many other who told us only last week that for sure Trump was going down? Quiet.
Only the useful sheep are out making noise while your Great Leaders scramble for good hiding places.
Well gee Bob. That sounds like kinda hard and i bet you'd need a computer guy for that.
I mean it's not like we have a large selection of case statements or conditionals with which to make automated decisions or the experience in processes or sensors required to obtain the information to actively make ethical decisions and it's not like that has been part of engineering practice since approximately day one but i mean...
Nice try bungling princess. Golf sounds good though
Bingo. It's a very granular and multi-POV based consideration, and the "Kendall" types think they're going to "make kickass ethics" and "sell it around" lol? What morons unclear on the very CONCEPT here lol.
Kendalls discussing ethics, it's just fucking hilarious. It's like AI discussing art, they will never know how stupid they sound.
Currently the various expert systems and automation have zero morals and ethics. Their only criteria are maximize profit, minimize risk. If someone ends up dying in screaming agony, meh.
This is just another extension of the principle that the only people you can get on the phone are people with no power to say yes. Their job isn't to make an ethical decision, their job is to make sure the people with authority to make a decision don't have to personally feel the consequences of tossing ethics out the window.
Same with the software. The programmers are just following orders, it's not like they're using the software on actual people. The people using it are just following orders, it's not like they wrote the software to make those decisions. The people at the top just specified software and ordered it's use. It's not actual people, just boring statistical data on a quarterly report.
Of course, in reality the software is an extension of those who give the orders. They just want people to blame "the computer" for as long as possible, just like in the '70s when, according to the CSR on the phone, the computer was infallible.
Describe how you ensure ethics are applied in "manual" decision-making.
I start so many projects this way... Every time I detect someone is trying to use tech to solve a human process problem.
All you need to do is make sure there is a comprehensive law and penalty system that punishes and restricts organisations and software that doesn't comply.
If you spend millions of dollars on an AI that fails to abide by the law, its no different than if a person made that choice. Its on the courts to ensure they dont get fooled by explanations from companies that say they can't make it happen.
Then we're all fucked because the world is already full of unethical arseholes. Mostly in politics and the legal systems.
"The customer's interest must always come before the company's."
Which customer? Is the company thriving, expanding, and being able to take advantage of economies of scale to provide better and cheaper product to future customers considered in customer's interest or not? Or are we talking about customers who can't afford the product, so we should just give them the product for free and bankrupt the company, since customer interest comes first? Or are the workers at the company also customers, or is it ethical to exploit them just to provide cheaper products?
The above are hyperbole's, but herein lies the problem, if you want to put "customer" interest above the company, you must specify "which customers".
does not exonerate the President in any way.
This is the new NPC mantra. "I can't prove he's guilty but I can't say he's not guilty". In America we believe in innocent until proven guilty. He doesn't NEED to be exonerated in any way, faggot.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I think you can build in ethics to try and be kind to people
Ethics is not about being kind to people it is about doing the right thing. For example, a system to spot cheating on an exam is not going to be particularly kind to the people it catches and it would be highly unethical for it to be kind by ignoring the cheating. Since doing the "right thing" is subjective and extremely contextual any ethics in automated decision making is going to have to be directed by a human and, since people may vary on what they believe is ethical, very hard to get right.
Even something very basic like not killing people is not going to be easy to implement e.g. should an automated car prioritize the lives of the occupants over others or vice versa? It's made even harder by the fact that computer algorithms do not comprehend the ethical consequences of their choices: all the programmer does is tweak the parameters to make it behave in a way that they believe is ethical which ultimately means the "ethics" will be determined by large corporations or, if regulated, governments which is frankly rather a depressing thought givengovernments' and companies' past records on making ethical choices.
Actually I can easily prove he's guilty, he admitted it on TV among other things. Bob Mueller works for the AG. SDNY does not. When Trump leaves office, he's headed to prison. Deal with it snowflake.
When Trump is out of it, he's fucked in his traitor's imprisoned ass, and there's nothing he or you can do about it. Right now Barr can pretend, but once Trump's taxes are out lol? All that money laundering for the Russian mob?
Good night, traitors.
Sorry Trump traitors... there's no golf in Federal prison - nor state prison - and Trump's going to see both maybe! :D Golf will be an Obama-only pastime for ex Presidents, very shortly. You lose. You colluded.
You will be prosecuted and die in prison, a traitor, along with your bitch beta traitor sons and bauble-whore dumbass daughter.
TLDR, Trump dies in prison either way, sorry bitch! You lose. You backed a traitor. Now get buried under the prison with him.
You know what, I think I actually will read them. I have been needing some heavy duty sci fi to occupy my time, but wasn't sure what. His stuff should be easy to find at a used book store?
declined to come to a determination as to if justice was obstructed, deferring to the AG." - Bob Mueller.
Thanks Bob,
Rod and I talked and we decided that he's not guilty. Rod's been involved since the beginning, and we both know he's no fan of the President. But based upon his recommendation, we both agree the President is cleared. Close the book, it's over, Trump is cleared of everything.
Sincerely, Bill
No.
Because there are powerful vested interested with a desire to prevent such a thing.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
True for the first part, but...
If you actually read and understood any of his robot stories, the theme was consistent: robots are no better than we program them to be and they can never be as good/smart/ethical as we are, period.
Read Robots and Empire.
When different people define ethics differently, how are you going to program the 'correct' ethics?
"Ethical problems arise when a company's interest in profit comes before the interests of the users"
Unfortunately that's the law in the US. Any company that neglects opportunities for profit is subject to lawsuits from shareholders. A corporation's sole responsibility is to look out for the interests of shareholders.
Neglecting customers/users might ultimately reduce profits, thus must be considered. But ethics? Where in the hierarchy of concerns is ethics? For each management organization that will differ.
There is a new type of corporation called a "Public-benefit corporation" in the US and going by similar names in other jurisdictions. It allows for public benefit to be a charter purpose in addition to the traditional corporate goal of maximizing profit for shareholders. Rules vary by location but it's an idea that may spread. Ethics can be an important part of such organizations.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Basically we need to include the goal in any automated decision making process, probably including result measurements after the fact (hopefully in a check/fix loop). And to do that we need to define the result we want.
The issue is when optimizing for one area makes another break in "interesting" ways. Like the old Chinese curse of "May you live in interesting times." Those only exist because of relationships we don't expect or measure through optimization.
I mean why would you measure the people you can't help? That list is long and boring right? Until it's not...like when you lack diversity (hiring only white, male, cis, etc).
In fact, I wonder if tools used for finding diversity issues could help pinpoint issues like this? Or are we stuck waiting for people to scream about something still? I have no idea...not my field.
But basically, "cost reduction" as a required goal makes this an unlikely result for anything created by private companies, in my opinion. See cases of "cheaper to pay off the hurt people than fix the problem" even after you realize there is a problem. And that's assuming we can even realize the issue.
An imperfect creator cannot create a perfect creation. Any AI created by humans will have imperfections equivalent to human imperfections.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Hello, Ivan. We've been monitoring you. We even had Barr release that phony "letter" bullshit, lol, to get the Russkies and traitors all feeling like they're in the clear... oh man, the idiots think it's over now! Haha. I know right?
Putin knows better, these idiot traitors are just making the rope tighter. Mueller is still on the job, lol. Trump runs out to the press and INSULTS HIM AGAIN, lol? Misquotes his report, "does not in any way exonerate" = Exonerate, fully!
Lol.
If Donald Trump had a nickel for every time a dumbass criminal thought he was getting away with it and had the cops all fooled, lol. He wouldn't have gone bankrupt like 6 or 8 times or whatever, we'll see his taxes soon lol.
Rope. It's still coming.
See Turns Out Algorithms Are Racist. And don't forget that time Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist asshole in less than a day. If we can do the opposite and make sure our algorithms aren't racist unintentionally and that our machine learning assistants don't become racist, you'll have won half the battle of making them ethical. This is going to be a hard problem to solve. It's not enough for programmers to be ethical they need to have outside observers helping them, especially people not like them.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
What you're saying is that profit as a necessary goal is the issue, I agree. I'm not against the goal. Just that the most direct solution of removing personal property seems to have failed before, and that so many cultures seem to be against the possibility. Even to the point where discussions just get shut down.
I hope the "Universal Income" ideas get us somewhere useful. But personally I don't think we can get to a utopia for all until we have...
Society has as its goal, exposing all impediments to and helping with every person's well being, equally.
* Free access to solutions (changes to solutions need access by any who could help)
* Free access to data (measurements about the world only need to be gathered once)
* Fair access to property/capital
With the issues being definition of "every person's well being, equally" and "Fair access" above. I'd lean toward a minimum level of health that is far above the current expectation of "enough food/water so you don't die". And that who your parents are (inherited wealth/property), or where you were born shouldn't impact your chance at happiness.
Also the worry of motivation toward solutions (aka profit as payment)...but I don't see that as a true issue. If there is a need, people will work toward a goal. And if you care about others, you'll want to help for their goals even if you don't have that problem.
Then life becomes a capital allocation problem. And I can't see our world as better for our current methods. I think the old Communism systems were broken because humans were still in control, and they have non-pure motivations/needs. With the better solution being truly dispassionate, but still logical comparisons with enough information to inform those...by generalized strong AI, or provably dispassionate and effective humans (lack of emotional bias and with intelligence/wisdom).
With a today oriented solution being SPECT and/or FMRI brain scans (find low biological activity in emotional areas to stressful situations...like monks meditating) to otherwise worldly and informed people (aka "smart people"), give them as much information ahead of time as possible, and public measurement of both decisions and results. Choices made by the person, and all effects after their choices...both to others and the world, people and things, in general. Then select for future people based on results.
Differences between our current system being...
* Decision making by genetically and trained low emotion people, so rational solutions (not a popularity/money contest)
* Changes based on data, both pre and post decision (we seem to ignore the post, since new people are put in charge so often...and pre decision gathering is put on the same people benefiting from the decisions in the first place, with no penalty placed after the fact except being booted)
War/fighting should be stopped or prevented as they cause harm to others. The issue being, those that cause war getting enough power/control to break any other system. I'd fight that with a centralized enforcement agency initially, then enough visibility into possible tools and desires with a de-escalation of the enforcement agency after control was gained. The worry being, will those centralized people use their power to force the world in some other way? Hopefully people that don't want to be in charge (dislike application of force), but are still capable/effective, would be a good start. Again by measuring emotional activity as a start, then also by results. With all people being allowed to give input, and objective reputation measures scaling those inputs, rather than the current "buddy system" that's impossible to fight for anyone that's normal even.
Does that mean the company won't sell their purchase history, won't value-add to the cost-price (ie. make a profit)?
Defining ethics means defining a very large set of precedents so that questions like 'When sex is good, can someone refuse sex?' (Yes) or 'Is a skilled man more valuable than a child?' (Yes, although Western society disposes of the man).
Also, as moral values change over time, the set of ethics changes, so the ranking system needs to be flexible.
Bill got caught lying 12-25 times repeatedly stating "Blood plasma is sterile" and then later that "The Chinese Govt does not directly censor Chinese citizens" and other absolute bullshit head-in-ass retard-level lies. You're not trustworthy.
You are not a source of information that anyone should or even could trust, knowing your dishonest history. Sorry. That's what accountability means when you get caught lying repeatedly, over and over, even after directly corrected.
You're a liar, Bill.
I would just like to know this:
When he isn't President any more, is he guilty in New York State? That's what I care about.
People blathering about Federal blah blah, they're simply missing the point.
I did In effect he was saying if your robot brain is vastly superior to a humans then it will be able to interpret the laws in a human way. However, that robot was unique in all the universe and was essentially a new species. The core point stands. Robots can never be better than us.
A small part of ethics is in the form of rules that we can express and follow. Even ignoring that these rules constantly change and adapt, they are only a small part of the whole.
Most of ethics happens with at most very general, unspecific rules. Basically "don't be an asshole". Good luck expressing that in a programming language. Most of this requires you to be and feel like a human and to use empathy - by putting ourselves into another persons position in our imagination, we can deduce which behaviour we would find acceptable and which not if the roles were reversed. We are light years away from such a thing in AI.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
No... next question...
... to build machines that will make decisions about humans. Full stop.
He's obviously facing hundreds of legal exposures nationwide in every state his operations operated. His charity fraud by itself could be in the dozens of years in prison. The issue with Federal is a pardon - but he's running.
So unless he wins the 2nd term, he's going to be replaced by a Democrat, who will probably be disinclined to pardon him for his multiple overlapping Federal crimes. Either way, Trump faces the rest of his life in prison.
The real question is how much exposure do Jared, Ivanka, and Junior face. Emoluments, frauds, self-dealing, all of these are felonies and state-charged felonies possibly also. It's hilarious that Trump is celebrating really.
Lol. He's so mad. He knows he's been fully exposed by Mueller who only refused to pull the trigger on procedural grounds. His "total exoneration" line, lol. Mueller DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS HIM VERBATIM.
Rope is still coming. Federal law is still very applicable, just on hold for now. Patience is a virtue Trump doesn't have, and can't afford. Look how furious he is. He knows the jig is still up, lol.
Huckabee the dog torturer knows she's lying when she says Trump is "totally exonerated" lol. I love the hate-fuck acting of it all. It's so pathetic, watching these traitors twisting in the wind of their own soiling.
I'd read the Foundation Trilogy first, or at least the first book, before reading the robot novels. The robot novels are mysteries, but the Foundation Series is a must-read about the cyclic rise and fall of civilization
'An imperfect creator cannot create a perfect creation. Any AI created by humans will have imperfections equivalent to human imperfections.'
So you're saying that God is an imperfect creator, since he couldn't get us done properly.
At least you realize you can't teach illiterate head-in-ass Kendalls to actually READ anything related...
Article makes it sound like Humans have ethics all worked out.... hilarious! How about when robots start asking about CEO pay, outsourcing, leveraged buyouts, wiretapping, alcohol legality etc etc etc!
Who gets to decide who's ethics to follow.
Your first mistake was "automated decision making"
The only way to build ethics into anything, including human decision making, is to start with facts. These days, stupid people have a loud voice, amplified by social media, and use it to claim "alternative facts" which aren't facts at all, but they are stupid and don't understand what a fact actually is.
Are you going to base ethical decisions on "alternative facts"? I don't want to be around for that, but here I am.
How are you going to eliminate politics from the programming process that will train these AI devices? Whose ethics will they base their decisions on?
... we will also build in Prejudice, Racism, Sexism and any number of other "unwanted" elements.
The creation of an AI instruction set that manages to be without prejudice will be nearly impossible, given that whoever makes the list will be skewing the process with their own priorities:
Human Life vs Overall Health of the Planet vs Quality of Life vs Sustainability, etc
Governments will want their say, while special interest groups (like the Rich) will also want to build in their own influence to further their continued existence over other, "lesser" interests...
Next will come those who "Game the System" so it will work in their favour no matter what. A "Back Door" if you will.
You can already see the HAL 900-like issues that will arise.
It's a shame that the 3-Laws system is so flawed.
It''s also a shame that "Do No Harm" is too broad and untenable as a foundation, either.
It's simple. as ethics are always in the eye of the beholder, you cannot build in real ethics as it's always the view of one person/group.
Humans have proven incapable of dealing with the major threats to our species; overpopulation and eugenics. What should and will arise is an auronomous killbot which will take out the eugenically modified and their modifiers, which should clear up both problems. Buy me a gin and tonic.
stop asking.
As there is no such thing as 'automated decision making', just the execution of code, no. Software doesn't 'think' and it never will - though aspects of automation are great, automation is all it is, we will never capitulate decision making to software any more than we will ever have level 5 autonomy in cars. As such, it will never be nevessary. The people that understand this stuff the least reeeeeallly shouldn't be leading the charge, and even posing this question shows that this is the case. There is really something wrong with millennials' brains, it goes beyond being green. Get out of the basement now and again.
Consider Zuck, the billionaire. Or Ellison, or even Bezos. Trump? Our current system of capitalism is anything but ethical. Consider how food companies are looking for the perfect combo of salt, sweet and fat so you can't stop eating. Consider the Catholic Church protecting pedophiles. There are good people in the world, I just think they finish last. Oh, and not saying any other form of gov is any better. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. See Putin and that Saudi Prince.
Who's ethics?
Everybody has a different idea of what is ethical. I can't think of any world leaders that I would want to define it.
Libraries usually have some old classics.
Unless you ascribe to 5000 years Creation, evolution and we're too puny to Know.
Whenever I watch something with themes about what it means to be an intelligent machine vs a human (for example, "I, Robot", "Blade Runner", "AI", etc), I often end up identifying with the robot. Obviously, this is intentional (the filmmaker *wants* me to identify with the robot character), so it's not purely organic. But, I still can't help but feel like... maybe we're the intelligent machine. Rather than being the pre-existing natural life form (the humans), we're just the intelligent machine. We're the robots, en masse, at the end of "I, Robot", not the humans. I think "Blade Runner" plays with this the best. I mean the people who made it don't even agree on who is an is not a replicant. We want to think we're the top of the food chain, top of the intellectual ladder, and that we control this universe. In reality, we live in a pen (the earth). Reading historical religious texts indicate that, for most of human history, people identified more as the robots than the humans. We don't even understand the nature of (or have proof of the existence of) free will. Free will could literally be an illusion to make us more useful robots...
Yeah, but proving people guilty, even if they are not, is pretty easy.
Just accuse them of something and offer a plea bargain for something less: boom, guilty.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Also the humans in the stories seemed to be naive, believing that it was impossible to have the rules broken.
We cant even build ethics into business and legislation.
Yet they are free to reject the plea deal. In many cases the DA will throw a case out if they can't get a plea and the cost of trial is too high or risky.
You'd need a consolidated moral center. That area has been growing more and more distant since the belief that mortality is relative took hold.
Unless there is some agreed upon central tenants, you'll end up with some insane bias and , to some, immoral ideas being programmed in to your system
Keep systems fairly stupid, use thrm as robot slaves to do our work. Improve the human body and mind and make humans greater than ever before.
This is picking a fight. There are a lot of scifi nerd battles over the "best" way to read them. Personally I enjoy following the order of publication since Asimov's ideas (and writing style) evolved over his lifetime, but there are some who advocate following the in-story chronology which would start with the originals, then the Positrinic Man, and end with the Foundation series.
A good way to sum it up is that the robot "trilogy" focus more on the human condition and Sentience itself, and the Foundation series is more focused on Society and Humanity in general.
If you create a "perfect" creation, then it wouldn't have free will. The moment you insert free will, then you'll create the thing with an imperfection, the ability to choose wrong (or right). Unless you value free will above being perfect, then choosing wrongly is something that can be included in a perfect design.
There are a number of various stories about how choosing perfection leads to less than optimal results.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
AI is going to built by people who are interested in getting a good result for themselves or their company. If that good result crosses ethical boundaries, only laws will make companies care about ethics.
Corporations are not people, they don't have feelings or a conscience, if it makes profit its good, if its doesn't it's meaningless! The ONLY way to prevent corporations from doing evil shit is to make it cost them via fines or jail time for their executives.
I have no trust that our brilliant government will stay ahead of the pace of AI development, and even if they were smart enough to regulate it, they are going to be paid not to.
Ethics in AI for corporations is a pipe dream.
Can We Build Ethics Into Automated Decision-Making?
Yes, if the algorithm is transparent, publicly published, and more or less straight-forward. Which is to say, if they're NOT ethical, people will bitch up a storm until it's fixed. Because democracy works. The exact same thing happens with, say, police department's policies on arresting people. There's a host of honestly vague and confusing algorithms set in law about when it's legal to arrest someone. We as the public have an equally vague sense of what those laws/rules/algorithms are and if a case comes forward where the law seems wrong, people complain, it gets political, and laws change. Case in point: Racial profiling is now illegal.
Same damn thing happens with or without the automation part. The only difference is if we expect a human to follow policy or a computer to follow programming. There will be deviations and blind-spots in the programmed algorithm just like there's humans that don't follow policy. Corruption will likely continue in some form or fashion. This is a boring and moot question from philosophers trying their damned hardest to forcefully insert a philosophical debate into an engineering problem. Stop that.
And then worries about Ethics.
Your ethics got grabbed by your little pussy drone strikes and running away from Syria. Ethically youre pussy faggits.
Ethics is not about being kind to people it is about doing the right thing.
"The Right Thing" and "Ethics" are too subjective.
For example, early in US history, it was considered Ethical to take land from Native Americans and give it to Settlers; based on some religious argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_doctrine
Divorces are considered unethical in some places.
Is it ethical for a Slave to run away to the North? Is it ethical for Occupy Wall Street protesters to protest.
Sure, you can train an AI to re-enforce whatever biases you have. But that doesn't mean it'll agree with other people's ethics.
Ethics and decision-making are human cognitive processes that are unethical to delegate to automation. Why do these inhumane developments continue to be allowed into the human experience?
This is one of those ten year old girl things, right? Your'e punching Kendall in the arm because you secretly like him, correct?
But that's no true scotsman report!
Part of me agrees, another part does not. I cannot do math, but I can understand math. Because I understand it, I can have the computer do the math for me. In this simple example, my creation is better than me. I can also design systems such that issues are quickly exposed. My systems always get better with time. But I do recognize that comparing a "classical" program, for a lack of a better term, is not the same as a fuzzy logic AI.
Every decision any program makes is based on an underlying ethical code. Retrieving data without corrupting it, for example. Faithfully reproducing and transmitting what you type. Retrieving the information that your requested. Making robocalls. These all have ethical underpinnings--either for good or bad.
The operation of software is an expression of the ethics of its programmer. You can't leave out ethics, good or bad, it's baked into the fabric of the code by the programmer.
Bullshit. Just watch Bicentennial Man with Robin Williams, then watch I Robot with Will Smith. The books are all garbage in comparison.
Liar! ;)