We only call it AI - creating an autonomous ML system that is designed to kill anyone can lead to us all being killed by math and plastic - it's a singularly bad idea, so much so there is no scoring mechanism that justifies it - too much chance we end up with this -- https://youtu.be/9CO6M2HsoIA
I've done work in this space, and my stereo cameras are about to go airborne on Air Swimmers (Bruce the Shark :-) ) in my house. In the movie in the linked document its just looking around my office and showing parallax error - I have an app that lets it track, and I spent an afternoon trying to make it loose me - the only way I won was because I jumped from where I was, crashed into the toolchest, and fell to the floor - it actually tracked me successfully, what defeated it was the fact that I was using cheap servos and it snapped an internal axle on the cheap yaw servo when I hit the toolchest. We are helpless, there is no way around it, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it except realize our survival lies in not going down this road. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/low-cost-high-volume-stereosc...
Am I philosophically underdeveloped if I think it's pretty clear that 20 merchants and shoppers in a souk are the good guys, and the people with suicide vests on are the bad guys?
The identification of a person wearing a suicide vest isn't a racial or emotional problem.
Declaring that a person wearing a suicide vest in an Arab market is inherently bad does play on racial prejudice and emotional appeal. It's impossible to separate that statement from a decade and a half of propaganda, and the trauma caused by the numerous suicide attacks on civilians in the western.
Forget "inherently" good or bad. It's entirely possible that the guy in the vest isn't a morally horrible person; he may have been brainwashed since birth and genuinely believe that his actions will bring about a better world. Still, he intends to kill himself and as many other people as possible, and if I have the ability to cause the only death to be his, I'm doing that every time.
I understand the self defense argument. Law Enforcement and Armies are trained to respond with violence to people with intent to kill. The passengers of United Airlines Flight 93 are heros.
Killing "bad people" to save "good people" is not a self defense argument. The statement is too general. Is it okay to do medical testing on criminals if it speeds the advancement of medicines that saves law abiding citizens lives? We could have limits to only use people found guilty of the worst crimes and increase the legal burden of proof for criminals going into the medical testing program. It would decrease overall harm. It would kill bad guys to save good guys. Still, this practice is illegal for good reason. We need a better reason to kill someone than they are bad.
It is relatively easy to define good or bad though. Telling black from white isn't hard. The problem is all the shades in between (where the majority of the colours are).
His statement doesn't really depend on the definition of "good" and "bad", as the logic only requires that the good people be half as valuable as the bad people, not more valuable.
You actually are implying that there are no bad guys? Under no standard of humanity would ISIS or the Taliban be confused for good guys. There are a lot of grey areas in the world for sure, but acting like badness is just a matter of opinion is ridiculous. There is evil in the world.
The argument here isn't that the people have the right to defend themselves. The argument here is that a person wearing a suicide vest is bad and deserves to die for being bad. They are evil. This argument is used by governments and religions throughout history to justify killing. Often by both sides of a conflict. It's a worn out argument, old and tired. Who is the judge of what is evil? The only long standing definition for evil involves religious context to believe. Anything else is poorly defined, not widely agreed upon, or hard to test against.
'Evil-skeptics give three main reasons to abandon the concept of evil: (1) the concept of evil involves unwarranted metaphysical commitments to dark spirits, the supernatural, or the devil; (2) the concept of evil is useless because it lacks explanatory power; and (3) the concept of evil can be harmful or dangerous when used in moral, political, and legal contexts, and so, it should not be used in those contexts, if at all.'[0]
Ask the question, US or THEM. Those who want to defend the things they love from THEM, will always choose US over THEM. Simple. One can argue that "it doesn't have to be that way" but sadly there are millions of years of biology to prove that incorrect.
I think the argument is more so that the military killing 'bad guys' will protect 'good guys' in America long-term, if not civilians local to the country in question.
Not commenting on whether that's accurate; just trying to better articulate what I believe is the above poster's philosophical argument.
Google promised not to kill. Killing X to save 2X is still killing.
Google did not promise to employ utilitarian ideals when deciding if the outcome of a new contract or product is good or bad. They said, "We will not directly aid in killing or harming people."
However, I suspect this vow will invite challenges that question the redistribution of personal data Google aggressively collects to other parties, both advertisers and Orwellian governments. But I'm glad they spoke out nonetheless, since it invites closer scrutiny and upbraiding of the company by eagle-eyed social critics, who are all too often silent or ignored on these issues.
It's unavoidable. Let's say a self driving car realizes that it is on an unavoidable collusion course, but changes in it's behavior (steering) will change where it collides. That's the trolley problem.
If I have understood it correctly in most self driving cars the actual AI/ML part is recognition of the scene/area, not deciding the action or outcome of such a situation.
Either way this is one of the reasons I'm not wild about the crazy self-driving race.
An autonomous car must decide at every moment whether to brake, accelerate, swerve left, swerve right, or do nothing. Otherwise the car is not very autonomous. :)
If it senses an unavoidable collusion ahead, it will need to choose from possible reactions that each have different consequences for the various people and property. Someone has to program or train the car what to value when choosing its reaction. The car will be biased, implicitly or explicitly, by the programmer's values.
If you make the car flip a coin (perhaps a weighted coin, on the strength of the belief in its sensor data), you avoid providing a solution to the trolley problem.
Alternatively, you can have the people vote on a self-driving car referendum, which specifies a DMV-enforced policy for the trolley problem.
As a society we vote on such matters all the time. Nothing new here.
Flipping a coin is still a conscious decision by the programmer.
MIT created an online survey called the Moral Machine asking people to choose who a car should hit in various (randomized and user-created) scenarios. Data like that could be used to train a "fair" AI. It's an interesting thought experiment but the survey's scenarios are unrealistic and include information that a car AI would not have available, e.g. person A is homeless and has no children while person B is a wealthy executive in good health.
The point is that it is a philosophical problem, not a technical one. A human will see that it is unsolvable, whereas a machine will probably optimize for unethical or strictly cost-win payoffs without considering the philosophical parts.
I'm not saying the decision will be better when a human makes it, I'm saying it will be more humanely considered.
- Yes : Directly responsible for death. AI is likely not the only means to have stopped those 'bad-guys'.
- Depends : How humans choose to spend their lives is their own issue. Personal responsibility dictates it is each individuals choice how to live their lives. Youtube is not some resource needed for life.
Well, "Don't kill anyone or commit any human rights atrocities" isn't exactly a high bar they're setting for themselves - especially when the list of no-nos is immediately followed up with "we're still cool with supporting the military-industrial complex in other ways though". The article isn't really a list of principles so much as a list of PR disasters they'd like to avoid.
This statement will have zero impact on subsequent sensational headlines or posters here claiming Google is making killbots.