Any poorly defined goal can lead to processes optimized poorly.
https://philpapers.org/rec/EDIAAT-3
AI and the Law: Can Legal Systems Help Us Maximize Paperclips while Minimizing Deaths?
This Chapter provides a short undergraduate introduction to ethical and philosophical complexities surrounding the law’s attempt (or lack thereof) to regulate artificial intelligence. Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom proposed a simple thought experiment known as the paperclip maximizer. What would happen if a machine (the “PCM”) were given the sole goal of manufacturing as many paperclips as possible? It might learn how to transact money, source metal, or even build factories. The machine might also eventually realize that humans pose a threat. Humans could turn the machine off at any point, and then it wouldn’t be able to make as many paperclips as possible! Taken to the logical extreme, the result is quite grim—the PCM might even start using humans as raw material for paperclips. The predicament only deepens once we realize that Bostrom’s thought experiment overlooks a key player. The PCM and algorithms like it do not arise spontaneously (at least, not yet). Most likely, some corporation—say, Office Corp.—designed, owns, and runs the PCM. The more paperclips the PCM manufactures, the more profits Office Corp. makes, even if that entails converting some humans (but preferably not customers!) into raw materials. Less dramatically, Office Corp. may also make more money when PCM engages in other socially sub-optimal behaviors that would otherwise violate the law, like money laundering, sourcing materials from endangered habitats, manipulating the market for steel, or colluding with competitors over prices. The consequences are predictable and dire. If Office Corp. isn’t held responsible, it will not stop with the PCM. Office Corp. would have every incentive to develop more maximizers—say for papers, pencils, and protractors. This chapter issues a challenge for tech ethicists, social ontologists, and legal theorists: How can the law help mitigate algorithmic harms without overly compromising the potential that AI has to make us all healthier, wealthier, and wiser? The answer is far from straightforward.
We want to protect our children in the worst way…
A California Law Designed To Protect Children's Digital Privacy Could Lead to Invasive Age Verification
While the California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was hailed as a victory for digital privacy, critics warn of a litany of unintended consequences.
The California Age-Appropriate Design Code Act was signed last month by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). The law requires that online businesses create robust privacy protections for users under 18.
However, critics of the law have raised concerns about its vague language, which leaves unclear what kinds of business might be subject to the law's constraints and what specific actions companies must take to comply with the law.
For instance, due to the law's strict age requirements, online businesses may resort to invasive age verification regimes—such as face-scanning or checking government-issued IDs.
They are coming. Think about dealing with them.
https://elibrary.verlagoesterreich.at/article/10.33196/ealr202201003201
The Use of Autonomous Weapons – fortunium dei?
Weapons were created to inflict damage, whether to property or to people. With the “help” of innovation and digitalisation, there has been a rapid increase in the development and promotion of autonomous weapons. Among other things, pictures and videos of people are used in order to feed the artificial intelligence with material and therefore let it process and develop itself further.
This paper describes the issues of using such weapons in connection with international humanitarian and human rights law. It is divided into four chapters, starting with the functioning and description of the actual weapon and autonomous weapons, and the types of such armament. Furthermore, the points of being in favour or against these systems will be dismantled in a detailed way within the scope of international human rights and humanitarian law, and philosophical standards, the latter in a brief way. Lastly, the conclusion will briefly summarise the results, suggestions for improvements and concerns in the future of using such weapons. Due to the specialisation on to what extent the use of autonomous weapon systems is permissible under human and international humanitarian law, this paper intentionally will not deal with liability and immunity by using them because it would go beyond the scope of this essay.
Ethics for Designers, a basic class for computer scientists?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09716858221119546
Artificial Intelligent Systems and Ethical Agency
The article examines the challenges involved in the process of developing artificial ethical agents. The process involves the creators or designing professionals, the procedures to develop an ethical agent and the artificial systems. There are two possibilities available to create artificial ethical agents: (a) programming ethical guidance in the artificial Intelligence (AI)-equipped machines and/or (b) allowing AI-equipped machines to learn ethical decision-making by observing humans. However, it is difficult to fulfil these possibilities due to the subjective nature of ethical decision-making. The challenge related to the developers is that they themselves lack training in ethical skills. The creators who develop an artificial ethical agent should be able to foresee the ethical issues and have knowledge about ethical decision-making to improve the ethical use of AI-equipped machines. The suggestion is that the focus should be on training professionals involved in the process of developing these artificial systems in ethics rather than developing artificial ethical agents and thereby attributing ethical agency to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment