upvote

points

by drob51810 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby svieira9 hours ago|
next
[-]
> These systems are inherently immoral (it’s just a lot of matrix math)

(nit) "immoral" is "anti-moral". I suspect you want "amoral", that is "without" or "separated from" morals.

But, if you wanted "immoral" ... what about matrix math derived from gradient descent is inherently "immoral" in your view?

reply
upvoteby drob5186 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yes apologies. I did mean amoral. And now I can’t edit it.
reply
upvoteby Retric7 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Mass adoption of technology always has negative outcomes because any change at scale has negative outcomes. Cars as a technology kill a great number of people and yet few are willing to ban them.

“AI” in the widest definition possible could do while a lot of harm without being a net negative. I’d be way more concerned about the healthcare sector than the military as the military already has significant collateral damage.

reply
upvoteby drob5186 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Sure, but cars weren’t hooked up to weapons systems. They killed as an accidental side effect. That’s why I’m saying I’m not worried about AI in a general sense.
reply
upvoteby Retric4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Cars were quickly tuned into Tanks, APC’s, etc.

The fear around military AI is more about its failure than anything else, but nobody is trying to make fully automated machines which are manufacturing bombs from raw materials. Blowing up the wrong building matters a great deal to the people in the building, but for humanity a building was going to be destroyed either way. So the risk at any one point ends up being quite limited.

reply