Interview: AI is not the threat.
-
Very good point. So please expand - for us lay people - on the ramifications.
@DrALJONES expanding the bridge example dr timnit uses here: the engineers who over saw the design and construction can be held liable (sometimes criminally) for faults in the design or construction. those engineers are over seen and certified by professional bodies that maintain professional quality in the industry. same for doctors, lawyers, accountants, ...
-
@DrALJONES expanding the bridge example dr timnit uses here: the engineers who over saw the design and construction can be held liable (sometimes criminally) for faults in the design or construction. those engineers are over seen and certified by professional bodies that maintain professional quality in the industry. same for doctors, lawyers, accountants, ...
@DrALJONES
i'm not allowed to perform a surgery on someone because i'm not a doctor.
i'm not allowed to design the hospital because i'm not an architect.
i'm not allowed to design the electronic equipment used in the surgery because i'm not an electrical engineer.
but i am allowed to write the software used on the electronic equipment, or the CAD tools, or anything else because i decided i could -
Interview: AI is not the threat. It's the people building it "that are the existential risks to humanity."
"If a bridge collapses, we don’t ever ask, “Was the bridge uncontrollable? Was the bridge unethical?” And really, AI is no different than that."
When we describe these systems as if they have their own agency, we’re helping the companies market themselves. "We’re also helping them sidestep accountability."
~Timnit Gebru
@DrALJONES sounds like openai talking about ai threat that needs regulation is literally the same thing as facebook talking about how everybody has to be forced to perform age verification now to protect the kids
-
@DrALJONES
i'm not allowed to perform a surgery on someone because i'm not a doctor.
i'm not allowed to design the hospital because i'm not an architect.
i'm not allowed to design the electronic equipment used in the surgery because i'm not an electrical engineer.
but i am allowed to write the software used on the electronic equipment, or the CAD tools, or anything else because i decided i couldI'm guessing you mean "because i'm NOT an electrical engineer".
It's quite staggering to think about the potentially deadly ramifications of the absence of guardrails on writers of software....
-
I'm guessing you mean "because i'm NOT an electrical engineer".
It's quite staggering to think about the potentially deadly ramifications of the absence of guardrails on writers of software....
@DrALJONES indeed. on both points
-
@DrALJONES sounds like openai talking about ai threat that needs regulation is literally the same thing as facebook talking about how everybody has to be forced to perform age verification now to protect the kids
Sorry, not quite sure of your point?
-
Sorry, not quite sure of your point?
@DrALJONES makes it easier to see it purely as a way to avoid responsibility rather than some kind of real concern
-
Interview: AI is not the threat. It's the people building it "that are the existential risks to humanity."
"If a bridge collapses, we don’t ever ask, “Was the bridge uncontrollable? Was the bridge unethical?” And really, AI is no different than that."
When we describe these systems as if they have their own agency, we’re helping the companies market themselves. "We’re also helping them sidestep accountability."
~Timnit Gebru
AI is a tool and WE are its makers and fully responsible…
-
@DrALJONES makes it easier to see it purely as a way to avoid responsibility rather than some kind of real concern
Re "makes it easier..."
"sounds like openai talking about ai threat that needs regulation is literally the same thing as facebook talking ..."
Not clear who is the subject of your statements. Gebru?
-
Re "makes it easier..."
"sounds like openai talking about ai threat that needs regulation is literally the same thing as facebook talking ..."
Not clear who is the subject of your statements. Gebru?
@DrALJONES I mean
what Gebru is saying makes me think that AI companies don't care about anybody's safety (and don't really believe in danger) and are trying to shift responsibility for the damage they cause -
@DrALJONES I mean
what Gebru is saying makes me think that AI companies don't care about anybody's safety (and don't really believe in danger) and are trying to shift responsibility for the damage they cause -
This Italian prison sentence for a CEO puts responsibility where it belongs:
Ultimately, a company's CEO is responsible for its actions and product development.
That realisation also prevents the appointment of CEOs who have no knowledge about the products or services a company provides, because they can no longer hide behind: "I have people for that. You cannot hold me responsible for what people working for me do or miss."
@paulschoe @flyingpenguin @DrALJONES @DaRC_Fantom
Exactly…
-
Interview: AI is not the threat. It's the people building it "that are the existential risks to humanity."
"If a bridge collapses, we don’t ever ask, “Was the bridge uncontrollable? Was the bridge unethical?” And really, AI is no different than that."
When we describe these systems as if they have their own agency, we’re helping the companies market themselves. "We’re also helping them sidestep accountability."
~Timnit Gebru
@DrALJONES That's the point. Bad software is not by itself as dangerous as people behind it, who are in the end accountable for the ethical, ecological, economical issues it brings.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
