3 Comments

Your article is very interesting and I agree with all your assumptions. You certainly open a very complicated scenario from an ethical-moral point. Let's take one example. Let us imagine that a car has only two choices to make: Not to hit the pedestrian by choosing to let its driver die in the accident, or, conversely, to save the driver by hitting the pedestrian. Which life is more important, the driver's or the pedestrian's? Should we let the car decide?

Expand full comment
author

You raise a genuine concern here. This example is similar to the 'trolley problem' often quoted in AI ethics. When such questions are asked to the people on the innovation side of things, they can be quick to dismiss them as a NO WIN-WIN scenario and an edge case which shouldn't be considered when developing AI. I think the opposite. Reductio ad absurdum is not only good but necessary in AI development. After all, we are literally at a point where we are considering handing our lives into the control of a technology that has no notion of 'understanding'. That's scary.

Expand full comment

Yeah, that's scary. I totally agree.

Expand full comment