I think the appeal of AI, other than saving money on staff, is that it’s a non-deterministic black box without ethics. Having no-one on staff who understands exactly why the AI made a decision is great for plausible deniability in court.
“Your honor, it is impossible to say why the sentient D20 chose to roll <5 for this patient. It is omniscient, and has been weighted carefully by our alchemists to produce decisions as cold and impersonally as the best of our insurance drones.”
There are good ideas to apply AI to, there are also very bad ideas. But there is one more:
A single powerful person believing that their ideas sound good on paper, but it is actually rather a dark turn for the worst possible outcome. This is what this article describes.
Just remember, we do not need to create any more Luigis. Such bad ideas like this which involve AI will create even more of them.
I think the appeal of AI, other than saving money on staff, is that it’s a non-deterministic black box without ethics. Having no-one on staff who understands exactly why the AI made a decision is great for plausible deniability in court.
“Your honor, it is impossible to say why the sentient D20 chose to roll <5 for this patient. It is omniscient, and has been weighted carefully by our alchemists to produce decisions as cold and impersonally as the best of our insurance drones.”
Not without ethics. With programmable ethics. Programming null ethics is still a choice.
There are good ideas to apply AI to, there are also very bad ideas. But there is one more:
A single powerful person believing that their ideas sound good on paper, but it is actually rather a dark turn for the worst possible outcome. This is what this article describes.
Just remember, we do not need to create any more Luigis. Such bad ideas like this which involve AI will create even more of them.
this is dangerous