Interesting and thougtful discussion, thanks all! On 29/1/23 3:22 pm, David wrote: > Delegating human affairs to AI systems on the scale [Tom] suggests is simply incompatible with human society in my view.
A while back, I did a segment on the various levels of autonomy, in the particular context of drones: http://www.rogerclarke.com/SOS/Drones-E.html#DCA I recently co-opted that directly into the AIU context: http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/AITS.html#GT ____________________ On 29/1/23 3:22 pm, David wrote: > Tom, > > On 29/1/23 10:47, Tom Worthington wrote: >> On 27/1/23 11:01, David wrote: >>> ... I think most people are pretty quick to detect when they're talking to >>> a machine ... >> But if it [ChatGPT] provides a cheap and convenient service, do you mind? >> Recently I watched someone put dinner in the oven and start to walk out of >> the kitchen. I thought it odd they did not set the oven timer. But as they >> walked they said "Alexa, set an alarm for 30 minutes". Alexa's response was >> far from human sounding, but would you be willing to pay for a human butler >> to tell you when dinner was ready? > > Of course not, I would just go on setting the oven timer! It's cheaper than > a butler or an Alexa too. > > I think most of your counter-examples rely on some claimed utility or > efficiency of AI. But I argue that argument masks an overarching complexity, > and each such application surrenders a part of humanity's autonomy and > accumulated wisdom to machines. It's certainly not a problem with Siri now. > But suppose AI machines like ChatGPT get better and begin to be used in > decision roles which Society traditionally confers on educators, the > judiciary, the medical establishment, the Parliament, and so on, in other > words, responsible human agents. How do you think these AI decisions would > evolve over time? > > Who would provide the ongoing training? Not the human agents who are > currently responsible because they've been dealt out of the decision-making > loop in any practical sense. Would the Russian or American judicial system > have a training input to the box which "hears" Court cases here? Would these > AI systems train one another? And of course "training" can still be > subverted by naughty humans... > > How does humanity handle a situation where three AI "judges" I'll call > ChatGPT, ArgueGPT, and ChargeGPT manufactured and pre-trained by three > different Corporations differ in their judgements? For that matter, suppose > the Tesla, Volvo, and Worthington AI-based driving computers differ in their > decisions at a relative speed around 200 kph on the Hume Highway, with fatal > results to the vehicle occupants? > > Delegating human affairs to AI systems on the scale you suggest is simply > incompatible with human society in my view. > >>>> But I wouldn't like to try telling a bank manager they're personally >>>> responsible for the autonomous decisions of some AI system. >> Have a look at the evidence to previous royal commissions into the financial >> sector: they stole money from dead people. Could AI do worse? More >> seriously, how often does a bank manager make a decision, based purely on >> their own judgement? The bank manager applies a set of rules, or just >> enters the details onto a system which applies the rules. Also, when is the >> last time you talked to a bank manger, for me it was about 40 years ago. > Er, no, it's not just a matter of applying rules. The bank managers, the > judiciary, the medical professionals, educators, police, politicians, et > cetera have two things the AI system does not: insight and responsibility for > their actions. > > I'll finish with a quote from the Wikipedia article: What the quote > describes as "hallucination" (in a technical sense) I would say represents > the difference between a fast correlation processor and an insightful human. > > QUOTE > ChatGPT suffers from multiple limitations. OpenAI acknowledged that ChatGPT > "sometimes writes plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical > answers".^[6] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-OpenAIInfo-6> > This behavior is common to large language models > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_models> and is called hallucination > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(NLP)>.^[19] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-19> The reward model of > ChatGPT, designed around human oversight, can be over-optimized and thus > hinder performance, otherwise known as Goodhart's law > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law>.^[20] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-20> ChatGPT has limited > knowledge of events that occurred after 2021. According to the BBC, as of > December 2022 ChatGPT is not allowed to "express political opinions or engage > in political activism".^[21] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-21> Yet, research suggests > that ChatGPT exhibits a pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation when > prompted to take a stance on political statements from two established voting > advice applications.^[22] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-22> In training ChatGPT, > human reviewers preferred longer answers, irrespective of actual > comprehension or factual content.^[6] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-OpenAIInfo-6> Training data > also suffers from algorithmic bias > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithmic_bias>, which may be revealed when > ChatGPT responds to prompts including descriptors of people. In one instance, > ChatGPT generated a rap indicating that women and scientists of color were > inferior to white and male scientists.^[23] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-23> ^[24] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChatGPT#cite_note-24> > UNQUOTE > > David Lochrin > _______________________________________________ > Link mailing list > [email protected] > https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link > -- Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected] T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
