Yes, all it takes is a little common sense to see that legal and ethical restraint are important considerations during your interview and interrogation of Eddie. However, as the complexity of the problem rises, the tractability of the solution to a human reader lowers, as does the probability that your tool AI has sufficient common sense.
A route on a map only has a few degrees of freedom; and it’s easy to spot violations of common-sense constraints that weren’t properly programmed in, or to abort the direction-following process when problems spring up. A route to a virally delivered cancer cure has many degrees of freedom, and it’s harder to spot violations of common-sense constraints, and problems may only become evident when it’s too late to abort.
If all it took was “a little common sense” to do interrogations safely and ethically, the Stanford Prison Experiment wouldn’t have turned out the way it did. These are not simple problems!
When a medical expert system spits out a novel plan for cancer treatment, do you think that plan would be less trustworthy, or receive less scrutiny at every stage, than one invented by human experts? If an initial trial results in some statistically significant number of rats erupting into clockwork horror and rampaging through the lab until cleansed by fire, or even just keeling over from seemingly-unrelated kidney failure, do you think the FDA would approve?
Yes, all it takes is a little common sense to see that legal and ethical restraint are important considerations during your interview and interrogation of Eddie. However, as the complexity of the problem rises, the tractability of the solution to a human reader lowers, as does the probability that your tool AI has sufficient common sense.
A route on a map only has a few degrees of freedom; and it’s easy to spot violations of common-sense constraints that weren’t properly programmed in, or to abort the direction-following process when problems spring up. A route to a virally delivered cancer cure has many degrees of freedom, and it’s harder to spot violations of common-sense constraints, and problems may only become evident when it’s too late to abort.
If all it took was “a little common sense” to do interrogations safely and ethically, the Stanford Prison Experiment wouldn’t have turned out the way it did. These are not simple problems!
When a medical expert system spits out a novel plan for cancer treatment, do you think that plan would be less trustworthy, or receive less scrutiny at every stage, than one invented by human experts? If an initial trial results in some statistically significant number of rats erupting into clockwork horror and rampaging through the lab until cleansed by fire, or even just keeling over from seemingly-unrelated kidney failure, do you think the FDA would approve?