AW: [aiethics] Let's begin...

[Christian DroЯmann]

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org




> Human Rights are partially a legal right (law) which differs from
> country to country, the remaining are a set of good intentions
> that aren't widely adopted as ethical values; no matter what the
> variable you use to weight or ponderate there are substantial
> non-compliances.

there will always be non-compliances..it's in the human nature...
but we need a basis to work with :-)
It was just an example...

> >If machines have developed a kind of conscience until then, I
> suppose some
> >might even call it "murder"...
>
> Well, the guy was vague on purpose; everyone filled the gaps, on
> the extreme (a little extreme) "murder" could be an interpretation;
> most fellows I commented the topic with had filled the gap more like
> in the sense to killing a pet with no reason making it suffer in
> the process
> (which, BTW, it's unlawful on many countries including mine based on
> a circa 1880 law).

the question might be on what step intelligent bots are =
standing...should
they be treated like animals, like humans, like humanoids or are they =
just a
different species?

> Yes, still we've a couple of decades to go, and machines already are
> so pervasive that damaging them means often damaging persons and =
offenders
> are applied with a transitive interpretation of law. It's more than

that's because the laws are not up-to-date..many issues that occur =
nowadays
are difficult to judge because appropriate laws haven't been created
yet...and the laws that WERE created have been created by people who =
have no
idea what they were talking about (at least I get that impression here =
in
Germany)

> However, if we call ourselves a "global village" we should be careful
> of issues like this.
>
> It's fun to watch walking the world declamations of the "Global =
Village"
> as long as the "Global Village" means the entire world adopting the =
set
> of beliefs of Biloxi,Missisipi (or any other place). I heard the term
> abussed so many times that I could not avoid to turn cynical when =
expossed
> to it.

I define "global village" as insignificance of distance, race or
nationality...is that an abouse in your eyes?

> Yes, addressing religion would surely lead to ... religious =
discussions,
> literally.

that might become interesting...I'm an atheist, so I might be the "bad =
guy"
for almost anyone who is religious here..;->

> But it's worth note that a big foundation of the commonly accepted
> ethical systems (as a system of beliefs, or if you prefers a =
collective
> acerb) comes right from religious systems; some religion comes to a =
point

that is because beliefs existed way before any ethical system was
developed...

> where they step into very low level of details about day to day life =
while
> others kept themselves at a much higher (espiritual) level; but from =
the
> list of DOs and DON'Ts usually accepted on a given region many of them
> have their roots on religion usually (just addressing social issues =
with
> no actual legal enforcement).

that's true...although I think that some rules created in the far past =
do
not apply (or at least should not be applied) for the modern society...

> The AI movie was just an example of the mixture of pragmatic things =
needed
> to be addressed at the same time than other far fetched topics.
>
> One thing is sure, if in the movie some AI entity does something =
morally
> questionable the media would seek persons on the AI environment to =
make
> an statement on the issue; better for the foundation to have something
> structured to say at that time if this committee is worth investing =
time.

that's what I wanted, but not for answering questions, but to have a =
basis
to work on...
I wonder who will talk to the press if official questions are asked...
That's why I am so eager to create a set of rules we can work after...

> >The other question is: If we _had_ the means to enforce it, would
> >"enforcing" an ethical system not ridicule itself?
>
> No, it would become a legal system (law = values + enforcement).

one could be cynical about this as well ;->

> Yes, thought on something similar above.
>
> The practical implementation of such thing would surely be =
challenging,
> but could be done I guess.

I thought so as well...but obiously others are in doubt and this could
become an interesting discussion...
But I get to thinking that the majority here is not too fond of a
certification system.
I wonder what opinion Richard has about this...

> Suitable for children.... what a vague concept. A children from where?
> What a children is?

Ask Richard...

> Not saying it could not be done, but the cultural reference framework
> is so vastly wide that it would be challenging.

see above...we need a ruleset...

> I travel a lot, worldwide, because of my work. And have many chances
> to watch the same movie over and over at different places (there
> are places
> where little else could be done than to watch movies);
> qualification systems
> do differ but making the bridge I saw movies that were X in USA, R in
> Germany, illegal in Jordan and free viewed or PG on Neederland (!), =
not
> to mention places where it had been "reformated to suit your screen" =
and
> quite a lot of passages were left out in the process just pour le
> gallerie.

It depends on the country...maybe we should develop our own rating
concept...
A different approach would be to say "Alice is made in America, so the
American concept of rating should be applied..."

> Perhaps in the future somebody could develop a module that actually
> supress answers inconsistent with those values (today it is more like
> Sci-Fi), but if the ethic declamation is there somebody would think
> on that and given the appropriate time will figure out something. Who
> knows...

another question is whether this SHOULD be developed...

Christian