Machine Behavior Needs to Be an Academic Discipline
This article seems really wishy-washy and confusing. What is actually being proposed?<p>A set of standards that automated algorithms should adhere to? What kind of standards are we talking about?<p>A new branch of philosophy that talks about the actions of automated algorithms? What would be the point? How do you actually turn that into something that progresses, and that people will act on?<p>More ethics classes in universities for CS students? How do you differentiate this from what&#x27;s already happening? Is it just broader?<p>---<p>To try to steelman this a bit, I figure there are two issues at play.<p>The first is making sure that AI is working in the way we designed it to; it&#x27;s free of biases, it doesn&#x27;t endanger people, it adheres to laws. We&#x27;re doing horifficially on this metric when it comes to long-term superhuman AI alignment stuff, but most people are talking about next-decade issues. Those are raw technical issues, and though we&#x27;re still working on robustness and detecting biases I really cannot see much need for external guidance outside of the natural technical progress that the field is already heavily invested in. These are problems we <i>want</i> to solve already.<p>The second issue is use of these technologies as tools. This is where we talk about how large companies&#x27; algorithms affect public perception, or how automated militaries affects warfare, or how self-driving cars are litigated. These are not AI problems, they&#x27;re social problems. Yes, the technology behind those examples looks kind&#x27;a similar behind the scenes, but these are distinct social, legal and economic problems.<p>This is kind of like seeing the advent of electricity, predicting its effect on society, and asking for people to study &quot;ethics of electricity&quot;.