I understand the consensus at large is no, but what if they could be used for, say, administrative purposes, or some other task which, though not unimportant, might be considered trivial compared to, say, surgery or assessments?
Just a thought.
Also, in addition to whether such technology should be used, do you believe it to be inevitable in any case?
To be sure, I’m not advocating for or against it, merely curious what other people’s opinions are and why they hold such opinions on this potentially inevitable subject
There is no mechanism for accountability or even auditing decision. We can’t put the unaccountable in charge of life and death.
But isn’t that like saying ‘we can’t hold the dog owner responsible for the dog ripping the child to death’? Surely whoever oversees the AI is accountable? (I’m not really up on AI law tbf)
We do hold the dog owner accountable.
We’ve never held the AI creator or operator responsible.
If we started holding people meaningful accountable for the AI stuff, we’d probably stop seeing it used so much.
But also, you wouldn’t put a dog in charge of decisions about someone’s life.
No of course not, I was just drawing a comparison on responsibility is all.
As for the AI stuff, good point. Do you think that the reason we don’t hold them accountable is so that AI doesn’t get reduced?
Nobody wants to be accountable. AI let’s people hold accountability at arm’s length, because nobody is forcing the person responsible for the decision to use AI to be accountable for the decisions of that AI. It’s a positive feedback loop, where everyone involved in AI benefits from the lack of accountability, regardless of actual outcomes.