“We’ve got to be careful here,” he said in an interview with ABC News, mentioning the potential for AI to produce misinformation. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has acknowledged that the company is scared of the risks posed by its chatbot system, ChatGPT. What’s more, voluntarily pausing AI experiments would allow other companies to get a free ride by eventually reaping the benefits of safer, more transparent AI development, along with the rest of society. For example, misinformation and fake news already pose serious threats to democracies, but AI has the potential to exacerbate the problem by spreading “fake news” faster and more effectively than people can.Įven if some tech companies voluntarily halted their experiments, however, other corporations would have a monetary interest in continuing their own AI research, allowing them to get ahead in the AI arms race. To reduce AI’s risks, everyone has an interest in the industry’s research being conducted carefully, safely and with proper oversight and transparency. Like the subway, AI is a public good, given its potential to complete tasks far more efficiently than human operators: everything from diagnosing patients by analyzing medical data to taking over high-risk jobs in the military or improving mining safety.īut both its benefits and dangers will affect everyone, even people who don’t personally use AI. In other words, they fail to uphold their duty to be contributing members of society. Many philosophers also argue that free riders fail in their responsibilities as part of the social contract, the collectively agreed-upon cooperative principles that govern a society. Philosophers tend to argue that it is unethical to “free ride,” since free riders fail to reciprocate others’ paying their fair share. If every individual failed to pay, though, no one would benefit. Hence the “free rider” issue: Some individuals won’t contribute their fair share but will still get a “free ride” – literally, in the case of the subway. After all, they’ll still be able to enjoy the subway if most other people pay. Everyone would benefit, yet it’s in each individual’s best interest to save money and avoid paying their fair share. For example, suppose a city’s inhabitants have a collective interest in funding a subway system, which would require that each of them pay a small amount through taxes or fares. Such problems most commonly involve public goods. Riding for freeįree riding is a common consequence of what philosophers call “collective action problems.” These are situations in which, as a group, everyone would benefit from a particular action, but as individuals, each member would benefit from not doing it. As a philosopher who studies technology ethics, I’ve noticed that AI research exemplifies the “ free rider problem.” I’d argue that this should guide how societies respond to its risks – and that good intentions won’t be enough. While the letter calls for industry and policymakers to cooperate, there is currently no mechanism to enforce such a pause. Remembering Enterprise: The Test Shuttle That Never Flew to Space These Winning Close-Up Photos Show Life That's Often Overlooked
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |