Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Ya, like a self driving car is gongs to have to be safer than a human for us to accept them. I think the difference between an individual human making a mistake and AI is that a human is one, and the AI system is multiple. So if you took 1000 human drivers they'd almost all have a few things they just suck at, but those things would be different, for the most part. And you may have a few that are near perfect in their actions/choices. It's easier to accept one human making one mistake than it is to accept an AI making the same mistake over and over.
So I think it necessarily needs to be held to a higher standard, to that near perfect human, or an aggregate of all the good decisions those 1000 humans make. Essentially it's like AI can commit the mistake one human makes once, and we would be OK with that. But if it makes the same mistakes as 1000 humans, while also being as good or better on the positive side, it's still a complete failure. Which I think is fair, because statistically you will interact with a different fialing human rarely, but if the AI fails you will be interacting with it regularly, given it's reach.
|
In the driving space its errors that a human wouldn’t have made that I think people find troubling. People only see the deaths it causes rather than the ones it prevents. I think it’s still just an insurance problem. If insurance companies insure cars in the same manner we do now eventuallly costs will be lower than humans and it will win despite the objections.
In AI I think you bring up a really good point. Our society is designed for random error it is not designed for repetitive errors. As errors become less random and more systematic all of the current quality systems will break down. A random sampling of 5% of work no longer catches errors. It’s now needs 100% checks until you prove a process is good and then 0. It’s a completely different quality paradigm.