View Single Post
Old 08-04-2011, 10:43 AM   #28
EatingPie
Blueberry!
EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.EatingPie puts his or her pants on both legs at a time.
 
EatingPie's Avatar
 
Posts: 888
Karma: 133343
Join Date: Mar 2007
Device: Sony PRS-500 (RIP); PRS-600 (Good Riddance); PRS-505; PRS-650; PRS-350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda View Post
I'll probably restrict my discussion primarily to literature, but I might take a couple of the most well-known examples from film.



I highly doubt that. The ethical questions surrounding AI fall more into the realm of psychology and philosophy than computer science because the issues are not quantifiable. AI researchers don't tend to explore the moral implications because (1) Strong AI does not yet exist, and (2) They're computer scientists; their education and research is firmly rooted in repeatable experiments with rigorous data. Philosophically-minded papers are unlikely to get accepted to IEEE research conferences.
Well, one major arm of AI research is called "Cognitive Science," and at my university it fell under the Psychology department. These are the theoretical models of thought and intelligence. There's a ton of crossover between this and Computer Science departments.

In terms of the reason they're not thinking of these questions, the answer is simpler, and even more general than you give.

They do not ask these questions because they are scientists. Scientists seldom consider the consequences of their developments, and in this day and age, pursuit in the name of science is justification for almost anything. Unfortunately, scientists aren't told to study (or consider) ethics or philosophy as a requirement.

I probably should reference Jurrasic Park the book. Even though it's an annoying read, it makes this very point: science for science sake, with no moral compass, leads ultimately to destruction.

-Pie
EatingPie is offline   Reply With Quote