• Aniki@feddit.org
      2·
      il y a 17 heures

      btw this is kinda an outdated viewpoint. what is even meant by “management decision”? is it decisions such as “does the train drive forward, or not?” because if that’s what’s meant, then yes, very much can machines make these kind of decisions. that’s the whole point of studying real-time systems. they require that they can handle every possible input data case and respond to it meaningfully within a fixed maximum response time. it has nothing to do with “holding the decision maker accountable”.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        1·
        il y a 3 heures

        In that example, it sounds like the train is responsible for driving forward, driving in reverse and stopping.

        The train company would want to ensure a human has agreed in writing to be held accountable for foreseeable failures of the train driving system.

        Sharing my definitions, more or less, in red:

        “Key Differences of Responsibility vs Accountability”

        The thing that should be impossible is for the train company to hire the owner’s drunk cousin to build a self driving train system, and when people get hurt and the company is taken to court, the company is allowed to apologize + blame software + do business as usual w/o fine/penalties.

        I’m thinking even at the time enough stuff was (successfully, safely) automated that they would’ve agreed.

        You want everyone at your company to know that if they get dragged in front of a judge, pointing fingers at silicon will not prove a winning strategy. Hence, a computer must never make a management decision!

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      5·
      il y a 24 heures

      I think the computer told me to can never be a viable excuse when determining responsibility for a poor decision.

      A manager can assert they were advised by the computer, but in the end, the human being must be held responsible.

      Case in point, Iran Air Flight 655

  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    20·
    il y a 1 jour

    This is a great and succinct summary of the core issue of “ai”. Without consciousness there can never be anything that makes art art.

    Just Data algorithmically crafting poems about cat facts, if you excuse the trek reference.

    • cannedtuna@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      il y a 1 jour

      Good reference, but I feel Data is a poor example.

      Data was proved to be both intelligent and self aware, and even though consciousness was inconclusive he was considered sentient.

      He was able to create poetry and art, only initially by algorithmic imitation because he didn’t understand it. As he grew as a “person” his artistic pursuits, painting, poetry, music, and literature, defined his character because he himself chased their meaning, not because someone asked him to peruse them.

      Edit: also I’d like to point out that Data has been both horny and sad

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        3·
        il y a 1 jour

        Definitely good points you are making, but his art has also variously been described as soulless or things to that effect, because he can perfectly play a musical piece or make an almost photorealistic painting, but struggles to go beyond surface concepts (not to mention when he is asked to sculpt music).

        Though ultimately i would agree that data is not the best example, because as you said he sometimes gets a taste of what he is lacking, and also, because he has an actual consciousness.

    • 666dollarfootlong@lemmy.world
      3·
      il y a 1 jour

      I think one of the reasons why AI ““art”” appeals to those on the right is that it is “objectively” beautiful and in the future probably “perfect” as well, since they see our entire existance as metrics, data and numbers

  • Sundray@lemmus.orgEnglish
    9·
    il y a 1 jour

    A computer can never be horny or sad

    I’m sure the AI bros are working on it.

    • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      32·
      il y a 24 heures

      This is my argument. Eventually, we’ll have computers capable of generating good art that moves its human audience as intended.

      And in the meantime, there are artists who utilize generative AI as a tool, who learn to prompt exactly, and then curate the best results from the basilisks, much the way photographers determine what to shoot, and how to manipulate lenses, exposure and lighting in order to get the optimal effect.

      Sadly, current LLMs consume a whole lot of resources, way more than the process of human beings doing art. So it’s a long, long road to us getting to where generative AI is actually economic.