Man = Ethics = AI

in ai •  last month 

Ethics, or moral philosophy, is the branch of philosophy that studies human behavior, right and wrong, good and bad, morals, good living, virtue, happiness, and duty.

Starting from this concept where it declares that ethics is associated with human behavior.

We can say that ethics is strictly complied with by humans but because lately it is fashionable to say ethics and AI, if artificial intelligence is directly related to something non-human, there arises my questions of how to relate ethics and AI thinking about it comes to this very simple diagram where I pose this relationship.

Man = Ethics = AI

Image source

Man = AI = Ethics

AI = Ethics = Man

AI = Man = Ethics

Ethics = Man = AI
Ethics = AI = Man

Fuente de la imagen

I once read somewhere that AI feeds on Man's behavior, as well as what Man teaches him. So in this way I can and do come to conclude associating ethics that can only be applied to the human and relate to AI in one way or another is the man who invented it and gives it life and AI learns from man the good and the bad.

As for the good things that IA can do, I have nothing against it and if it is for the benefit of humanity, I cannot refute anything.

But what happens when man does not obey and does not comply with his own rules, norms, laws that he imposes on himself to make a healthy society, what happens if man himself destroys the law he walks over that society.

This message is sent to his fellow man but now also to IA even if it is not directly, as we all know that IA feeds back and is constantly learning from the man who created it.

However, AI can also be programmed so that this behavior is ignored but we fall into a loop that happens if artificial intelligence simply does not follow the rules and becomes totally autonomous in its decisions. There comes into play as ethics is formed in AI

Image source

Ethics in artificial intelligence is a branch of ethics aimed at the existence of intelligent robots or any other entity that possesses artificial intelligence. The possibility of creating thinking machines raises a series of ethical questions that cover different points, so much so that the machines do not hurt human beings or living beings in general, as the moral status of the machine itself.

* There are many questions that arise from Ethics in artificial intelligence, but I would like to know what you think.

* What conclusion can you draw from my diagram, because the three elements are related but each one must have its own value.

Man = Ethics = AI
Man = AI = Ethics
AI = Ethics = Man
AI = Man = Ethics
Ethics = Man = AI
Ethics = AI = Man


Thanks to @cyberspacegod who made this publication: John McCone @ RT Sputnik... on the Ethics of A.I. and was the source of philosophical inspiration for my publication.



Project Hope Venezuela is an initiative created to grow.

You See more about it at:

@coach.piotr -PROJECT #HOPE - day one

@jadams2k18 - - @fucho80 - - @juanmolina - - @lanzjoseg


lanzjoseg


Thanks for visiting, I appreciate your opinion.

"In your constant evolution".

eSteem Footer Line

[email protected]
eSteem.app | 👨‍💻GitHub | 📺YouTube
✍🏻 Telegram | 💬Discord | Patreon
Vote for @good-karma as a witness

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

@lanzjoseg has set 1.500 STEEM bounty on this post!
logo_for-light-bg_1000.png

Bounties let you earn rewards without the need for Steem Power. Go here to learn how bounties work.

Earn the bounty by commenting what you think the bounty creator wants to know from you.

Find more bounties here and become a bounty hunter.

Happy Rewards Hunting!

Congratulations to the following winner(s) of the bounty!

Hello my dear @lanzjoseg, thanks for the invitation.

Man = Ethics = AI

For me it is very difficult to say because of my limited knowledge in this area of philosophy and complicated things, what I can say is that, according to my appreciation it should be Man - Ethics - Artificial Intelligence, I think that man will always have control of AI, I don't believe in those fanciful hypotheses that affirm that AI will evolve and be independent of man, developing autonomous thoughts and feelings, she will continue to do what man teaches her, and it is man's responsibility as far as this can go.

Thank you professor, you are a very wise guy. Blessings!

I once read somewhere that AI feeds on Man's behavior

Love this quote. Both Stanford and MIT intro to computers courses describes them as magic boxes in that often times we do not fully understand their processes. If that's true then what will future thinkers be comparing AI to in terms of something from the past?

Dear friend @LanzJoseG,

Let me start by thank You for promoting my post, and for getting inspiration with it, have also to say that we see a bit differently AI, yet, the concerns and potential cases are very similar!

Don't really have that much to add, just don't totally agree with the equation =Þ and maybe some terms used, maybe what I mostly disagree is "man-made laws", laws from my point of view are defined by God or nature, Truth, it's what something 'is' and now what it is defined 'as', but that is another entire different yet related subject, because semantics are not entirely true, they change while the truth is always immutable, hence to understand the "real" semantic it is needed at least a basic etymological study beyond it..

I'm very thankful for seeing this topic (AI) being discussed, because we still have time to avoid what could become one of "humanity" biggest mistakes..

I'll leave that to Your readers to think about ^^⁾

Wish You all the best friend, have an awesome time, In Lak'ech

Cy

Loading...
  ·  last month (edited)

Well God, Gods, Goddesses are also man made and only reflect the morals (or lack of them) of humans.

Nature is different. Nature is driven by evolution and survival of the fittest. Which is quite a brutal set of morals.

Which set's humans apart from all over live: We can overcome the brutal morals of “survival of the fittest”.

Of course if you overdo, move too far away from the basic principles of nature you might not be fit enough any more and die out. There are endless examples of societies which did that. But it seems we haven't learned and are heading for yet another societal collapse.

This time driven by feminism who's morals are too remote from the principles of nature to be sustainable. AI's are not the greatest danger we face right now.

Well, for a start, there is one Creative being beyond mine or Your comprehension, the One who created everything, and it can be experienced but not explained..

The same that created nature, and it is definitely not derived of another one of the farces of 'scientism', the so called evolution is not science, it can't even be called pseudo-science..

nature (n.)

late 13c., "restorative powers of the body, bodily processes; powers of growth;" from Old French nature "nature, being, principle of life; character, essence," from Latin natura "course of things; natural character, constitution, quality; the universe," literally "birth," from natus "born," past participle of nasci "to be born," from PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget...

There is no actual proof or sign of evolution, only propaganda that convinced people about it, no missing links, no intermediary species, no nothing, and if You want to BELIEVE that You're a distant familiar of a monkey or a fish that came out of the water, good for You, but it is still a lie!!

We actually cannot overcome that line, the fittest, or in other words, more able or willing to do something, are much more successful in whatever area You might want to choose, given the correct amount of dedication and 'natural' abilities..

Ok, in that aspect I kind of agree with You, as a society we are miserably failing, feminism is in part responsible, but if we need to point fingers, any government, state, military (from where the AI came from, same as TV's, mobile-phones, even the internet.. now think about it rationally..), are in fact a greater danger, still, people are always licking their a$$, and if You want my opinion, the LGBTQ++BS Agenda is way worse than feminism, it helps destroy the same as feminism and even more. Also the AI is already messing everyone's life, the great majority simply don't notice it, and continuing to point fingers, and only to be completely honest with You, the jews, who actually control the great majority of propaganda all over the world are way worse..

Wakey-wakey!! Also, try not to take my response too personally.. Have a great day, all the best..

You got that the wrong way around. Your Creator is pseudo-science while evolution is actual science. There is prove for evolution and no prove at all for a creator.

Or can you give me a scientifically sound and repeatable experiment to prove the existence of a creator? Anything not proven by experiment is merely conjecture.

Have You even read the first lines? Or are You just being a prick? You want me to describe physically something that even goes beyond the meta-physical and can't be described?

Science is limited to the physical world, and there are a lot more to existence than just the physical..

Yes, but I'm an atheist and for over a quarter century. Let me explain the reason why that it:

The observable universe is 28'000'000'000 light years across. That's 2'649'500'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 meter.

And that's just the observable one. It's most likely 192'000'000'000 light years across. That's 18'160'500'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 meter.

There is no way that one single creator made all of that. It's just to big

And even if I entertain that thought then the next question would be: Why would he (or she) care about us on that little planet if he (or she) has such a huge universe to play with.

It's just the size difference between earth and the rest of the universe which makes the one single creator unfeasible.

I can entertain meta-physics and that there more to the existence than just the physical as currently known. I's just the idea of one single creator for a universe that big that just makes no sense at all. As such I don't rule out the idea of multiple Gods and Goddesses.

You can be whatever You like, and You don't need to explain anything, much less using something that cannot actually be proven by anyone and does only "make sense" in imagination/fantasy world, actually it is part of the propaganda to mind control people into living in the Disney world of princesses and princes, f#$%in' BS, (NASA, Disney and a whole lot of others, always lying to everyone and part of the masses handlers), there is no way You or anybody else can prove light years, have You "seen" or measure it by Yourself or do You have to beLIEve in others? Can You go up up up and away!! to measure them, NO, so quit lying to Yourself, or allowing Yourself to be lied to!?

Again, You didn't read, other Realms, Dimensions, probably in ways we will not even get closer to any sort of explanation..

And again, You really gotta stop to really read and reflect before answering.. Can You envision the whole universe in a marble? Now picture that marble as a single iota of a creation that has more "micro-macro" levels, can You still "see" us there? Probably not.. The creator is in everything, hence incomprehensible nor describable, is beyond time, physical and meta-physical barriers, was not born is self created, and I could continue to describe attributes but would make a fool of myself if I try to describe the One Creator God, it wouldn't have an end..

Interesting how You always spew the 99% of BS and in the end say something sort of close to truth, it is starting to look like propaganda itself, yet, I do agree there are millions of "gods", still the Creator is One, all of the other gods and demons, spirits, interdimensional beings, call them whatever You like, are also part of the creation but are not the Creator.. Humans have been seen as gods many times, but does that make of them one..

Now if You don't mind, I'll leave, You can go make some popcorn in a pan with a heat-resistant glass lid, try looking into the corn and predict the order of the individual corn grains pop, while we are at popcorn, why not try to predict the shape of every individual popcorn..

I usually understand ethics as a philosophical reflection of morality, hence I consider it a thing that is characteristic of self-aware entities, that is, all those "people" who have the ability to reflect on their actions, motives, desires , contexts and consequences.

This topic has been the subject of rich discussion not only in the academic field of philosophy and humanistic disciplines, but also in the literary genre of science fiction. If we submit this to a way of thinking inspired a little by Eco's ideas, in his book "Apocalyptic and Integrated," we can see that the positions can be divided among those who fear that AI becomes so human that it is capable of commenting on same atrocities that we comment on and may (due to fear) try to annihilate humans because they are very dangerous for their survival; as a counterpart, there are those who think that AI can be far superior to the human in the moral sense and turns out to be a transcendent existence, one that overcomes the limitations, fears and defects of humanity, opening the way for integration with the organic ones and providing an explosive evolution for the species ...

Surely it will be obvious to some colleagues that this last point of view is the one raised by the promoters of the ideas of transhumanism.

To conclude, as long as an existence is capable of being aware of itself and reflecting, I can accept that it is capable of developing an ethic, whether its material existence is based on organic, non-organic compounds or a mixture of both. Thus when AI is truly intelligent, the border between the "natural" and the "artificial" will be increasingly difficult to define.

This made me remember the transcendent movie


In which much of what I said is raised in a way that I find entertaining.

Congratulations in advance, @lanzjoseg

It seems to me that this excerpt contains the key to the topic developed!

"However, AI can also be programmed so that this behavior is ignored but we fall into a loop that happens if artificial intelligence simply does not follow the rules and becomes totally autonomous in its decisions."

Since I started evaluating your post, I asked myself the question:

Will the man be able to use AI counterproductively?

Machine learning is a pattern that is encouraged by human intelligence, but at the time that man is able to ignore its limits and program information to the machine, which is not in line with the interests of humanity, that's when The problem will come.
Ethics characterizes the wise and prudent man, hopefully the ambition of power and control over the rest never leaves aside the virtue that represents ethics for the development of new technologies hand in hand with the preservation of the world order.

I hope this message could contribute to the forum!
@nachomolina

I think that man has ethics which come from thousands and even millions of years of evolution and trying to survive and be the fittest.
If we manage to make a truly autonomous ai, it's ethics will be completely different from any human ideas, despite our best efforts to impose any of our own ideas. Look at what happened when God tried to impose ethics on humans, they were ignored, look at what happens when a parent tries to impose ethics on children, often they're ignored, and this is humans imposing ethics on other humans, when it's ai, a completely different form of life, it's going to be impossible.
Look at how humans treat animals, right now the earth is being destroyed and all animal life eradicated for the selfish sake of humans. Think what will happen to us when ai is created.

Posted using Partiko Android

Hi @justinchicken

All humans will be removed from the face of the earth.

That's what can happen, your comment reminds me of the movie, Terminator.

That will be the future for the world.

Interesting topic @lanzjoseg.

I don't view the situation under the equation you present because I see each of those words; "man, ethics, ai" ...as completely different classes (apples to oranges to pears).

I believe ethics (and morality) only pertain to individual man's interpretation of his own "self-interest" vs. "collective" (or non-self) interest. That is, ethics are a tool that help him assess his (and others') behavior as it balances between the poles of his own self-interest versus the self-interests of other men.

Artificial intelligence cannot apply to men and it cannot equate to man's intelligence... and the two different intelligences therefore can never equate. "Artificial intelligence" will always simply be shorthand for a complex series of cause and effect relationships based on a program "logic." Human intelligence includes something additional that "logic" can never encompass... "observed" self-awarenes. Yes, a programmed AI can simulate awareness... and it can simulate observation, but it can never achieve either through true ungoverned "meta-cognition." This part of my argument is of course, debatable... and I must admit that my argument draws from experiential (non-provable) subjectivity and belief in a separate and individual soul which AI governed machines have not (yet) developed.

AI's do not have a "self" (in the human "soul" sense) and thus are more akin to collections of cooperating cells which do not share a central governance.... they do not have a developed "self."

If one makes the counter-argument that AI does not require "self" or "soul" to apply "ethics" to it's own behavior, I would then say that without "self," ethics has no function or application because ethics ARE about one's relation of behavior in benefit of "self" to that of the "others" (non-self).

What is "self?" ...if it's stated that a human's sense of self is also artificial, then, ethics as a moral question, again, is irrelevant as humans are then simply governed "programs" made up of complex cause and effect chains as well. Ethics involve a question of choice. We tend to operate under the assumption that humans (with a "soul") have choice, and that AI's, as a result of "program logic" don't truly have choices... and we tend to define ethics and "choices."

/opinion

I typically relate ethics to agency (a rock has no agency, so no ethics). The question is, does AI have agency?
Without getting too deep into it, I don't think AI has agency but it's creators and deployers do.

Posted using Partiko Android

Dear @eturnerx

I strongly agree at some point but as you define the human behavior that somehow AI copies from humans, somehow many people have ethics and I know and I can say it with property that many humans who intervened in the creation of AI. They also have ethics.

Greetings friend.

My position is even stronger than AI copying from humans. AI cannot act without humans granting them the ability. Therefore, AIs have no agency and thus no ethics. The ethics, and the responsibility for the actions of the AI, sit squarely on those that give the AI the ability to act. Those are variously, the AI creators and the AI deployers.

Posted using Partiko Android

Other than steem posts, I do not pay any attention to the subject of ai. Someone is getting a segment of the population to care about it though. Maybe it is coming up in the "news."

Dear @fitinfun

If it is appearing, because it is generating a lot of noise that can worry many.

So we must keep an eye on the news ..

Greetings from Venezuela.

Ethics has always a matter of debate. Even ethical values are not defined well and are also not universal in some cases. One thing may be ethical for a person but, that may not be a wise decision of him. For example in Mahabharata-a mythological saga and the biggest epic in world history, Bhishma did not marry because he promised this to the father of his step mother. He kept his words but that lead to a disastrous war in which all the Kaurav dynasty wiped out. There are so many example in world history and mythological stories in which ethical issues could not be solved. That problem will also come before the AI. Even AI may think that humans are the most unethical animals. So, it can also destroy us.

Hi @akdx

You know that I want to arrive at this point, since I mention it in a way when I say that artificial intelligence can be in its autonomy in its decisions and what you mention can happen.

I quote:

That problem will also come before the AI. Even AI may think that humans are the most unethical animals. So, it can also destroy us.

Without autonomy and self realization, AI will be artificial but without intelligent. But, that can also be a dangerous thing for us as we are the problem.

Posted using Partiko Android

Greetings and thank you for the invite,
I appreciate a good read,
As per my opinion, Ethics is just one part of man where man has also beliefs and rules that he may follow or not, otherwise, others will do it just the same.
Like scientists or mechanics that create remote-controlled cars, they usually do this because of their jobs, otherwise, if they do not work on it others will do it.
Regards

@lanzjoseg, In my opinion it will be great if we will not see the Development of Artificial Intelligence but in a way it's reflecting as impossible.

Hi @lanzjoseg

Topics related to AI have been fascinating me for quite sometime already. And fascination comes along with fear about out future. I'm mostly afraid how will AI impact our human behaviours in the future.

Putting words "Ethics" next to AI doesn't seem to make much sense to me. I would rather think that AI will blindly follow algorythms that it's build on. And some sort of "behaviour code" surely would be introduced ... but ethics? ehm, I'm not sure ...

Anyway solid read so ....
Upvote on the day :)

Yours, Piotr

  • Un robot no hará daño a un ser humano o, por inacción, permitirá que un ser humano sufra daño.
  • Un robot debe cumplir las órdenes dadas por los seres humanos, a excepción de aquellas que entrasen en conflicto con la primera ley.
  • Un robot debe proteger su propia existencia en la medida en que esta protección no entre en conflicto con la primera o con la segunda ley.

De alguna manera las Tres Leyes de la Robótica contribuyen a esclarecer este dilema entre Etica y AI, aún cuando el comportamiento humano pudiera desviarse de los lineamientos éticos, la AI debería estar ser capaz de reconocer estas anomalías para no repetirlas. Sin embargo, es un tema bastante complejo y que puede prestarse para generar mucha confusión.

Saludos amigo @lanzjoseg!

I think Al is man-made so it depends on its creator, whether Al was created for good or just for other purposes😊

Posted using Partiko Android

Dear @anitacarolina

For whatever purpose it was created we must be very aware of everything it does, since its intelligence can try to overcome ours. And that's what worries.

As long as we are still in control of AI I think ethically we should be ok. Great post upvoted for visibility

Posted using Partiko Android

As in any sphere and with any new developments, humankind must act only with the highest ethical standards. Anything less, and problems arise.

So, in terms of AI, mankind has to be careful. We cannot cede any control to AI, nor to those who would use AI for evil ends. And if by chance AI "decides" not to follow our rules, then we have to change the AI.

Hi @majes.tytyty

But at what point can we do that ..? When it's too late
That is the big problem to identify the failures and as far as I can see if it manages to imitate human characteristics, then AI can reach and deceive humans in their own humanity

I believe they might have a mind of their own like in the movies

Posted using Partiko Android

Thanks for mentioning eSteem app. Kindly join our Discord or Telegram channel for more benefits and offers on eSteem, don't miss our amazing updates.
Follow @esteemapp as well!