6 ms·

Isn't accountability simply to prevent repeat bad behavior in the future...or is it meant to be punitive without any other expectations? If meant to prevent re

Isn't accountability simply to prevent repeat bad behavior in the future...or is it meant to be punitive without any other expectations? If meant to prevent repeat bad behavior, then simply reprogramming the computer accomplished the same end goal. Accountability is really just a means to an end which can be similarly accomplished in other ways with machines which isn't possible with humans.

lutorm 2y ago
... simply reprogramming the computer ... So who makes the decision to do that? I think most people are missing the point about accountability and thinks, in typical American fashion, about punishment. Accountability is about being responsible for outcomes. That may mean legally responsible, but I think far more important is the knowledge that "the buck stops with me", someone who is entrusted with a task and knows that it is their job to accomplish that task. Said person may decide to use a computer to accomplish it, but the computer is not responsible for the correct outcome.
brap 2y ago
Right, but as long as you have humans, you will probably need accountability. If a human decided to delegate killing enemy combatants to a machine, and that machine accidentally killed innocent civilians, is it really enough to just reprogram the machine? I think you must also hold the human accountable. (Of course, this is just a simplified example, and in reality there are many humans in the loop who share accountability, some more than others)
miltonlost 2y ago
You fundamentally don’t understand either accountability or what people mean by “computers can’t be held accountable”. Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake? That is accountability. You cannot put a computer in jail. You cannot fine a computer. Please, stop torturing what people mean because you want AI to make decisions to absolve you of guilt.
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake? "Fault" seeks to determine who is able to undo the mistake so that we can see that they undo it. It is possible the computer is the best candidate for that under some circumstances. > That is accountability. Thus we can conclude that computers are accountable, sometimes. > You cannot put a computer in jail. You cannot fine a computer. These are, perhaps, tools to try and deal with situations where the accountable refuse to see the mistake undone, but, similarly, computers can be turned off.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chgs 2y ago
  What is the purpose of putting a person in jail or fining them? Retribution? Reformation? Prevention?
  - miltonlost 2y ago
    Mixture of all three, but for the purposes of “accountability”, prevention of the behavior in the first place. But I don’t want to debate prisons when that’s derailing the larger point of “accountability in AI/computers”.
    - dangrape123 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - cmgriffing 2y ago
    Consider the Volkswagen scandal where code was written that fudged the results when in an emissions testing environment. The only person to see major punishment for that was the software dev that wrote the code, but that decision to write that code involved far more people up the chain. THEY should be held accountable in some way or else nothing prevents them from using some other poor dev as a scapegoat.
    - 2y ago
Terr_ 2y ago
I think you're confusing the tool with the user. Improving the tool's safety characteristics is not the same as holding the user accountable because they made stupid choices with unsafe tools. You want them to change their behavior, no matter how idiot-proofed their new toolset is.
maxbond 2y ago
This makes sense if the computer was programmed that way accidentally. If the computer is a cut out to create plausible deniability, then reprogramming it won't actually work. The people responsible will find a way to reintroduce a behavior with a similar outcome.
wmf 2y ago
In practice they will try to avoid acknowledging errors and will never reprogram the computer. That's why a human appeals system is needed.
Macha 2y ago
> If meant to prevent repeat bad behavior, then simply reprogramming the computer accomplished the same end goal. Note the bad behaviour you're trying to prevent is not just the specific error that the computer made, but delegating authority to the computer to the level that it was able to make that error without proper oversight.
chasing 2y ago
You’ve set up an either-or here that fails to take into account a wide spectrum of thought around accountability and punishment. When it comes to computers, the computer is a tool. It can be improved, but it can’t be held any more accountable than a hammer. At least that’s how it should be. Those with wealth will do whatever they feel they need to do to shun accountability when they create harm. That will no doubt include trying to pin the blame on AI.
1shooner 2y ago
This sounds like a conflation of responsibility with accountability. A machine responsible for emitting a certain amount of radiation on a patient can and should be reprogrammed. The company and/or individuals that granted a malfunctioning radiation machine that responsibility need to be held accountable.

lutorm 2y ago

... simply reprogramming the computer ... So who makes the decision to do that? I think most people are missing the point about accountability and thinks, in typical American fashion, about punishment. Accountability is about being responsible for outcomes. That may mean legally responsible, but I think far more important is the knowledge that "the buck stops with me", someone who is entrusted with a task and knows that it is their job to accomplish that task. Said person may decide to use a computer to accomplish it, but the computer is not responsible for the correct outcome.

brap 2y ago

Right, but as long as you have humans, you will probably need accountability. If a human decided to delegate killing enemy combatants to a machine, and that machine accidentally killed innocent civilians, is it really enough to just reprogram the machine? I think you must also hold the human accountable. (Of course, this is just a simplified example, and in reality there are many humans in the loop who share accountability, some more than others)

miltonlost 2y ago

You fundamentally don’t understand either accountability or what people mean by “computers can’t be held accountable”. Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake? That is accountability. You cannot put a computer in jail. You cannot fine a computer. Please, stop torturing what people mean because you want AI to make decisions to absolve you of guilt.

9rx 2y ago
> Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake? "Fault" seeks to determine who is able to undo the mistake so that we can see that they undo it. It is possible the computer is the best candidate for that under some circumstances. > That is accountability. Thus we can conclude that computers are accountable, sometimes. > You cannot put a computer in jail. You cannot fine a computer. These are, perhaps, tools to try and deal with situations where the accountable refuse to see the mistake undone, but, similarly, computers can be turned off.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chgs 2y ago
What is the purpose of putting a person in jail or fining them? Retribution? Reformation? Prevention?
- miltonlost 2y ago
  Mixture of all three, but for the purposes of “accountability”, prevention of the behavior in the first place. But I don’t want to debate prisons when that’s derailing the larger point of “accountability in AI/computers”.
  - dangrape123 2y ago
    [flagged]
- cmgriffing 2y ago
  Consider the Volkswagen scandal where code was written that fudged the results when in an emissions testing environment. The only person to see major punishment for that was the software dev that wrote the code, but that decision to write that code involved far more people up the chain. THEY should be held accountable in some way or else nothing prevents them from using some other poor dev as a scapegoat.
  - 2y ago

Terr_ 2y ago

I think you're confusing the tool with the user. Improving the tool's safety characteristics is not the same as holding the user accountable because they made stupid choices with unsafe tools. You want them to change their behavior, no matter how idiot-proofed their new toolset is.

maxbond 2y ago

This makes sense if the computer was programmed that way accidentally. If the computer is a cut out to create plausible deniability, then reprogramming it won't actually work. The people responsible will find a way to reintroduce a behavior with a similar outcome.

wmf 2y ago

In practice they will try to avoid acknowledging errors and will never reprogram the computer. That's why a human appeals system is needed.

Macha 2y ago

> If meant to prevent repeat bad behavior, then simply reprogramming the computer accomplished the same end goal. Note the bad behaviour you're trying to prevent is not just the specific error that the computer made, but delegating authority to the computer to the level that it was able to make that error without proper oversight.

chasing 2y ago

You’ve set up an either-or here that fails to take into account a wide spectrum of thought around accountability and punishment. When it comes to computers, the computer is a tool. It can be improved, but it can’t be held any more accountable than a hammer. At least that’s how it should be. Those with wealth will do whatever they feel they need to do to shun accountability when they create harm. That will no doubt include trying to pin the blame on AI.

1shooner 2y ago

This sounds like a conflation of responsibility with accountability. A machine responsible for emitting a certain amount of radiation on a patient can and should be reprogrammed. The company and/or individuals that granted a malfunctioning radiation machine that responsibility need to be held accountable.