Imagine however, that a machine objectively makes the better decisions than any person. Should we then still trust the humans decision just to have someone who is accountable?
What is the worth of having someone who is accountable anyway? Isn’t accountability just an incentive for humans to not just fuck things up? It’s also nice for pointing fingers if things go bad - but is there actually any value in that?
Additionally: there is always a person who either made the machine or deployed the machine. IMO the people who deploy a machine and decide that this machine will now be making decisions should be accountable for those actions.
That’s hypothetical. In the real world, in the human society, the humans who are part of corporations and receiving profits by making/selling these computers must also bear the responsibility.
Company/Individual makes program that is in no way meant for making management decision.
Someone else comes and deploys that program to make management decisions.
The ones that made that program couldn’t stop the ones that deployed it from deploying it.
Even if the maker aimed to make a decision-making program, and marketed it as so. Whoever deployed it is ultimately the responsible for it. As long as the maker doesn’t fake tests or certifications of course, I’m sure that would violate many laws.
The premise is that a computer must never make a management decision. Making a program capable of management decisons already failed. The deployment and use of that program to that end is already built upon that failure.
I believe those who deploy the machines should be responsible in the first place. The corporations who make/sell those machines should be accountable if they deceptively and intentionally program those machines to act maliciously or in somebody else’s interest.
I generally agree.
Imagine however, that a machine objectively makes the better decisions than any person. Should we then still trust the humans decision just to have someone who is accountable?
What is the worth of having someone who is accountable anyway? Isn’t accountability just an incentive for humans to not just fuck things up? It’s also nice for pointing fingers if things go bad - but is there actually any value in that?
Additionally: there is always a person who either made the machine or deployed the machine. IMO the people who deploy a machine and decide that this machine will now be making decisions should be accountable for those actions.
You can’t know if a decision is good or bad without a person to evaluate it. The situation you’re describing isn’t possible.
How is this meaningfully different from just having them make the decisions in the first place? Are they too stupid?
That’s hypothetical. In the real world, in the human society, the humans who are part of corporations and receiving profits by making/selling these computers must also bear the responsibility.
Tbf that leads to the problem of:
Company/Individual makes program that is in no way meant for making management decision.
Someone else comes and deploys that program to make management decisions.
The ones that made that program couldn’t stop the ones that deployed it from deploying it.
Even if the maker aimed to make a decision-making program, and marketed it as so. Whoever deployed it is ultimately the responsible for it. As long as the maker doesn’t fake tests or certifications of course, I’m sure that would violate many laws.
The premise is that a computer must never make a management decision. Making a program capable of management decisons already failed. The deployment and use of that program to that end is already built upon that failure.
I believe those who deploy the machines should be responsible in the first place. The corporations who make/sell those machines should be accountable if they deceptively and intentionally program those machines to act maliciously or in somebody else’s interest.