Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!ames!nike!eugene From: eugene@nike.uucp (Eugene Miya N.) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: AI and the Arms Race Message-ID: <772@nike.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Nov-86 12:58:12 EST Article-I.D.: nike.772 Posted: Wed Nov 26 12:58:12 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Nov-86 20:39:36 EST References: <8611181719.AA00510@watdcsu.uucp> <2862@burdvax.UUCP> <863@tekchips.UUCP> Sender: usenet@nike.UUCP Reply-To: eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. Lines: 67 Keywords: weizenbaum arms race ethics >Will Clinger writes: >In article <2862@burdvax.UUCP> blenko@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Blenko) writes: >>If Weizenbaum or anyone else thinks he or she can succeeded in weighing >>possible good and bad applications, I think he is mistaken. >> >>Why does Weizenbaum think technologists are, even within the bounds of >>conventional wisdom, competent to make such judgements in the first >>place? > >Is this supposed to mean that professors of moral philosophy are the only >people who should make moral judgments? Or is it supposed to mean that >we should trust the theologians to choose for us? Or that we should leave >all such matters to the politicians? > >Representative democracy imposes upon citizens a responsibility for >judging moral choices made by the leaders they elect. It seems to me >that anyone presumed to be capable of judging others' moral choices >should be presumed capable of making their own. > >It also seems to me that responsibility for judging the likely outcome >of one's actions is not a thing that humans can evade, and I applaud >Weizenbaum for pointing out that scientists and engineers bear this >responsibility as much as anyone else. > >William Clinger The problem here began in 1939. It's science's relationship to the rest of democracy and society. Before that time science was a minor player. This is when the physics community (on the part of Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner) when to Albert Einstein and said: look at these developments in nuclear energy and look where Nazi Germany is going. He turn as a public figure (like Carl Sagan in a way) went to Roosevelt. Science has never been the same. [Note we also make more money for science from government than ever: note the discussion on funding math where Halmos was quoted.] What Tom did not point out is where or not scientists and engineers have "more" responsibility. Some people say since they are in the know, they have MORE responsibility, others say, no this is a democracy they have EQUAL responsibility, but judgments MUST be made by it's citizens. In the "natural world," many things are not democratic (is gravity autocratic?)... well these are not the right words but the illustrate the point that man's ideas are sometimes feeible. While Weizenbaum may or may not weigh moral values, he is in a unique position to understand some of the technical issues, and he should properly steer the understanding of those weighing moral decisions (as opposed to letting them stray): in other words, yes, to a degree, he DOES weigh them and yes he DOES color his moral values into the argument. [The moral equivalent to making moral judgments.] An earlier posting pointed out the molecular biologists restricting specific types of work at the Asolimar meeting years ago. In the journal Science, it was noted that much of the community felt it shot its foot off, looking back, and that current research is being held back. I would hope that the AI community would learn from the biologists' experience and either not restrict research (perhaps too ideal) or not end up gagging themselves. Tricky issue, why doesn't someone write an AI program to decide what to do? Good luck. From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?" {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene