Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!AI.AI.MIT.EDU!NICK
From: NICK@AI.AI.MIT.EDU (Nick Papadakis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.digest
Subject: [bwk@mitre-bedford.arpa: Re: AIList V6 #86 - Philosophy]
Message-ID: <19880527050446.9.NICK@MACH.AI.MIT.EDU>
Date: 27 May 88 05:04:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 25
Approved: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu

Date: Mon, 16 May 88 14:26 EDT
From: Barry W. Kort <bwk@mitre-bedford.arpa>
Organization: Moribund Corporation, Seventh Chapter, DE
Subject: Re: AIList V6 #86 - Philosophy
References: <3200016@uiucdcsm>, <523@wsccs.UUCP>, <11191@sunybcs.UUCP>
Sender: ailist-request@ai.ai.mit.edu
To: ailist@ai.ai.mit.edu

David Sher has injected some new grist into the discussion of
"responsibility" for machines and intelligent systems.

I tend to delegate responsibility to machines known as "feedback
control systems".  I entrust them to maintain the temperature of
my house, oven, and hot water.  I entrust them to maintain my
highway speed (cruise control).  When these systems malfunction,
things can go awry in a big way.  I think we would have no trouble
saying that such feedback control systems "fail", and their failure
is the cause of undesirable consequences.

The only interesting issue is our reaction.  I say fix them (or
improve their reliability) and get on with it.  Blame and punishment
are pointless.  If a system is unable to respond, doesn't it make
more sense to restore its ability than to merely label it "irresponsible"?

--Barry Kort