The intuition that machines cannot be as ethical as humans is likely incorrect. Ethics is the systematic resolution of conflicts of interest under conditions of shared purpose. Ethics is not irrational. There is no reason to assume that machines cannot be more ethical than us.
Ethics is not the same thing as a commitment to cooperation or non-violence or a particular set of moral intuitions. Ethics is simply principled social behavior. It does not imply that everyone would agree to the values guiding it. (Which is why you can have culture wars.)
-
-
Ethics is either a set of hard constraints, or a revisited payoff matrix that takes into account "other stuff". "Principled" is meaningless: what doesn't change the payoff matrix or doesn't impose a constraint doesn't exist.
-
If you find that other people or policy designers are open to rational arguments of the form: if you want a social outcome X you must understand and behave according to Y because of argument Z, a principled approach begins to make sense.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.