@eripsa One possibility is to say virtues applicable to AI are โuseโ virtues. If so, the standards applicable โ appropriateness โ may be determined by the original designers or users of the technology. But this would deny AIs the status of autonomous moral agents (moral beings). ends
@eripsa@Angry_Cassie For me, it's about emotions. Virtues regulate emotions. No emotion, no virtue. This is common to Confucian and Aristotelian virtues. So, if an emotional being (and a few other things), then, yes AI can have virtues / vices.
https://t.co/p4qgRLKbUa
Brilliant, filled this in and posted to my 50 nearest neighbours today. If we can all look after each other, then we will get through #coronavirus so much better. We need to build a network of those who can help, to strengthen our communities. #viralkindness#Alnwick
@David_Gunkel@mchardcastle I've been away. Missed all this. Thanks.
๐
At the start of the thread, David should really have been more precise about what kind of agency he meant. It's such a variable term.
If you mean moral agency, say that, or whichever you do mean.
@PabloRedux@David_Gunkel@eripsa @kaznatcheev @sd_marlow@EmergTechEthics@PKathrani@theblub It strengthens the illusion of intelligence. Intelligent beings can teach themselves a skill, and usually this implies a purposeful goal and a desire to learn. So, applied to a robot, smoke and mirrors, really.
@David_Gunkel@eripsa@PabloRedux @kaznatcheev @sd_marlow@EmergTechEthics@PKathrani@theblub Not entirely. New words like laser, radar and robot don't depend on this process. But, sure, much of our language is metaphorical, and will continue to be. What matters is how we manage the risk. So much usage is irresponsible, e.g. 'Artificial Intelligence' applied to a system.
Dear Twitter people, I have a question.
Does the important distinction between machine and human learning which is stated in @mireillemoret 's article (below) still hold good?
https://t.co/8oyIF4K1sa
@eripsa@EmergTechEthics@Boring_AI@j2bryson
1/3