| > Would you consider them trusthworthy in court, where lives are at stake? Probably. Human intelligence is extremely fallible - based on the statistics the only reason we trust humans to do half the stuff they do is because there is literally no choice. If we held humans to a high objective engineering standard We wouldn't: * Let them drive * Let them present their memories as evidence in a court case * Entrust them with monitoring jobs * Allow them to perform surgical operations Humans are the best we have at those things, but from a "did we secure the best result with the information we had" perspective they are not very reliable. A testable and consistently performing AI with known failure modes might even be able to outperform a human with a higher failure rate (eg, we can reconfigure our road systems if there is just one scenario an AI driver can't handle). Basically, you might be dead on the money that they are not 'trustworthy enough', but lets not lose sight of the fact that even being an order of magnitude from human performance might be enough after costs and engineering benefits get factored in. The weakest link is the stupidest human, and that is quite a low bar. |
Ironically, the thing that is lost in this comment would be "accountability". In case of a human, you can go back / trace decision making criteria and hold someone accountable. In case of an algorithm, everyone washes their hands off. Performance is not the only criteria to make a decision if algorithms are "trustworthy" over humans.