[Verdex]

People can read other people's emotions. You can build a mechanical turk program that's effectively the same as having a personal concierge agent with respect to the regulation.

Like, if you ban reading people's emotions you effectively have to also ban any human interaction.

[mitchdoogle]

The problem is making assumptions about why people are experiencing certain emotions, or telling people they are wrong when they say, "I'm actually not angry"

[Verdex]

Yes, but this can happen just as easily with human actors as it can with non-human actors.

I suppose the benefit of a human actor is that you can theoretically fine or jail them if they're found to be malicious or sufficiently incompetent.

However, on the other hand, human actors can explain why they're doing the right thing. Even when they are in fact doing the wrong thing. An AI that is broken incomprehensibly can still be determined to be broken. The human actor causing issues can produce very convincing arguments to avoid termination. Also they can bring in donuts every Thursday to stay on the bottom of the termination list.

[And to be clear. I don't trust the technology at all. I just also don't trust the human system either. A system isn't better because innocent people are oppressed by humans instead of by a computer.]

[Hizonner]

It's still completely reasonable to ban automating it. The impact of having it done in an automated way is completely different from the impact of having it done on a person-to-person basis, for a lot of reasons, starting with scale.

It's also reasonable to ban anything that claims to be better at it than a human.

[Verdex]

I don't think it's completely reasonable to ban it. Although, I would agree that it's completely reasonable to restrict nearly anything.

Although, I do like your comment about scale. If you have a system that's 99% successful, then if you apply it to everyone in the US then you're failing 3 million people. That's a problem.

Of course, your system might be mechanical OR it might just be a group of people each one just "doing their job." From a result oriented point of view, you might end up with a mechanical system that oppresses less people than a people system.

I don't feel good about either one, but I also don't feel good about causing wide scale misery because at least it's people screwing over other people instead of a machine screwing over people.

[Of course it's worth noting that I don't trust the technology at all. It's just that I also don't trust the human solution that it claims it can replace.]