Because Alexa will give a single answer, vetted by its neural network. If i'm presented with several links and related context, i'm responsible for interpreting them and weighing the pros and cons. If the "search engine" gives me only one authoritative answer, of course it's responsible for whatever bullshit comes up.
The same situation could occur between friends:
- I'm bored, what should i do?
- You could bake cookies, or you could jump from a cliff.
In this case, irony/context is preserved. If my friend calls a "I'm bored" phone line service, and they tell them straight ahead to jump off a cliff, i'll certainly hold that phone service responsible for what happens next.
> Because Alexa will give a single answer, vetted by its neural network. If i'm presented with several links and related context, i'm responsible for interpreting them and weighing the pros and cons. If the "search engine" gives me only one authoritative answer, of course it's responsible for whatever bullshit comes up.
so CSPC needs to fine google for their "I'm feeling lucky" feature?
This highlights the lack of true General Intelligence and blurred lines with ML/AI. Our most advanced companies, with advanced processing power, can't even text match with the common sense of a mouse, maybe an insect? Either way, it appears not to exist. We love hype in this industry. Let's put on our headsets now, and head into the metaverse.
Not to pile on, but that's just not how AI works. Basically then, Alexa must be shut off from searching the internet at all, since anything its algorithm finds would be company endorsed.
And search engines certainly do give on answer, google "are eggs good for you" and you will see an answer highlighted at the top of the page.
It looks like the original page is a warning to parents about the challenge existing. So where a search engine shows it in its original form its fine. Amazon selected just the challenge, skipped the warning, and told the child to do it.
A competent lawyer would write this up so quickly that Amazon would settle rather than fight it out. I don't know the full story but it seems like this is a quick 5 figure payout for the family.
That would require damages. If the child were injured, that would be provable. Otherwise the claimants will be in for a long and drawn-out process of manufacturing lasting emotional distress.
Emotional damages of seeing your child nearly get talked into electrocuting themselves by an appliance. Thats actually traumatic if framed correctly. Plus the bad press? Amazon would be smart to throw $20,000 at this and hope it fades away.
>>How do we arrive at "amazon endorses the challenge"?
The system Amazon's designed, built, maintains, and runs, actively interpreted the request and out of thousands or millions of answers, specifically selected THAT ONE to return as the result.
They obviously had somewhere between zero and massively insufficient filtering process to filter out inappropriate or non-responsive answers. They presumably have filters for porn and vulgarity, which would cause an uproar, but are not bothering with life-protecting.
This is because either 1) Amazon are too stupid to anticipate the problem, or 2) they did anticipate the problem and don't care enough or figure, like Ford did with the Pinto, that the costs likely damages are lower than the costs of making it safe.
Either way, the only ethical choice is to not field that product. Amazon did not take that choice.
>>And, whatever logic is used, does it also indicate Google, Bing and Yahoo endorse it as well?
If they are providing similar answers to children, without caveats, yes, of course.
Yeah. I see people defending these companies, or companies defending themselves by hiding under "AI" and "ML". That does not absolve you from the consequences. You made the AI sub-optimal, it is harmful. Shut it down if it is not working properly, or assume responsibility for your crap.
Microsoft shut down that Hitler-loving "Tay" "AI bot in a hurry for some offensive speech - doing a LOT less than deliberately telling children a good method to have fun by electrocuting themselves.
Even if you cannot explain the inner workings, — and actually ESPECIALLY if you cannot explain the inner workings, if it is YOUR bot, it is YOUR responsibility.
Utterly disgusting to hide behind "it's just the algorithm". When L5 self-driving cars from Acme corp start driving off of bridges and running over bicycles, shuld we just let Acme and their apologists say "oh, it's just the algorithm/AI, not our fault, we don't need to fix it"?
The logic is very simple. When you create a product, you can choose either closed (curated, checked) or open content. The latter gives you much more possibilities but poses several serious problems, just like this one. If you choose this route, you need to face the consequences.
The same situation could occur between friends:
- I'm bored, what should i do?
- You could bake cookies, or you could jump from a cliff.
In this case, irony/context is preserved. If my friend calls a "I'm bored" phone line service, and they tell them straight ahead to jump off a cliff, i'll certainly hold that phone service responsible for what happens next.