[mdp2021]

The poster probably referred reliability as an ethical value; direct choice in building the system as an ethical value because embedded with your decisions hence responsibility; and conversely proposing "black-boxes" as an ethical fault.

There are several possible reasons for this latter: not only that you should not be contented until you "could warranty" for "your" system, but also the possible outcomes. For example, yesterday I submitted a

“Are you kidding, carjacking?” – The problem with facial recognition in policing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37138229

where reporting is made of law reliability systems that have false positives of bewildering error and heavy consequences.

[phillipcarter]

My immediate thought is that the ethical concerns with facial recognition in policing are orthogonal to the "kind" of AI involved. Clearly, our industry has moved to other techniques and my guess is because they're more capable. And so it comes down to regulating and adding accountability for the applications of the technology.

[mdp2021]

> orthogonal to the "kind" of AI involved

Suppose one AI that deterministically determines an output and is stress tested for reliability, and suppose one that hallucinates an output, maybe through statistical reconstruction of detail. The ethics there would not be orthogonal at all.

> my guess is because they're more capable

That '«capable»' you used there is a hive. You could have guesses many more reasons, such as "we can hence we do".