[umilegenio]

I agree with your first comment, but disagree on the second one. It is weird to say that the robot wanted to eliminate a threat, most likely it was simply not programmed to avoid obstacles given the environemnt it was in. He ascribes an intention that was not there. To be fair, it is a quote from a book and not the words chosen directly by the author, but he could have clarified.

The second one seems fair: he is describing the result of what the Tesla Autopilot is doing. I do not think that he means to say that the Autopilot is understanding that there is a red light but then it makes a consciuous decision to itgnore it. He is just saying that the robot is malfunctioning, as it should be clear from context:

  "Today’s AI-related robot deaths are no different from the robot accidents of the past. Those industrial robots malfunctioned, and human operators trying to assist were killed in unexpected ways. [..] Malfunctioning Teslas on Autopilot have deviated from their advertised capabilities by misreading road markings, suddenly veering into other cars or trees, crashing into well-marked service vehicles, or ignoring red lights, stop signs, and crosswalks".

I do not think there is a more neutral way of describing the events.

[gcanyon]

> most likely it was simply not programmed to avoid obstacles given the environment it was in.

Even more likely, it’s a manufacturing robot, with no vision at all except maybe for the pieces it is manipulating. It almost certainly has a line on the floor, or a railing even, to keep people out of its way.

In short, it has zero obstacle avoidance. I’d be interested in counterexamples.

> The second one seems fair: he is describing the result of what the Tesla Autopilot is doing. I do not think that he means to say that the Autopilot is understanding that there is a red light but then it makes a consciuous decision to itgnore it. He is just saying that the robot is malfunctioning, as it should be clear from context: "Today’s AI-related robot deaths are no different from the robot accidents of the past. Those industrial robots malfunctioned, and human operators trying to assist were killed in unexpected ways. [..] Malfunctioning Teslas on Autopilot have deviated from their advertised capabilities by misreading road markings, suddenly veering into other cars or trees, crashing into well-marked service vehicles, or ignoring red lights, stop signs, and crosswalks".

He describes Teslas as “no different” from non-intentional machines of the past, and then describes them with “intentional” language.

>I do not think there is a more neutral way of describing the events.

How about, “Industrial accidents happen through lack of human foresight and carelessness. The same is currently true of ‘AI’ products like Autopilot. But the time will come, and probably soon, where AI alignment and intentionality will be part of the conversation. We should prepare for that starting now.”

Not as catchy as “Robot rampage!” But more accurate and, as you say, neutral.

[bbor]

What if this author doesn’t care about intentionality? AFAICT you’re assuming they do because they use the active verb “ignore” for a machine, but that says little to me. We use language like this all the time for non-intentional systems: “the plant reached skyward”, “the economy soared”, etc etc etc.

I really really don’t think this is an article about convincing robots to be nice to us (AKA alignment); I think it’s an article about how we need stricter regulations for software that controls physical machines. Doesn’t that sound like a good idea?

[gcanyon]

The difference is that no one (very few people) would ever consider a plant to be sentient. So the metaphor works as intended. Since many (most?) people are willing to entertain the notion that AI can be intentional, the metaphor is ambiguous and fails.

I’m not arguing against the underlying point, I’m just disagreeing with how it’s presented.