[unclebucknasty]

>There's no fundamental qualitative difference here...degree either.

I've heard the same comparisons made with self-driving cars (i.e. that humans are fallible, and maybe even more error-prone).

But this misses the point. People trust the fallibility they know. That is, we largely understand human failure modes (errors in judgement, lapses in attention, etc) and feel like we are in control of them (and we are).

OTOH, when machines make mistakes, they are experienced as unpredictable and outside of our control. Additionally, our expectation of machines is that they are deterministic and not subject to mistakes. While we know bugs can exist, it's not the expectation. And, with the current generation of AI in particular, we are dealing with models that are generally probabilistic, which means there's not even the expectation that they are errorless.

And, I don't believe it's reasonable to expect people to give up control to AI of this quality, particularly in matters of safety or life and death; really anything that matters.

TLDR; Most people don't want to gamble their lives on a statistic, when the alternative is maintaining control.

[chaorace]

Expanding on this, human failures and machine failures are qualitatively different in ways that make our systems generally less resilient against the machine variety, even when dealing with a theoretically near-perfect implementation. Consider a bug in an otherwise perfect self-driving car routine that causes crashes under a highly specific scenario -- roads are essentially static structures, so you've effectively concentrated 100% of crashes into (for example) 1% of corridors. Practically speaking, those corridors would be forced into a state of perpetual closure.

This is all to say that randomly distributed failures are more tolerable than a relatively smaller number of concentrated failures. Human errors are rather nice by comparison because they're inconsistent in locality while still being otherwise predictable in macroscopic terms (e.g.: on any given day, there will always be far more rear-endings than head-on collisions). When it comes to machine networks, all it takes is one firmware update for both the type & locality of their failure modes to go into a wildly different direction.

[tifik]

What you say is true, and I agree, but that is the emotional human side of thinking. Purely logically, it would nake sense to compare the two systems of control and use the one with fewer human casualities. Not saying its gonna happen, just thinking that reason and logic should take precedent, no matter what side you are on.

[unclebucknasty]

It definitely seems like a matter of simple math. But, I'm not 100% sure it's always the most logical choice to defer to statistics.

By definition, stats operate at the macro level. So, for instance, I may be a safer driver than the AI average. Should I give up control? I suppose it's also a matter of degree and there's the network effect to consider (i.e. even If I individually beat the average, I'm still on the road with others who don't).

So it gets a little more complicated and I'm also not sure the aversion to relinquishing control is strictly "emotional" (as in the irrational sense). There's something about the potential finality of a failure that goes along with autonomy and agency over one's own life. The idea that a machine could make a mistake that ends your life, and you never had a chance or say in that outcome is off-putting in ways that feel more rooted in rationality and survival than in emotion.