Submitted by inno_brew t3_xv9w0n in Futurology
The following submission statement was provided by /u/inno_brew:
**Submission Statement** The general public should be able to trust robots, the EU thinks. Whether it's about autonomous transport, automation of complex processes, or the more efficient use of agricultural land, the European Union expects a great deal from the technological innovations that are being made possible thanks to artificial intelligence. But AI applications can only succeed if the general public does not lose confidence in the technology, is the expectation. There already is an Artificial Intelligence Act. The new Liability Directive is a follow-up to that.
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xv9w0n/who_is_liable_for_my_racist_robot_manufacturers/iqzsre1/
This will make AI unusable.
Racism always happens with AI because AI just looks at group trends to try to make the right decision without factoring human experience and free will into it.
For example, black people do commit way more crime and are more likely to default on loans. A crime fighting AI or one that chooses who gets loans would be right, logically, to discriminate. And it would get better returns and efficacy than one that was race blind. But it doesn't factor in that an individual black person who isn't a criminal, and who is good on his loans, shouldn't be hung because of group association. It will be very difficult to make a functional AI that isn't found to be discriminatory, if differences in outcome already exist between groups.
Holy shit a nuanced and sensible take on Reddit? Prepare to get downvoted to Hell, friend.
This is hilariously weird, uncanny and completely ideological. "We know better than AI!" (because imagine you replace "racism" with something else, whatever political directive...).
I’m not sure that legal liability actually does as much (at least now), especially compared to reputational effects. Like most of these are going to presumably be produced by slimly capitalized corporate entities that would declare bankruptcy if any significant litigation occurred, no?
I think reputation and public response expectations are actually more meaningful and direct and affect decisions a bit better, maybe because it’s more intuitive?
Nope there is nothing nuanced about being a racist spouting racist misinformation with no nod to bias.Your example is full of fallacy that can't be supported by any reliable source. Black people do not commit way more crime. How is that even statistically possible when we are only 12% of the population. Show me numbers and data. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/table-43
In Canada, we are only 3.5% of the population but are somehow stopped at twice the rate of white citizens. I would love to slay your argument with numbers but since Canada refuses to collect data by demographic (which I suspect is done to keep the misinformation hidden) I can't provide solid numbers.
In Europe, they combine Black, Asian and all other minority ethnic groups , which of course is to skew the data. A simple breakdown of that combined group will show you YET AGAIN that you are absolutely incorrect. https://irr.org.uk/research/statistics/criminal-justice/
>Black people do not commit way more crime. How is that even statistically possible when we are only 12% of the population
I mean, the AI would look at the relative rate of crime between population groups as part of the process of discriminating who should get a resource to maximize whatever outcome its looking for. Black people are frequently low income and urban, and are part of gangs at a higher rate for that reason. Besides the whole policing bias issue, where people are concerned about black people being over represented in stats because the police are patroling around them more often, for racist reasons, there are a lot of signs that gang violence is overrepresented and indicates an actual objective inclination towards a much higher rate of crime that will for sure come out in the data.
Murders for example are hard to cover up because you have an actual body on the ground, and the black crime rate for murder is 50X any other population, so an AI will look at that and draw conclusions. It seems unlikely that the white or asian population have 50X murders going on in secret that they just cover up really well using racist police. Doesn't mean that black people all murder, but any policy from the AI is necessarily going to discriminate against the group as a whole, unless it were to have perfect information about every individual.
I mean, that table you reference in the link says White 45% murders, black 51% murders.
Yes, i'm sure that black people are stopped more frequently. This will lead to them getting hit more on small crimes, because they are policed more.
But there are some crimes, especially in the stats you linked, that indicate that the rate of crime is objectively higher. Murder, violent crime, rape, etc where you have a victim that can act as objective evidence would indicate that the black crime rate is extremely high, and not a consequence of policing. From that, I would assume the increased policing comes from seeing that.
>Murders for example are hard to cover up because you have an actual body on the ground, and the black crime rate for murder is 50X any other population
Where are you even getting all these made up stats. You are just regurgitating racist talking points.
>Black people are frequently low income and urban, and are part of gangs at a higher rate for that reason.
Whites receive more welfare assistance than any other group.
https://frac.org/blog/new-usda-report-provides-picture-of-who-participates-in-snap
Latinos hold the crown for gangs and organized crime.
So you were saying?
I mean, you linked the stats
White - 3,650 homicides - 60.1% population
Black - 4,078 homicides - 12.2% population
White -60.7 murder per percentage
Black - 334.2 murder per percentage
5X, not 50x. Sorry
You used total arrests(the first link) and not the numbers for actual murder convictions that information was in the second set of links. Either way the original numbers were grossly inflated.
inno_brew OP t1_iqzsre1 wrote
**Submission Statement** The general public should be able to trust robots, the EU thinks. Whether it's about autonomous transport, automation of complex processes, or the more efficient use of agricultural land, the European Union expects a great deal from the technological innovations that are being made possible thanks to artificial intelligence. But AI applications can only succeed if the general public does not lose confidence in the technology, is the expectation. There already is an Artificial Intelligence Act. The new Liability Directive is a follow-up to that.