SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Accidents involving driverless cars, calculating the probability of recidivism among criminals, and influencing elections by means of news filters—algorithms are involved everywhere. Should governments step in?
Yes, says Markus Ehrenmann of Swisscom.
The current progress being made in processing big data and in machine learning is not always to our advantage. Some algorithms are already putting people at a disadvantage today and will have to be regulated.
For example, if a driverless car recognises an obstacle in the road, the control algorithm has to decide whether it will put the life of its passengers at risk or endanger uninvolved passers-by on the pavement. The on-board computer takes decisions that used to be made by people. It's up to the state to clarify who must take responsibility for the consequences of automated decisions (so-called 'algorithmic accountability'). Otherwise, it would render our legal system ineffective.
[...]
No, says Mouloud Dey of SAS.We need to be able to audit any algorithm potentially open to inappropriate use. But creativity can't be stifled nor research placed under an extra burden. Our hand must be measured and not premature. Creative individuals must be allowed the freedom to work, and not assigned bad intentions a priori. Likewise, before any action is taken, the actual use of an algorithm must be considered, as it is generally not the computer program at fault but the way it is used.
It's the seemingly mysterious, badly intentioned and quasi-automatic algorithms that are often apportioned blame, but we need to look at the entire chain of production, from the programmer and the user to the managers and their decisions. We can't throw the baby out with the bathwater: an algorithm developed for a debatable use, such as military drones, may also have an evidently useful application which raises no questions.
Two opposing viewpoints are provided in this article; please share yours.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:01PM
Why do we need regulation in the first place? Not a rhetorical question, a serious one. Because you seem to think there is always a clear cause and a clear effect.
See, if you die on road because some chump wrote an algorithm for a guided missile, he will be convicted. But if a scurd missile drops on you because a drone malfunctioned, who do you think will be punished? No one.
Now replace president with driver and drone with a self-driving car. You can not pick to come to a favoured conclusion but logically the only difference is about power and that doesn't a good law make.
This is too complicated and I think people would prefer to outsource it to a regulatory body.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday January 06 2017, @09:40PM
Are you implying that events occur which have no cause?
If a drone malfunctions and drops a missile, there is certainly a cause. It would surely get complicated, because there would probably be many parties involved, but I'm certain you could successfully sue SOMEONE for that. Was the drone not properly maintained? Was the maintenance crew being overworked? Was there a flaw in the design of the drone or the bomb? What idiot decided it was a good idea to fly live munitions over a populated area? Who programmed the control software? Or the bomb itself? Is it a smart bomb? Is it smart enough to know it was released unintentionally? Could the drone have been made to notice and deactivate it before impact? That's one hell of a negligence case...
Of course, they could just say "IT'S A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY" and cover the whole thing up. They could do that if they shot someone too, but that doesn't mean murder is legal or shouldn't be regulated, nor does that mean the shooting didn't have a cause. It just means they're corrupt.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Saturday January 07 2017, @03:15PM
What I am saying is that there are normally so many causes to any event it is normally impossible to pin-point it to one cause. The reason we have a complicated system to catch a culprit is as much about finding a psychological closure/revenge as it is about trying to fix the actual cause. Now I think being able to find someone to sue is just wrong, the actual goal of judicial system is to create deterrents to stop actual cause.
That said, let me bring the analogy close to a motor vehicle. Look at a bus - it has a big potential to cause mayhem - and it is very regulated. Not only you need a different license to drive it, almost all buses are run on predefined routes. That is a regulation of algorithm in way. Hence I am very sure a similar regulation is future.