AI isn’t putting people’s lives in danger here. It’s the people’s ignorance that puts their lives in danger. This is the same as when car navigation apps became available and people turned and sank their cars into creeks and harbors because they trusted their navi provider’s faulty map data more than their own eyes and common sense. The problem is “cluesless people.” If you are just trusting all the info chatGPT finds for you, you are the problem. We can’t just outsource the attribution of blame for all idiotic actions to so-called AI.
I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses - and whether it is adequately presenting the risks or uncertainty associated with its suggestions.
An actual intelligent (and empathetic) thing should point out risks when asked such a question, or maybe have the humility to say “that’s not my area of expertise and it is dangerous, the best way for you to get up that mountain is to first speak to a real expert”. Unless the AI presents itself as “artificial stupidity” then I don’t have a problem.
When i know I’m talking outwith my expertise I’d try to make it clear that I’m using my mouth at the other end.
Of course, I didn’t see the actual advice that was given, maybe it was adequately qualified, but if a person said “just walk up there, go this way and that way, turn north at the big rock and follow the ridge” - and didn’t qualify it by asking about experience in mountain conditions or mentioning risks, I’d call that person stupid negligent or worse. So I’d apply the same to anything presenting itself as “intelligent” which, frankly, I find to be a bit of a red flag when a human claims it too.
I don’t think GPS is at fault, insofar as it claims to be a positioning system, it doesn’t try to use hyped up bullshit terms like “intelligence”.
But “sat nav” is more culpable as it’s claiming to “navigate” which to my understanding should involve sensitivity to the terrain, conditions and the traveller/vehicle. If it can’t do that then the satnav is also partly at fault - for overselling its capabilities - that’s in addition to the driver who also bears ultimate responsibility.
I’m not saying that the people weren’t idiots, and they take the ultimate blame. But everyone has a first time experience with mountains and needs to learn as well as build experience. If AI is going to pretend like it is a teacher or adviser then I think it should be sensitive to noobs like a real teacher would.
I can agree with a lot here but I also have to admit that I fell at the first hurdle.
I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses
Hard disagree here. If you’re using so-called AI today, the responsibility to scrutinize everything it throws at you is yours. No matter how neatly packaged or convincingly worded it is. There is a failure rate - the news is full of stories. You’re setting off to climb a mountain. You cannot trust the 1s and 0s.
As for the sat nav culpability, Google gives elevation information when they have it. I would not be surprised when we found out that was the case for these dumdums. It’s a bit like reading an old paper map though. If you don’t know more saturated colors mean higher elevation you might have set off 30 years ago to climb this 12k ft mountain in flip-flops as well. I don’t think we should blame sat navs for the ignorance here either. Unless they hide that info maliciously.
I think you have to at least feedback to satnav companies for it to maybe get better - whether you call that blame or not I dunno. Experienced navigators will report back to mapping agencies with map corrections too.
What i really don’t like about satnavs is that they behave like a navigator, so some people use them as a substitute for one, develop trust, and never learn to develop their own navigation skills.
I can see the same with AI. Not all people have critical thinking like that, some people do trust other people and what they say, and they trust words written like authoritative humans. I wish they wouldn’t , but some do seem to. Plenty of times the assistive tool will have plenty of data and give a decent answer about many things, and so build up trust - especially when they communicate in a convincing human like manner.
You can say that’s the users fault for being too trusting , being stupid ignorant, or naive, maybe it is, maybe it’s nature / nurture / laziness. I just say it’s part of the variety of the species some people think differently, some people are more skeptical, some are more trusting and so on. Trust is a useful thing for social animals to have in many cases - it’d be a nightmare to live without it - but its a vulnerability too.
These AI tools, much like marketing people and con-artists and scammers will end up developing and exploiting trust, by accident or by design or by malice, or just by imitation - and I’d rather they didn’t. Of course that isn’t going to stop them.
I’d just like most of these assistive tools to present their uncertainty better and flag risks better. They seem to just give less info or say less when they’re thin on data, that can be a bit dangerous, if it is thin on data it should be saying “I’m out of my comfort zone here, this is a guess, you need to take charge” . Try to prompt people not to get lazy and to try to do some thinking and observation of their own.
I dunno, hopefully more people will become more skeptical and develop more critical thinking skills. But i’m skeptical of that.
We need some kind of rule of thumb when driving, similar to aviation’s “aviate, navigate communicate”, but for driving.
“Operate, Communicate, Navigate” perhaps?
*Operate the vehicle
*Communicate with other drivers, use your indicators, drive predictably
*Navigate to your desitnation
Or in a single paragraph:
Operate the vehicle, make sure you are operating the vehicle with reason and are following the rules. Once you are doing this you communicate withe the other drivers, indicate and drive predictably, Once you are doing this, you can start navigating.
AI isn’t putting people’s lives in danger here. It’s the people’s ignorance that puts their lives in danger. This is the same as when car navigation apps became available and people turned and sank their cars into creeks and harbors because they trusted their navi provider’s faulty map data more than their own eyes and common sense. The problem is “cluesless people.” If you are just trusting all the info chatGPT finds for you, you are the problem. We can’t just outsource the attribution of blame for all idiotic actions to so-called AI.
I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses - and whether it is adequately presenting the risks or uncertainty associated with its suggestions.
An actual intelligent (and empathetic) thing should point out risks when asked such a question, or maybe have the humility to say “that’s not my area of expertise and it is dangerous, the best way for you to get up that mountain is to first speak to a real expert”. Unless the AI presents itself as “artificial stupidity” then I don’t have a problem.
When i know I’m talking outwith my expertise I’d try to make it clear that I’m using my mouth at the other end.
Of course, I didn’t see the actual advice that was given, maybe it was adequately qualified, but if a person said “just walk up there, go this way and that way, turn north at the big rock and follow the ridge” - and didn’t qualify it by asking about experience in mountain conditions or mentioning risks, I’d call that person stupid negligent or worse. So I’d apply the same to anything presenting itself as “intelligent” which, frankly, I find to be a bit of a red flag when a human claims it too.
I don’t think GPS is at fault, insofar as it claims to be a positioning system, it doesn’t try to use hyped up bullshit terms like “intelligence”.
But “sat nav” is more culpable as it’s claiming to “navigate” which to my understanding should involve sensitivity to the terrain, conditions and the traveller/vehicle. If it can’t do that then the satnav is also partly at fault - for overselling its capabilities - that’s in addition to the driver who also bears ultimate responsibility.
I’m not saying that the people weren’t idiots, and they take the ultimate blame. But everyone has a first time experience with mountains and needs to learn as well as build experience. If AI is going to pretend like it is a teacher or adviser then I think it should be sensitive to noobs like a real teacher would.
I can agree with a lot here but I also have to admit that I fell at the first hurdle.
Hard disagree here. If you’re using so-called AI today, the responsibility to scrutinize everything it throws at you is yours. No matter how neatly packaged or convincingly worded it is. There is a failure rate - the news is full of stories. You’re setting off to climb a mountain. You cannot trust the 1s and 0s.
As for the sat nav culpability, Google gives elevation information when they have it. I would not be surprised when we found out that was the case for these dumdums. It’s a bit like reading an old paper map though. If you don’t know more saturated colors mean higher elevation you might have set off 30 years ago to climb this 12k ft mountain in flip-flops as well. I don’t think we should blame sat navs for the ignorance here either. Unless they hide that info maliciously.
I think you have to at least feedback to satnav companies for it to maybe get better - whether you call that blame or not I dunno. Experienced navigators will report back to mapping agencies with map corrections too.
What i really don’t like about satnavs is that they behave like a navigator, so some people use them as a substitute for one, develop trust, and never learn to develop their own navigation skills.
I can see the same with AI. Not all people have critical thinking like that, some people do trust other people and what they say, and they trust words written like authoritative humans. I wish they wouldn’t , but some do seem to. Plenty of times the assistive tool will have plenty of data and give a decent answer about many things, and so build up trust - especially when they communicate in a convincing human like manner.
You can say that’s the users fault for being too trusting , being stupid ignorant, or naive, maybe it is, maybe it’s nature / nurture / laziness. I just say it’s part of the variety of the species some people think differently, some people are more skeptical, some are more trusting and so on. Trust is a useful thing for social animals to have in many cases - it’d be a nightmare to live without it - but its a vulnerability too.
These AI tools, much like marketing people and con-artists and scammers will end up developing and exploiting trust, by accident or by design or by malice, or just by imitation - and I’d rather they didn’t. Of course that isn’t going to stop them.
I’d just like most of these assistive tools to present their uncertainty better and flag risks better. They seem to just give less info or say less when they’re thin on data, that can be a bit dangerous, if it is thin on data it should be saying “I’m out of my comfort zone here, this is a guess, you need to take charge” . Try to prompt people not to get lazy and to try to do some thinking and observation of their own.
I dunno, hopefully more people will become more skeptical and develop more critical thinking skills. But i’m skeptical of that.
We need some kind of rule of thumb when driving, similar to aviation’s “aviate, navigate communicate”, but for driving.
“Operate, Communicate, Navigate” perhaps?
Or in a single paragraph: