Probabilistic generalizations based on internet content are not steps toward algorithmic moral personhood, write David McNeill and Emily Tucker.
  • kibiz0r@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    11 hours ago

    Gotcha. Yeah, I can endorse that viewpoint.

    To me, “engineer” implies confidence in the specific result of what you’re making.

    So like, you can produce an ambiguous image like The Dress by accident, but that’s not engineering it.

    The researchers who made the Socks and Crocs images did engineer them.

    • tabular@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 hours ago

      I see what you mean. By that definition of engineer then I would agree.

      We could perhaps engineer androids that mimic us so well that to damage them would feel to us like hurting a human. I would feel compelled to take the risk of caring for an unfeeling simulation just in case they were actually able to suffer or flourish.