Evolutionary systems are very good at perverting any and all definable fitness functions - it's a red queen's race. At best, if you want systems to behave you either have to supervise them all the time or have a system which can which itself must be supervised less often. While we want human morals and ethics to be a part of our systems, humans will forever need to remain in the loop.

It’s fascinating to see that we’re _already_ at a point where the AI alignment problem («what morality do we want our automated systems to have») is becoming a practical reality, long before AGI or self-improving AI appears to be imminent.

I think this is a clear, contempirary demonstration that philosophizing around the use of AI (even today) has practical benefits beyond the practice of philosophy as an inherently worthwhile species-wide intellectual pursuit.

> AI alignment problem

This is a problem as old as civilization.

Bureaucratic procedure (of governments, religious organizations, corporations, armies, NGOs, ...) always leads to bad outcomes in edge cases if individual administrators are not given enough autonomy to make exceptions and enough oversight/accountability to prevent abuse.

I think it’s also fascinating how this is an age-old philosophical problem, as in the stories of the malicious genie. People have known for a long time that the rigid, precise specification of morality or desirability isn’t easy.

Is it so hard to remove gender race nationality and so on from automated profiling?

There are tons of stats that serve as effective proxies for such things: What schools did you go to, what is your name, who are your friends, etc.

So yes, it is EXTREMELY hard.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automatio...

Thats exactly what amazon tried to do here, but because the AI based its decisions on amazon's previous hires (that is, almost no women) and blinded the AI to gender, it instead proxied women for one of a dozen other things such as school, courses taken, etc.