The point is that things like AI can multiply the effect of any human bias. Humans were fundamentally just "bad" after as before the invention of the machine gun (technically mostly modern artillery, but I'm being poetic), but there probably wouldn't have been as many dead at the Somme without it.

We are seeing every day how AI can be used to censor and suppress, that means we need to be increasingly systematic in how we approach biases both in practice and as a concept (the latter aimed really at those who apply political dogma to what is ultimately a scientific question).

To follow up (from a different debate, but this point still stands)

> A core, not side, effect of technology is its ability to magnify power and multiply force — for both attackers and defenders.

> For the most part, though, society still wins. The bad guys simply can’t do enough damage to destroy the underlying social system. The question for us is: can society still maintain security as technology becomes more advanced?

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/03/when_technolo...

This is one of the best criticisms of AI that I have read.

Leaving science alone and working on our own biases should be the way forward.

But with censorship on the rise in every corner of the world and political spectrum, I would say things are bleak.

But who decides which biases are good or bad? If we have no yardstick for that, we become ineffective at personal progress.

What is you point? The fact that humans have shit ethics does not mean we need not address ethics in AI. Especially if the AI is then used to justify the biases.

And that comparison is completely ridiculous.

Right, like we extensively worked out the ethics of automobiles before we allowed them.

Can you imagine if we let cars contribute to inequity by allowing rich people to own them and not poor people? Or if it was possible to just aim a car at people without the self-driving stopping you.

The idea is the AI developers should be first of all aware of the potential problems, I would say that maybe AI should be done by competent engineers that studied this domain including data science,statistics and ethics and maybe this engineers should be responsible similar how other professionals can lose their right to practice if they don't respect the rules.

The excuse that the data is garbage so is not my fault is terrible, detecting if the data is garbage is part of your job IMO.

My criticism applies for AI people that work on projects that have large consequences or affect a large number of people, for small we can keep the "no warranty disclaimer"