The concept of utilitarianism gives rise to a question- What do human beings stand to gain from giving autonomous machines the power to make decisions for us? In order to answer this question, we have to firstly, consider the cost-benefit analysis of autonomous machines substituting human beings in the decision making process. “Replace one human worker with a general-purpose artificial intelligence, and the total unemployment of the species is yours for the extrapolating”- Stuart Armstrong
From the point of view of a worker that has been replaced by an autonomous machine, the most obvious cost would be the loss of the job. From the perspective of an industry, the obvious cost would be the initial investment of these machines.
Indeed, there …show more content…
Preventing autonomous machines from replacing these workers, just for their rights to keep their jobs, would be considered unethical as it deprives the greater “good” for the greater number of people. This is in line with what J.S Mills stated in Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has to account for “long-term pleasure” and not merely acts that bring “immediate gratification”. The “long-term pleasure” here refers to the economic growth, and consequently a higher standard of living for the society. Hence, allowing automation to make decisions for human would be considered ethical, as it brings about a greater pleasure for the greater number of people and not just instant …show more content…
This will violate the traditional ethics we based our ethical decisions on. Moreover, if this maxim was applied universally, there will be disorder in the world. Without human oversight, autonomous machines are only capable of making systematic decisions and not highly complex ones. According to studies, autonomous machines are only error-free when it comes to systematic and repetitive tasks. Once an unexpected error appeared, human intervention is required to mitigate and resolve the error. Hence, according to Kant’s Principle of Universality, the very act of allowing autonomous machines to replace human beings to make decision is unethical.
“But make no mistake: we are now different creatures than we once were, evolving technologically rather than biologically, in directions we must hope are for the best.”-Tim
From the point of view of a worker that has been replaced by an autonomous machine, the most obvious cost would be the loss of the job. From the perspective of an industry, the obvious cost would be the initial investment of these machines.
Indeed, there …show more content…
Preventing autonomous machines from replacing these workers, just for their rights to keep their jobs, would be considered unethical as it deprives the greater “good” for the greater number of people. This is in line with what J.S Mills stated in Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism has to account for “long-term pleasure” and not merely acts that bring “immediate gratification”. The “long-term pleasure” here refers to the economic growth, and consequently a higher standard of living for the society. Hence, allowing automation to make decisions for human would be considered ethical, as it brings about a greater pleasure for the greater number of people and not just instant …show more content…
This will violate the traditional ethics we based our ethical decisions on. Moreover, if this maxim was applied universally, there will be disorder in the world. Without human oversight, autonomous machines are only capable of making systematic decisions and not highly complex ones. According to studies, autonomous machines are only error-free when it comes to systematic and repetitive tasks. Once an unexpected error appeared, human intervention is required to mitigate and resolve the error. Hence, according to Kant’s Principle of Universality, the very act of allowing autonomous machines to replace human beings to make decision is unethical.
“But make no mistake: we are now different creatures than we once were, evolving technologically rather than biologically, in directions we must hope are for the best.”-Tim