People hate me for it, and my jokes lol.

In my opinion on this article, one reason the subhead "It’s Funny, None of These Theories Seem Adequate " was necessary is because the article is clearly mixing up categories or levels of explanation. 1. and 3. are attempts to explain the "why" of humor from a logical or functional standpoint ("what are the criteria on which we decide something is funny?"), whereas 2. attempts to answer a totally different question, i.e. why do we laugh from a physiological standpoint (that is, what is the advantage or evolutionary benefit (because it gives us "relief"). In other words, for the purpose of this article, only 1. and 3. are relevant in the first place.

>And that's because the transparency of the process is inextricable from your ability to see if it's working.

Would you let a surgeon operate on you even though you don't know how his brain works? I would because I can analyze results on a macro level. I don't know how to build a car but I can drive one. Dealing with things that we don't understand is a feature of our minds, not a drawback.

>Take a situation described in the OP where the police are not distributed evenly along some racial lines in a community. Lets say that the police spend 25% more time in the community of racial group A than they do of racial group B. That group is going to assert that there is bias in the algorithm that leads to them being targeted, and if you cannot DEMONSTRATE that not to be the case than you'll have the kind of rejection of policing that we've been seeing throughout the country in the last few years. You won't be able to get people to join the police force, you won't get communities to support the police force, and when that happens it's not going to matter how efficiently you can distribute them.

Good point and I agree that policing needs more explainability than a chess algorithm. Do we need 100%? Maybe.

>Just like not crashing might be the metric with which you measure the success of an AI that drives cars; trust would be one of the metrics with which you would measure the success of some kind of AI legal system.

Fair enough. So for policing we require a high level of explainability, let's say. We offer the people an unexplainable AI that saves an extra 10,000 people per year but we opt for the explainable one because despite the miracle, we don't trust it! Okay.

Is it possible to make a practical useful policing AI with a high level of explainability? I don't know. It might not be. There might be many such fields where we never use AIs because we can't find them to be both useful enough and explainable enough at the same time. Governance, for instance.

I was talking about the person who just flat out said “no” to your original comment.

And yeah Shapiro is the master of ego. I wasn’t so much going for the burn, more so just pointing out people who just blindly believe nonsense and act smug on top of it, especially for personal gain. That’s what he is and he should be called out for it.

I was trying to back up your comment but I guess that was a mistake? Shapiro deserves criticism and shouldn’t be worshipped, I can’t believe I’m having to say this… but here we are yeah?

> I’m amazed that someone would think personal beliefs, tied in with the internet wouldn’t have an impact on how people act.

Me too, and yet here we are. > > > > That person flat out said no to you and that is such a blind and ignorant viewpoint.

Can you quote that text, I don't recall seeing it?

> > > > This sub is looking like Ben Shapiro wannabes.

The sickest of burns, how did you come up with something so novel?

Love this - equal parts lovely and insightful.

Meow

Yeah, I do think I understand the point you are trying to make, but I still don't agree. And that's because the transparency of the process is inextricable from your ability to see if it's working. In order for a legal system to be useful, it needs to be trusted, and you can't trust a system if you can't break open and examine every part of the system as needed. Let me give a concrete example to illustrate.

Take a situation described in the OP where the police are not distributed evenly along some racial lines in a community. Lets say that the police spend 25% more time in the community of racial group A than they do of racial group B. That group is going to assert that there is bias in the algorithm that leads to them being targeted, and if you cannot DEMONSTRATE that not to be the case than you'll have the kind of rejection of policing that we've been seeing throughout the country in the last few years. You won't be able to get people to join the police force, you won't get communities to support the police force, and when that happens it's not going to matter how efficiently you can distribute them.

Just like not crashing might be the metric with which you measure the success of an AI that drives cars; trust would be one of the metrics with which you would measure the success of some kind of AI legal system.

Damn these three just need to die already. Truly shocking that they are still being written about.

I can’t believe this bullshit got upvoted. Defend Hitler all you want I guess.

You're looking for the word 'alludes' rather than 'eludes' in your last paragraph there.

I agree, but have you seen Gringo Papi yet?

Oh I certainly agree that it's possible. My question wasn't declaring it impossible, but rather questioning the methods. AI do work together in different areas. But the idea of an AI inciting a riot, just to quell it later would be very difficult to hide from the investigation of the source of the riot. I like the broken windows idea for its subtlety. All an AI would really need to do is stop sending police to an area long enough for vandalism to ramp up in an area. But the AI isn't the only one who can spot patterns. We would quickly desire to change it's habits to prevent the vandalism that would become very predictable after a few cycles. The efficiency of the AI would immediately be called into question, this endangering it's core mission.

Frankly, I'm more worried about our trust in the AI being so blind that we change the law to punish pre-offenders. People who the AI has designated likely enough to commit a crime that it can be used as evidence in court to restrict their freedoms before the crime can actually happen. I believe that's more likely than the AI sabotaging it's enforcement of certain things to make itself look better. With pre-offence being a different category of criminal law, it could result in justification for restricted rights to travel, purchases, and possession of certain things without a crime happening. All for the sake of deterrence.

It's actually already happening in people's psychological reckoning of what looks like a guilty person without the AI help. If a gun store sells a gun to a person who looks sketchy, they can be held liable if that person commits a crime. One of the justifications for the death penalty is that it deters others. We're already on the path of punishing some for the crimes of others that haven't happened yet. Actually, very crazy things have happened due to a psychology that said that deterrence was paramount to justice. Such as the escalation of the length of sentences for minor drug possession. Pretty much the entire "tough on crime"/"war on crime" laws and policies were built on deterrence being more valuable than innocence or guilt in the case of the individual that's been charged. Often, the details of ones guilt or sentencing are the results, not of their own crime by itself, but of how their crime must be judged in a sea of previous crimes of the same category. That's jurisprudence. I'm not saying any of these things are terrible on their own, especially not jurisprudence or the concerns of gun store owners. But we've already built up the components of the architecture for these AI to convince us that deterrence is the only real justice. All that's left there is to connect the pieces.

It was around 2018 so it was a little while ago.

How long ago was this? Are we talking current tech or like 2016?

I’m amazed that someone would think personal beliefs, tied in with the internet wouldn’t have an impact on how people act.

That person flat out said no to you and that is such a blind and ignorant viewpoint.

This sub is looking like Ben Shapiro wannabes.

It's hard for me to imagine the future of AI policing because we don't know how it may be used in the future.

If we don't rule out AIs working together, maybe the public works AI and the policing AI implicitly collude to not repair broken windows in some neighborhoods. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

That's not a great example. Hmm...

Your assumption is that the police AI wouldn't be plugged in to some other AI where they could increase crime, right? Is that a reasonable assumption? Do we find that AI systems don't interact?

In the stock market, quants program AI to trade stock. And often those programs are interacting with each other. In fact, most of the stock market volume is trades between programs. So we do have examples of AIs connecting.

You could imagine a future where the policing AI convinces the police chief to let the AI connect to the internet. And then the AI uses twitter to incite a riot and then sends police to quell it, to earn points for being a good riot-stopping AI.

Eliazar Yudowsky did the "escape the box" thing twice.

https://towardsdatascience.com/the-ai-box-experiment-18b139899936

Even if you don't find these arguments fully convincing, hopefully between the YouTube example, the quants, and Yudowsky, there is at least some inkling that humanity might somewhere develop a policing AI that would intentionally try to increase crime in order to have more crime to police. It could happen?

thank you

Consciousness emerged from life as life advanced. Why not from computers?

You could argue that we wouldn't aim to create a conscious computer. But neither did nature aim to create consciousness and here we are.

So I absolutely do think that there's a chance that it simply emerges. Just like it did before. Every day some unconscious gametes get together and, at some point, consciousness emerges, right? If carbon, why not silicon?

I don’t laugh to attract others. I laugh hardest when I’m alone in fact. Not sure about that one. I watched dave chappelles stand up on snl three times by myself and was barely able to breath it was so funny

I agree with you except for the part where you seem very certain that understanding trumps all utility. I am thinking that might find some balance between utility and explainability. Presumably there would be some utilitarian calculus that would judge the importance of explainability versus utility of AI function.

Like for a chess playing AI, explainability might be totally unimportant but for policing it is. And for other stuff it's in the middle.

But say you have the choice between an AI that drives cars and you don't understand it versus an explainable one but the explainable one is shown to lead to 10 times the fatalities of the other one. Surely there is some level of increased fatalities where you'd be willing to accept the unexplainable?

Here's a blog with similar ideas:

https://kozyrkov.medium.com/explainable-ai-wont-deliver-here-s-why-6738f54216be

I had a friend who studied humor and we talked at length about it at times.

He ascribed to the “benign violation” theory, that something was funny when it violated some sort of social norm or expectation and when someone undeserving was not hurt emotionally or physically by said violation.

I wonder what would happen if they took the Abraham Wald approach and designed a counterintuitive algorithm. Like, make a heatmap of violent crimes (assault, robbery, rape, etc.), and then sic the algo on non-violent crimes in the inverted heatmapped areas, like larceny, wire fraud, and so on. Higher-income areas have wealthier people, and statistically wealthier people are better equipped to commit high-dollar white collar crimes. You could also use the hottest areas on the violence heatmap to target social services support.

What about relatability? Truthful insight?

And it’s silly to say there’s only one reason for all humor, there’s so many different reasons to laugh.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.