Real or artificial? Tech titans declare AI ethics concerns

Because corporations are not run by democratic principles, corporate self governance is an oxymoron. 'Governance' is not a heuristics in essentially authoritarian institutions.  

This problem of the governance of emergent technologies which claim to serve the public, yet has the same power to vampirize the public cuts to the fundamental contradiction between democracies and corporations. Philosopher of science Karl Popper had d lot to say about that, but technicians, bureaucrats, and politicians are not even required to read such books to obtain their positions, much less dig as deeply as Popper in dealing with the problem.

By corporate structural design, and now by law (thanks to the Klepto-Corporate takeover of democratic processes and triumph of neoliberalism over Keynesian , and without constant structural reform ... by inevitable authoritarian mission drift or mission creep ... the corporate institution bound to be accountable to its investors — NOT social or community 'stake holders'. 

As Chomsky points out in Western models, a CEO is bound to that priority by law. And as many Japanese point out, the 'manager' who is 'strong' enough to lead by firing once valued employees is admired.

A corporation's priority necessarily follows the philosophy of the cancer cell — growth for growth's sake. Despite even the best intentions, self-governance/self regulation inevitably becomes conflated with PR for the profit incentive, and it will do so until the host (the public) has been so drained of human capital, that the whole system comes crashing down in a 'Tower of Babel' repeat of history.

The problem now is that the increasing populations of we swarming primates have just about reached the limits of sustainability on a planet with finite resources. It's a toss up between whether we extend our swarms to exploit off-world resources, or destroy ourselves scrabbling over declining resources in a rapidly degrading environment.  

Polarization of wealth distribution, and increasing ethnic-national tribalism are two of the dysfunctional reactions which point towards the probability of the latter of those two of options.

Forget 'Artificial Intelligence'. We don't even know what the heck 'human intelligence' is, and here is one grim proposition ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZbW7lvGkuA&feature=youtu.be

I don't know what to do about AI, but I do know I don't want a liberal making the decisions on what to do about AI.

AI ethics. It's a very interesting topic. I spoke with a car manufacturer employee about AI in cars and he mentioned that they have some major problems to solve with AI. One of those is how to make a decision in a situation that will mostly likely result in either the death of person A, or person B. How does the AI rank importance of life? Who will be given preference? It's a very interesting topic to be sure.

This is just an efeect of the pervasive liberal ideology of the people in silicon valley. Normal people don't need ethics boards to tell then what is right or wrong and normal people lean to consider questionable acts as wrong until more information comes. Which means coding AI should result in normal ethics if voded by people who have the capacity to be ethical. People who need ethics boards, are the opposite, they consider everything right, including bad actions, until some board votes it wrong. We don't need people like this developing AI.

Everybody's developing AI now, including Chinese companies. Ethics?