> Nobody has good answers for any of these things. It's a folly to think someone else has it figured out.
We don’t know that. Only history will tell us who figured it out and why.
What I don’t understand is why there is a clear decision between decisions and delivering on decision, other than the artificial need to retain control.
I don’t see a real roadblock that will prevent AI making better devisions than humans.
I always thought that the Gettier problem was an academic curiosity.
Someone who justifiably holds beliefs about the eventual impact of AI that later turn out to be true---can they be declared to have been knowledgeable about the subject matter?
It could be that the ratio of the amount of context required for a good decision to happen to the amount of context an entity is willing or able to provide is not high enough. E.g. the AI might dictate my life better than me if I upload every single thing about myself to it, but for privacy reasons I only tell it a small amount about me.
And maybe corporations make similar decisions.
(You might counter that there will be local AI. This is true but it’s still risky to let an autonomous system have all your sensitive information, especially in the AI hacking age.)
I was wondering that too. I suppose if we take it to the extreme end of the spectrum, "end world hunger" is a great decision but how to actually realize it is another problem.
