currentscurrents t1_ja99uud wrote on February 27, 2023 at 8:02 PM

Reply to comment by redflexer in [D] What do you think of this AI ethics professor suggestion to force into law the requirement of a license to use AI like chatGPT since it's "potentially dangerous"? by [deleted]

I'm not talking about philosophers debating the nature of moral actions. Ethics "experts" and ethics boards make a stronger claim; that they can actually determine what is moral and ethical. This truly is subjective.

At best they're a way for people making tricky decisions to cover their legal liability. Hospitals don't consult ethics boards before unplugging patients because they think the ethicists will have some useful insight; they just want their approval because it will help their defense if they get sued.

quisatz_haderah t1_ja9j8xr wrote on February 27, 2023 at 9:00 PM

I think you should add this to your original response. Because this should be heard more.

redflexer t1_ja9locb wrote on February 27, 2023 at 9:15 PM

This is not at all how ethic boards operate. They very rarely make decisions themselves but define the parameters within which an ethical decision can be made (e.g. what aspects need to be considered and weighted against each other, who needs to be heard, etc.). If you had other experiences, this is not representative for the majority of boards.