Whatmeworry4 t1_j24lhf8 wrote on December 29, 2022 at 4:55 PM

Reply to comment by ConsciousInsurance67 in How the concept: Banality of evil developed by Hanna Arendt can be applied to AI Ethics in order to understand the unintentional behaviour of machines that are intelligent but not conscious. by AndreasRaaskov

Why do you assume that those consequences are negative for the person acting, or that they care? And how do you separate true ignorance versus willful ignorance?

RegurgitatingFetus t1_j24nhce wrote on December 29, 2022 at 5:08 PM

And how do you detect intent, humor me.

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24o6bz wrote on December 29, 2022 at 5:13 PM

Ok, the easiest way is to ask if the consequences were intentional, or it may even be documented. Now, why do you ask? Why do we need to detect the intent for the purposes of a theoretical discussion?

ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j24sfwe wrote on December 29, 2022 at 5:40 PM

Legally and inherited from roman Rights, anything to be considered a crime needs: intentionality ( evil or not) and fault ( the wrongdoing itself that is maybe not born of evil intentions but brings pain and suffering, and therefore is bad ) example: murder ( evil- evil) v.s homicide in self defense (you kill someone but the motivation is not killing, the crime happens as a consecuence of protecting yourself . Of course it is still a crime even when the consecuences are not intentional .

I think the ethic rules for robots made by Asimov played around this; what should an AI do to protect us from ourselves?

Whatmeworry4 t1_j24v23v wrote on December 29, 2022 at 5:57 PM

I am only referring to the intentionality to seek the consequences. True evil considers the consequences as evil and doesn’t care. The banality of evil is when you don’t consider the consequences as evil. The intent to cause the consequences is the same either way.

ConsciousInsurance67 t1_j284oji wrote on December 30, 2022 at 9:20 AM

Thank you. Then, I see that sometimes the difference between true evil and banal evil is a social construct, "bad" behaviours are rationalised to be congruent with a good self image, ( "it was my job, I had to do it for the better" ) this happens when no universal ethics are displayed and I think we have a consensus of what are the human rights but there isnt an universal ethic for all humanity, that is a problem philosophy psychology and sociology have to solve.