I think he's doing a bit of bait and switch there. Knowing reliably whether arrests are genuinely racist or if winks are flirtatious is superhuman intelligence.
> But the idea that if we just get better at statistical inference, consciousness will fall out of it is wishful thinking.
I'm a mostly disinterested spectator in current AI research, and even I know that it's not all about that. Just google "AI alignment" for an example, and god only knows what's going on in private research.
I think the definition of racism in this context can be simple. If the rate of false positives for blacks is significantly higher than the average across the nation, then it's racism. Significantly higher can mean "one stddev higher".
Exactly my point - I happen to disagree. We're not going to have AI come and tell us the Truth, at least not from day one. They'll help, but not with _this_ kind of questions. This is why I commented, because they seem specifically chosen to be some of the most complicated questions we face.
(On topic: blacks could commit more crime then average. They could do it because of systemic racism, but in this case the _arrests_ are not racist.)
> But the idea that if we just get better at statistical inference, consciousness will fall out of it is wishful thinking.
I'm a mostly disinterested spectator in current AI research, and even I know that it's not all about that. Just google "AI alignment" for an example, and god only knows what's going on in private research.