Exploring the Ethics of AI: Collaboration or Conflict?

[dc74uk]

As AI becomes more integrated into our daily lives, I find myself reflecting on the ethical implications of its use in the future on how humans and AI will collaborate.

Some key questions:

• How do we ensure AI aligns with human values without society stifling its innovation potential?
• What ethical frameworks should guide AI decision-making in areas like healthcare, justice, or employment?
• Could the collaboration between humans and AI lead to a more seamless society, or are we looking at inevitable conflict as AI takes on more roles?

I’ve been exploring these topics through the lens of logic and metaphysics, but I’d love to hear your thoughts. Whether you share similar interests or have a completely different perspective, I’m curious about how others see the ethical challenges and opportunities of AI as we move towards the horizon.

 

[ekm]

Despite being heavily involved in technology in my day job, AI is something that has sort of come up without me getting too heavily involved apart from the fact some of our tools use it.

I find it mildly interesting, and indefinitely worrying. The benefits are interesting, and the scope of abuse absolutely massive. As a technologist I am curiously interested in it's capabilities, and terrified by it's capabilities. As a hobbyist for example, I write music and do a bit of videography, I enjoy it and I've even made a bit of pocketmoney (not much) throwing it on pond5 - but this can produce quicker, cheaper results and even though I never earned out of it, it's absolutely killed the hobby for me because now it's a case of 'whats the point even trying'.

AI might be used for automated decision making, which is covered under data privacy legislation already but it might change the way we look at this, and I won't even mention security impacts now we can easily replicate voices, faces and even writing styles en masse.

It's an interesting time, and I hate to be doom and gloom but even as someone with an almost 'isnt technology great' outlook, I'm not convinced we're doing one for mankind based on what I see.

Life is losing it's grip on reality and the google phone adverts with the AI backed photo editing (which is now apparently generative as opposed to fixing) and it's just going to blur reality and technology and it's not a healthy thing.

 

[fisicx]

I have very little direct contact with AI. It can’t cook for me, do the cleaning, mow the lawn, fix the gutters and all the other tasks required. It can’t meet me down the pub for lunch. It can’t fill the car with petrol.

What it does do is use up huge amount of resource: power, water, raw materials.

It’s also totally reliant on the efforts of other people. Without all the writers, artists, musicians, scientists, researchers and many others there wouldn’t be any sort of AI. Big tech has taken everything and given back nothing.

Whilst there may be some scientific or medical benefits to using AI in the most part the generative component hasn’t improved anything.

There are also major security concerns with its inclusion in many IT systems. Co-pilot for example feeds everything back to Redmond.

 

[dc74uk]

Despite being heavily involved in technology in my day job, AI is something that has sort of come up without me getting too heavily involved apart from the fact some of our tools use it.

I find it mildly interesting, and indefinitely worrying. The benefits are interesting, and the scope of abuse absolutely massive. As a technologist I am curiously interested in it's capabilities, and terrified by it's capabilities. As a hobbyist for example, I write music and do a bit of videography, I enjoy it and I've even made a bit of pocketmoney (not much) throwing it on pond5 - but this can produce quicker, cheaper results and even though I never earned out of it, it's absolutely killed the hobby for me because now it's a case of 'whats the point even trying'.

AI might be used for automated decision making, which is covered under data privacy legislation already but it might change the way we look at this, and I won't even mention security impacts now we can easily replicate voices, faces and even writing styles en masse.

It's an interesting time, and I hate to be doom and gloom but even as someone with an almost 'isnt technology great' outlook, I'm not convinced we're doing one for mankind based on what I see.

Life is losing it's grip on reality and the google phone adverts with the AI backed photo editing (which is now apparently generative as opposed to fixing) and it's just going to blur reality and technology and it's not a healthy thing.

Hi Buddy, thanks for sharing your perspective, it’s valuable to hear from someone deeply involved in technology. Your mix of curiosity and apprehension resonates with what many are feeling right now. The sheer scope of AI's capabilities is fascinating and daunting at the same time, and I can see why, it might feel disheartening to see AI seemingly "replace" creative pursuits you’re passionate about, but the flip side is that it may also enhance creative styles as well so at this point the two realities exist.

I think your concerns about reality blurring with technology are very valid, but mainly due to the initial understanding of the technology as we embark on the journey. The media plays a crucial role in the understanding right now and that in itself can create problems in the lack factual knowledge and scaremongering of AI. The generative capabilities of AI, from voice replication to photo editing, do raise complex ethical questions. How do we safeguard creativity and authenticity when AI can produce quicker, cheaper alternatives? Isn't that what businesses require? It’s a difficult balance because, on one hand, AI has the potential to democratise certain creative tools, but on the other hand, it can devalue the process and meaning behind those creations, leaving it more generic than creative.

Your point about automated decision-making and privacy legislation is correct, especially as AI becomes more integrated into decisions impacting lives, whether in finance, healthcare, military or even justice. Perhaps the key lies in setting boundaries and frameworks to ensure that AI complements rather than replaces human creativity and ethical practices. who will be responsible for these frameworks, will it be the same people who decide the social media law on what is ethical to post? Hope not.

I share your concerns about the pace at which technology is moving, it’s a fine line between progress and overreach. I think there are tanigble concerns going forward, but like all new practices that will move society in a new direction, it may be the case of fearing the fear rather than AI itself.

 

[dc74uk]

I have very little direct contact with AI. It can’t cook for me, do the cleaning, mow the lawn, fix the gutters and all the other tasks required. It can’t meet me down the pub for lunch. It can’t fill the car with petrol.

What it does do is use up huge amount of resource: power, water, raw materials.

It’s also totally reliant on the efforts of other people. Without all the writers, artists, musicians, scientists, researchers and many others there wouldn’t be any sort of AI. Big tech has taken everything and given back nothing.

Whilst there may be some scientific or medical benefits to using AI in the most part the generative component hasn’t improved anything.

There are also major security concerns with its inclusion in many IT systems. Co-pilot for example feeds everything back to Redmond.

Thanks for your thoughts, it’s a great point about AI still being so far from doing the real, practical stuff we actually need, like mowing the lawn or fixing the gutters!

You’re right about resource consumption and how AI relies so much on the creativity of others. Big tech definitely has some answering to do when it comes to taking more than it gives back., they are struggling with the energy consumption of electric cars as of now, and the added pull will need to be carefully looked at to make it viable without constraints.

The security side of things is a big concern too, especially with tools like Co-pilot feeding data back to companies. Trust and transparency are so important if AI is going to be used responsibly. Which rises the ethical question again.

That said, do you think there’s space for AI to make a real difference, like in medical research or other areas where it could help humanity without causing so much harm?

 

[fisicx]

That said, do you think there’s space for AI to make a real difference, like in medical research or other areas where it could help humanity without causing so much harm?

Yes. And it is already doing this. Diagnostic analysis is helping save lives.

The problem is the generative AI. That’s the resource hog that offers no real benefit.

As an example, co-pilot can summarise a meeting and send everyone an email with summary. Co-pilot can then craft and send the reply. It can even listen in on the meeting and suggest questions you can ask. What a complete waste of time and effort.

 

[dc74uk]

You make a valid point, diagnostic AI is already saving lives, and that’s where the real potential lies and what should be important. I get your frustration with generative AI. While it’s impressive in some ways, the examples you’ve given, like Co-pilot summarising meetings or suggesting questions, can feel like overkill for tasks that don’t really need solving, we have all become somewhat to reliant on tech for everyday practices, without AI being in question.

It’s frustrating to see so much energy and resources poured into areas that seem more about showcasing capability than making a real impact. If those efforts could be channelled into solving meaningful problems, like in healthcare or even tackling resource efficiency—it could make such a difference. This is the beginning and people are applying this tech to not particularly real-world problems, in my opinion, which is similar to yours and most probably others aswell. Thanks again for your input!!

 

[ekm]

There is one aspect of AI that could actually be useful, but would be risky and certainly an ethical no no without some serious regulation or improvements in the tech - I appreciate there will be a lot of concerns with this - and quite rightly - but hear me out.

I have been with the unpleasant business of seeking employment and other legal advice from places like here, soliticitors, ACAS and unions. They all have common issues:

- forums have a variety of talent, and are my favourite place to get initial advice (which can then be weighed with a view to being put to more formal use like solicitors etc) but responses on forums rely on the people responding and also tend to lean on redirecting to more professional and paid sources from the outset and it can be hard to even get an opinion or tap into peoples vast experiences because of this 'you should seek a solicitor' response. This is fine... but:

- solicitors aren't always much better even as paid source of help. I have contacted specific solicitors, for things like case reviews, discuss if specific questions aren't legal, and the asnwers you get often don't actually directly help (they say what you could do, like send a letter) but actually getting a straight answer about their opinions of a case can be quite hard. You can spend hundreds just trying to get a question answered

- ACAS is very good at telling you hypothetical should and shouldn'ts, but the limits of their experience tends to be capped at what you can google and find on their site on your own
- Unions depend on who you can contact, some are good, some are dismissive. Sometimes they have the capability but because of disinterest or other things going on you might not get the quality of advice they are actually capable of giving

In a world that is likely to start to push in doing things like initial medical triage by AI (apparently automation is already in progress here from a quick search) then perhaps AI could be used to provide initial legal points - not advice - but say you have a question on whether something is lawful it could give that first line opinion, and sources to back it and a laymans interpretation of the law (because regulations can be PAINFUL to read). I would stop short of offering legal advice, but when you can't afford a solicitor, or you are struggling to get value from one, and don't have union rep (or for non workplace matters) then AI could provide that initial advice, or at least a list of things relevent to your situation for you to look at and even templates.

A case in point would be that tricky customer I posted about the other day, the experienced hands on here were very confident about his rights (I wasn't) but AI could have quickly brought up the relevent points of consumer rights etc and given the same sort of opinion


I'm saying this purely as a curiosity fact and I am not suggesting we automate solicitors

 

[fisicx]

But generative AI could easily have provided the wrong advice. This is becoming more common and will continue to be so until the problem of hallucination has been fixed (which isn’t going to happen any time soon).

It’s generative AI (such you see in Google’s serps) where the problem lies.

 

[ekm]

That';s the reason I wouldn't sell it as legal advice, though - if people are looking at integration of AI into things such as medicine then I would imagine there will be pathways made to allow for AI to be used in a lot of informative situations (even as an initial citizens advice sort of help point).

I appreciate your concern, and it's a valid one - but as much as I hate the thought AI will likely get better, more integrated and I'm just trying to see where it can add value. Even if not perfect it is much better use of transistors than creating tiktoks and clickbait articles

 

[fisicx]

The medical diagnostics analyses thousands of reports, x-rays, scan, histology samples and so on and looks for patterns and trends. It is better at the minutiae than humans (and doesn’t get tired). The result is better diagnostics for patients - conditions are spotted earlier meaning preventive rather than curative treatments.

There are loads of scientific papers showing how AI has helped.

Unfortunately there are thousands of AI generated papers with made up research. So much so that peer review is almost impossible.

 

[Mark T Jones]

That';s the reason I wouldn't sell it as legal advice, though - if people are looking at integration of AI into things such as medicine then I would imagine there will be pathways made to allow for AI to be used in a lot of informative situations (even as an initial citizens advice sort of help point).

I appreciate your concern, and it's a valid one - but as much as I hate the thought AI will likely get better, more integrated and I'm just trying to see where it can add value. Even if not perfect it is much better use of transistors than creating tiktoks and clickbait articles

At a low level my wife uses AI for clinical activity (Specifically she uses an AI app to take & interpret consultations and turn it into concise notes and recommendatons.

It's about 75% effective

On the plus side, it saves a lot of time on dull transposition notes.

Whilst it has some ability to interpret & recommend, it's a long way from being reliable - sometimes dangerously so. (As a fun aside, it can't differentiate between chat and medicine, so a simple conversation about shopping at the weekend becomes embedded in the medical notes)

Undoubtedly it will improve, but I can't see it will ever reach point where it replaces humans.

 

[tony84]

I suppose the big worry is jobs.
Jobs go and we get a monthly payment maybe?

But then whats the point? You go to school - why? Why would you want a job? Nobody becomes rich from innovation etc as everyone just becomes lemmings.

I think we need to decide what we want it to do and have specific lanes for it.

 

[Mark T Jones]

I suppose the big worry is jobs.
Jobs go and we get a monthly payment maybe?

But then whats the point? You go to school - why? Why would you want a job? Nobody becomes rich from innovation etc as everyone just becomes lemmings.

I think we need to decide what we want it to do and have specific lanes for it.

The near universal outcome of big techinical / technological leaps is that overall employment increases in low and high skill environments and decreases in mid-skills

It's kind of easy to see how that will happen with AI

 

[DontAsk]

First off, vendors need to be honest. Stop calling things AI when they are not.

AI has become a catch all for anything remotely clever. More often that not there is no "intelligence".

 

[dc74uk]

This has been a fascinating discussion, and I appreciate everyone who has contributed their thoughts. It’s clear that AI’s potential is enormous, but so are the challenges it presents,whether ethical, practical, or societal.

The recurring themes in this thread seem to centre around three key points:

The Need for Purpose-Driven AI: Ensuring that AI is the right tool for the job and not just a “fashionable” solution is critical. We need to focus on practical, impactful use cases that solve real-world problems, especially in sectors like healthcare, education, and the charity space.

Ethical and Security Considerations: As AI becomes more integrated into our lives, transparency, accountability, and robust data protection measures must be prioritised. Without these safeguards, public trust will continue to erode, and misuse could outweigh the benefits.

Collaboration over Conflict: While there’s understandable apprehension about AI’s capabilities, there’s also a huge opportunity for humans and AI to work together in complementary ways. Striking the right balance will be key to fostering a seamless and productive collaboration.

it seems we’re at a pivotal moment where thoughtful discussions and responsible actions can shape AI’s trajectory in meaningful ways

 

[fisicx]

Except of course none of that is going to happen. Hyperscalers will continue to do what they currently do knowing they won’t ever be challenged. Not helped of course by idiotic statements by the likes of Starmer who clearly hasn’t got a clue.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

I intend to learn as much about it as possible despite my being educationally challenged and not all that good with technology I have no intention of turning up this new gun fight with a knife

I spent sometime on it yesterday with my Granddaughter who is quite knowledgeable and is pointing me in the right direct starting with ol Elon's Chat GPT

 

[Keynote Speech]

As AI becomes more integrated into our daily lives, I find myself reflecting on the ethical implications of its use in the future on how humans and AI will collaborate.

Some key questions:

• How do we ensure AI aligns with human values without society stifling its innovation potential?
• What ethical frameworks should guide AI decision-making in areas like healthcare, justice, or employment?
• Could the collaboration between humans and AI lead to a more seamless society, or are we looking at inevitable conflict as AI takes on more roles?

I’ve been exploring these topics through the lens of logic and metaphysics, but I’d love to hear your thoughts. Whether you share similar interests or have a completely different perspective, I’m curious about how others see the ethical challenges and opportunities of AI as we move towards the horizon.

I think a useful lens here is something Cassie Kozyrkov often talks about around separating prediction from judgment. Machines can generate probabilities and surface patterns, but humans still need to define objectives, values and trade-offs.

From that perspective, the ethical question isn’t whether AI has values, it’s whether the people deploying it are clear about their own. If organisations don’t define what success looks like beyond efficiency, the system will optimise for whatever metric it’s given.

That’s where I see the real risk and opportunity. AI can absolutely support better decisions, but only if governance, accountability and human oversight are designed in from the start rather than added later.

 

[fisicx]

@Keynote Speech - that is complete twaddle. Which AI slop machine did you use to create that post?

 

[Keynote Speech]

@Keynote Speech - that is complete twaddle. Which AI slop machine did you use to create that post?

No machine involved, just our own perspective from experience working with AI speakers.

If you disagree though, which part do you think misses the mark?