There is indeed something remarkably like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/aug/08/rise-of-the-racist-robots-how-ai-is-learning-all-our-worst-impulses

Automatic vehicles cannot cope with the unusual. Wheelchair users will often turn the chair around to go up small inclines. An automatic vehicle recently hit a wheelchair user doing this because it thought the chair was going in the other direction - it has assumed the direction of travel from the shape of the chair.

There's been some discussion on the issues of AI and disability of late. Even more than race, the disabled are outliers in the statistical models artificially stupid machines use. So folk with facial palsy might been clumped together as the same person in automatic identification. A Paralympian was hit by an automatic vehicle in Tokyo when he stoped unexpectedly. Other incidents have been recorded.

Other incidents have been recorded. — Banno

I read about an auto-driving automoble that it couldn't see the wall it was driving to. Passenger killed.

There is much ado about AI. But what about AS, artificial stupidity? Does it come along naturally in making AI? — Thunderballs

There are no stupid machines, only insufficient ones. There is no opposite of "smart" machines.

There was a time when machines at point-of-sale would allow a transaction to go through even if the debit card did not have enough funds. The eventual transaction is that a customer would be overdrawn by, say, $5, then the bank would charge the customer $35 for overdrawn transaction. This is clearly abusive, but at the time, nothing was being done about it.

When a bank clerk was asked why would a debit card be approved when there's not enough funds (this was before debit cards could act like credit cards), the bank clerk responded that the debit card wouldn't know there's not enough money in the account. Well, where are we now? Card decline generation. The card decline feature during their time wasn't implemented yet.

There are no stupid machines, only insufficient ones — Caldwell

Can we say the same of people? I think that it was a dumd card though.

*

Can we say the same of people? — Thunderballs

No. People don't hold back a quality because it hasn't been "implemented" yet.

There are no stupid machines, only insufficient ones. — Caldwell

...not sure that applies to heuristic machines. Hence my point about those with disabilities.

...not sure that applies to heuristic machines. Hence my point about those with disabilities. — Banno

How so?

Telemarketers and infomercials.

Automatic vehicles cannot cope with the unusual. Wheelchair users will often turn the chair around to go up small inclines. An automatic vehicle recently hit a wheelchair user doing this because it thought the chair was going in the other direction - it has assumed the direction of travel from the shape of the chair. — Banno

Give it more tweaks and it should have that capability.

Admittedly, some machines perform ultra complex operations, like the automatic vehicles. The failings would be on the design.

Not being able to tell which way something is moving because it is facing in the opposite direction is - shall we say prime facie - stupid.

The failings would be on the design. — Caldwell

But in the case of a leaning algorithm, the failing might be in the teaching. The point is that the burden of finding the problems is likely to fall on those at the edges of the norm; that is, it is likely to unfairly burden minorities such as the disabled.

SO automatic vehicles is an equity issue, an impediment introduced by engineering.

Just something to consider.

Telemarketers and infomercials. — Wheatley

Haha! Good one! Though Im not sure now about my "haha"... :smile:

now about my "haha". — Thunderballs

Just be yourself!

No. People don't hold back a quality because it hasn't been "implemented" yet. — Caldwell

I'm not so sure. People have many inculculated abilities. Hidden somewhere in our foreheads. Held back by many because fear, social control (can be associated with fear), authority, lack of self confidence, shyness, or love.

Both intelligence and stupidity refer to behaviour that is interpreted to be goal-driven. In the case of intelligence, the goal state is considered to be desirable, whereas for stupidity the goal state is considered to be undesirable, thereby making the distinction between the two concepts relative and subjective.

Well, if it's artificial stupidity, then it ain't real stupidity.

Well, if it's artificial stupidity, then it ain't real stupidity. — baker

The artificial is really very real. Look at plastic. Or is plastic only real when you're real sick?

With interest I followed the thread on stupidity. Contrasted with intelligence I wondered. There is much ado about AI. But what about AS, artificial stupidity? Does it come along naturally in making AI? — Thunderballs

At least there is the stupidity of thinking that a basically totally classical computer program with just a lot of feedback loops to process gathered information is something different from the past, Artificial intelligence.

That stupidity, believing the hype, exists.

“Is there something like artificial stupidity?”

Often philosophy is exactly that:

When people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid. — Russell

But in the case of a leaning algorithm, the failing might be in the teaching. The point is that the burden of finding the problems is likely to fall on those at the edges of the norm; that is, it is likely to unfairly burden minorities such as the disabled. SO automatic vehicles is an equity issue, an impediment introduced by engineering. — Banno

Yes, I agree with the consequences -- but these negative effects of "dumb" machines are all across the board. For example, ergonomically friendly equipment that addresses the default, mind-set mentality of mass produced products that ignore the needs of a segment of a population.

Smart machines, by name, naturally elicits the naming of its counterpart -- dumb machines. This is understandable. But that's the failing of our epistemological curiosity. We came up with a name of "smart" and already we are burdened with the opposite consequence, which is the presence of "dumb".

I'd say, the automatic vehicle fails in capability because it wasn't designed with some features.

Sometimes I'd like to say that stupidity is organically cultivated. Hence, machines can never be called stupid.

There was a case where a motorist thought texting his girlfriend a kissing emoji was more important than watching traffic and he ran over a bicyclist. Another time a guy thought he could drink 3 beers and still navigate the interstate bit instead he slammed into a median.

There are a few more examples like this.

The difference between artificial stupidity and actual stupidity is that the former can be reduced over time as the science better develops. The latter we're stuck with, except to the extent the former will eventually save us.

"Is there something like artificial stupidity?”

Often philosophy is exactly that:

"When people begin to philosophize they seem to think it necessary to make themselves artificially stupid."
— Russell — Amalac

:up:

Sometimes I'd like to say that stupidity is organically cultivated. Hence, machines can never be called stupid. — Caldwell

Hence GIGO. Machines programmed or operated by cretins – automated (not "artificial") or manual stupidity by degrees. Isn't intelligence just a self-appraisal of the "user-illusion"?

Hence GIGO. Machines programmed or operated by cretins – automated (not "artificial") or manual stupidity by degrees. Isn't intelligence just a self-appraisal of the "user-illusion"? — 180 Proof

Hi Proof. Heck yes.

From the Wikipedia entries, it looks like we have accumulated a considerable amount of knowledge/information on stupidity. I'm sure other encyclopedias are even better on that score.

Some posters have mentioned GIGO and I'm completely on board with that version of artificial stupidity.

However, I like to make the following distinction:

Artificial stupidity

1. Created accidentally/unwillingly from our ignorance (of intelligence & stupidity). GIGO falls into this category.

2. Created deliberately/willingly from our knowledge (of intelligence & stupidity).

Since we already have artificial stupidity, (1), I wonder why anyone would want to do it the hard way (2) except, if I'm correct, (2) requires more brains than (1). That seems to be the case.

More fascinating is the prospect that artificial stupidity (2) is even more challenging than artificial intelligence.

Our ignorance/stupidity can create artificial stupidity [type 1 (GIGO)] but our knowledge/intelligence can't create artificial stupidity [type 2]. How about that?