The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

[Mlle. Zabzie]

13 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, this isn't remotely true. First you can kill anyone's connection that shows they're streaming bittorrent one way or another. This is a fairly trivial thing to do on any competent network. You can inspect packets for the bittorrent headers and kill or delete them. You can spam the network with bullshit. These things don't work because we have a lot of laws around them and bittorrent itself is not specifically ruled as illegal - but governments can (and have) blocked it successfully. Iran and North Korea have both censored it happily. China could in a heartbeat if they wanted.

Internet access is in general quite easy to censor. Perhaps that will change somewhat with drone-based wi-fi systems, but good luck flying a drone in China that they haven't approved of. 

 

Well, and that's exactly the point.  Technology is moving at an enormous speed, and I personally think we will be better equipped to adapt (to borrow a word) to the implications if we have done some thinking about the ethical implications of that technology and what the rules should be.  Doesn't mean it is how the rules will end up being, but some idea of what norms should govern is better than helpful.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, and that's exactly the point.  Technology is moving at an enormous speed, and I personally think we will be better equipped to adapt (to borrow a word) to the implications if we have done some thinking about the ethical implications of that technology and what the rules should be.  Doesn't mean it is how the rules will end up being, but some idea of what norms should govern is better than helpful.

Oh, I agree. Considering what the ethnics should be and what they can be is important. Even if it's just a framework around what you consider the internet to be (speech, commerce, utility, public good, infrastructure), it's a good thing to actually talk about that because it allows you to frame things that you don't know about that come up. 

@Commodore is just going into his typical 'everything can happen and no one can stop it so don't try' libertarian schtick, which is both unproductive and not accurate. The solution might not be to his liking, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Oh, I agree. Considering what the ethnics should be and what they can be is important. Even if it's just a framework around what you consider the internet to be (speech, commerce, utility, public good, infrastructure), it's a good thing to actually talk about that because it allows you to frame things that you don't know about that come up. 

@Commodore is just going into his typical 'everything can happen and no one can stop it so don't try' libertarian schtick, which is both unproductive and not accurate. The solution might not be to his liking, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

It is less libertarian and more nihilist, but I digress.

I love posing these questions on the board, because I'm a lawyer, and not even an IP lawyer, so getting the perspective of people who actually know what they are talking about on the technology side is fun.  I have views on what the world should look like but a firm understanding of what is, and what could be in the medium term is awesome.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

It is less libertarian and more nihilist, but I digress.

You say tomato, and I say at least it's an ethos...

This does go to another AI-related ethical question: the question of learning. Right now humans have never had an easier time finding deep information and answers for virtually any subject on the planet. Right now, there are AIs that can be asked a simple natural language question and respond with an accurate answer about 70% of the time. Right now, you can give kids in remote villages a computer that they don't even speak the language of and they can teach themselves molecular biology.

When you have this level of ability to get information, how does that change curriculum? How does it change access to education? When you can instantly get any answer to any question you ask, what value is rote memorization? When you can audit - or even take - any class from an accredited university anywhere - what does actually going to college matter, and why should that be supported?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You say tomato, and I say at least it's an ethos...

This does go to another AI-related ethical question: the question of learning. Right now humans have never had an easier time finding deep information and answers for virtually any subject on the planet. Right now, there are AIs that can be asked a simple natural language question and respond with an accurate answer about 70% of the time. Right now, you can give kids in remote villages a computer that they don't even speak the language of and they can teach themselves molecular biology.

When you have this level of ability to get information, how does that change curriculum? How does it change access to education? When you can instantly get any answer to any question you ask, what value is rote memorization? When you can audit - or even take - any class from an accredited university anywhere - what does actually going to college matter, and why should that be supported?

Would love to get a teacher in on the curricular questions.  But for schools themselves, I do think that there is a value to the exchange of ideas with human beings in a live setting.  I also think that a university or school has a quality control function over content taught and mastery of that content.

[Castel]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You say tomato, and I say at least it's an ethos...

This does go to another AI-related ethical question: the question of learning. Right now humans have never had an easier time finding deep information and answers for virtually any subject on the planet. Right now, there are AIs that can be asked a simple natural language question and respond with an accurate answer about 70% of the time. Right now, you can give kids in remote villages a computer that they don't even speak the language of and they can teach themselves molecular biology.

When you have this level of ability to get information, how does that change curriculum? How does it change access to education? When you can instantly get any answer to any question you ask, what value is rote memorization? When you can audit - or even take - any class from an accredited university anywhere - what does actually going to college matter, and why should that be supported?

I was reading Shamus Khan's Privilege he talks about the increasing availability of info and how it changes the curriculum for rich kids  and the answer isn't apparently that interesting: they shift from a focus on granting information, which anyone can find, to ease and focusing on teaching kids the skills to navigate and presenting the information they do  find, which can be anything.

Of course, most of his examples involved non-technical courses.I'm not sure how that applies to something like Comp Sci, which I feel you just..kinda have to do the elbow grease. Sure, resources help, and it's now assumed you'll use them (so it's not like junior school where you have to memorize things like the table of elements) but you have to walk the walk.

And no, I don't think sitting at home watching OpenCourseware is a good replacement for college. There's something to be said for being physically somewhere.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

Of course, most of his examples involved non-technical courses.I'm not sure how that applies to something like Comp Sci, which I feel you just..kinda have to do the elbow grease. Sure, resources help, and it's now assumed you'll use them (so it's not like junior school where you have to memorize things like the table of elements) but you have to walk the walk.

And no, I don't think sitting at home watching OpenCourseware is a good replacement for college. There's something to be said for being physically somewhere.

My personal feeling is that good teachers can make courses better and you learn more, but mediocre teachers or poor ones are not any better than self-driven learning. Furthermore, I would much rather educate 20 million people somewhat well than 2 million people really well and 18 million not at all. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My personal feeling is that good teachers can make courses better and you learn more, but mediocre teachers or poor ones are not any better than self-driven learning. Furthermore, I would much rather educate 20 million people somewhat well than 2 million people really well and 18 million not at all. 

I don't think that is true for all subjects.  And I don't think it accounts for the motivational factor of actually going to a school - a gathering of peers is a powerful force.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

I don't think that is true for all subjects.  And I don't think it accounts for the motivational factor of actually going to a school - a gathering of peers is a powerful force.

One can - and does - have a gathering of peers online, and those bonds are becoming as strong as physically being present for a whole generation of people. Online classes also don't need to require nonphysical presence; you could imagine a school being taught remotely, for instance. Or,  as AI improves its natural language processing capabilities, you could see chat bots actually tutoring people individually, giving everyone a custom teacher. 

And again, we have an example of a computer being loaded with molecular biology texts and nothing else being dropped into the middle of an isolated village where no one even knew English, and within months they're able to accurately talk about DNA concepts and enzymes in English.

I agree that interactivity, discussion, and collaboration are really important in learning. What I don't agree with is that these are necessarily gained only by being in person. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

One can - and does - have a gathering of peers online, and those bonds are becoming as strong as physically being present for a whole generation of people. Online classes also don't need to require nonphysical presence; you could imagine a school being taught remotely, for instance. Or,  as AI improves its natural language processing capabilities, you could see chat bots actually tutoring people individually, giving everyone a custom teacher. 

And again, we have an example of a computer being loaded with molecular biology texts and nothing else being dropped into the middle of an isolated village where no one even knew English, and within months they're able to accurately talk about DNA concepts and enzymes in English.

I agree that interactivity, discussion, and collaboration are really important in learning. What I don't agree with is that these are necessarily gained only by being in person. 

But there is more to learning than just content and discussion.  In fact, a lot of the learning that goes on in school is social learning.  That you are not going to get in an online setting.  

Edit:  I should add, that I am a rampant extrovert.  Based on total anecdata, I think that is relatively rare among the board population.  However, degrees of extroversion are probably more common in the population at large.  (People are usually a mix).

[Castel]

45 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

My personal feeling is that good teachers can make courses better and you learn more, but mediocre teachers or poor ones are not any better than self-driven learning. Furthermore, I would much rather educate 20 million people somewhat well than 2 million people really well and 18 million not at all. 

I guess. Do you want 5 million compsci graduates and to compete with people who entered the field with actual proof of having worked with others in a more traditional setting?

I mean, there's absolutely no question that we should have open courseware, if only just for hobbyists and journeymen (or people already in universities studying) but as a replacement, in any field with a moderate focus on social skills do you want to pump out a bunch of graduates who put years into such a thing competing with traditional graduates? It's no longer a cost-free situation.

[Kalbear]

14 minutes ago, Castel said:

I guess. Do you want 5 million compsci graduates and to compete with people who entered the field with actual proof of having worked with others in a more traditional setting?

Sure. In my field, I don't really give a damn about them going to college at all. It's about their skills. And college/university is exceedingly HORRIBLE for training in a professional life as far as managing projects, getting things done, communication skills, and knowing how to actually work. 

CompSci is a brilliant example, because for the most part it is very easy to determine quite quickly if someone knows their stuff or doesn't. It's much harder to figure out if they're going to be a good cultural fit, but that doesn't come from colleges at all. 

14 minutes ago, Castel said:

I mean, there's absolutely no question that we should have open courseware, if only just for hobbyists and journeymen (or people already in universities studying) but as a replacement, in any field with a moderate focus on social skills do you want to pump out a bunch of graduates who put years into such a thing competing with traditional graduates? It's no longer a cost-free situation.

Right now, IT absolutely needs more good programmers. The world really could use more, in general. I would be thrilled if a whole bunch of people who got actual classes and a degree were out there trying to get jobs, because it would mean we could both actually fill a lot of positions and also hopefully not rely so much on the fairly horrible H1-B program. (and to be clear, I'm in favor of immigration in general and the H1-B right now because we have such a hole in capabilities, but ideally I'd rather not have to rely on it).

Quote

But there is more to learning than just content and discussion.  In fact, a lot of the learning that goes on in school is social learning.  That you are not going to get in an online setting.  

That's totally true. And for a whole lot of people that's hugely important. And also completely orthogonal to the actual education they're getting. It's a big deal to get kids and young adults to learn about social systems and figure out where their part is in them. We do not have to also do so by putting them in a building where for the most part they do not interact with anyone for large chunks of the day (by design). If you want to teach people how to socialize, there are a whole lot of other ways to do so that do not require 7+ hours of classroom on a rote schedule that caters to the lowest common denominator and often encourages some of the worst fucking behavior in human beings out there. 

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

When you have this level of ability to get information, how does that change curriculum? How does it change access to education? When you can instantly get any answer to any question you ask, what value is rote memorization? When you can audit - or even take - any class from an accredited university anywhere - what does actually going to college matter, and why should that be supported?

This is one of the things that really bugs me when there is insufficient change in how subjects are assessed.  What you need to teach in this setting is understanding, starting from a fundamental level and working up from there. I did the same chem course this year that I did 11 years ago, and it had been dramatically overhauled to do precisely this and it was a far better course than it was back then, however the closed book examination methods are still not a good test. In the real world you are never going to be without internet, and how you can demonstrate your understanding, access additional information and apply it are the relevant skills not what you know off the top of your head.

I've also done a fair bit of looking at the research on memory (our psych convenor is big on getting us involved in research that points towards good study habits) and the internet, and indications are that the internet is changing the focus of our memory from retaining the information itself to acting as an index for when you can obtain that information again if needed. So any curriculum that fails to update will not only be doing a worse job than it should be doing, but also penalises students for adapting with the world in a way that is failing to do.

[Happy Ent]

11 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Edit:  I should add, that I am a rampant extrovert.  Based on total anecdata, I think that is relatively rare among the board population. 

I’ve alerted the moderators. It was nice knowing you, Zab.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

4 hours ago, Happy Ent said:

I’ve alerted the moderators. It was nice knowing you, Zab.

It was a nice run while it lasted.

[House Balstroko]

On 30/11/2016 at 3:48 AM, Kalbear said:

Yeah, this isn't remotely true. First you can kill anyone's connection that shows they're streaming bittorrent one way or another. This is a fairly trivial thing to do on any competent network. You can inspect packets for the bittorrent headers and kill or delete them. You can spam the network with bullshit. These things don't work because we have a lot of laws around them and bittorrent itself is not specifically ruled as illegal - but governments can (and have) blocked it successfully. Iran and North Korea have both censored it happily. China could in a heartbeat if they wanted.

Internet access is in general quite easy to censor. Perhaps that will change somewhat with drone-based wi-fi systems, but good luck flying a drone in China that they haven't approved of. 

 

The reason why BitTorrent has never been shut down, is that the premise behind it is not illegal. In many ways it functions in a similar manner to what LimeWire and Kazaa did in the past. They are used for running illegal activities, but at it's core as a P2P service it is designed so people can share their own files. Now we know that oftentimes it is used to upload/download third party content that is not authorised for free distribution, but there will always be a legal case to keep the services up and running. 

 

 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, House Balstroko said:

The reason why BitTorrent has never been shut down, is that the premise behind it is not illegal. In many ways it functions in a similar manner to what LimeWire and Kazaa did in the past. They are used for running illegal activities, but at it's core as a P2P service it is designed so people can share their own files. Now we know that oftentimes it is used to upload/download third party content that is not authorised for free distribution, but there will always be a legal case to keep the services up and running. 

Exactly. It isn't hard at all to shut down bittorrent. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Exactly. It isn't hard at all to shut down bittorrent. 

Slightly related, it is interesting to me how prevalent block chain is, particularly in the financial sector.

[Kalbear]

3 hours ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Slightly related, it is interesting to me how prevalent block chain is, particularly in the financial sector.

Yep, and it's going to get bigger. Bitcoin is completely shit as far as financial sector needs go - it doesn't scale well at all (by design, but that makes it suck), it isn't particularly good at adaptation or integration (witness most of the bitcoin startups have millions poured into them and have nothing to show for it) and is otherwise fairly unwieldy - but the tech to ensure contractual obligations and reception is absolutely hot shit, and got rightfully stolen and used all over. I expect that'll continue for any transactional processing that does not require instant or near-instant processing time. Financial transactions are absolute win for this sort of thing. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

I just bought some AI insurance from Sam Waterson