Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 163 posts

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#21

Post by djoldman »

thedevelopnik wrote: post #14
djoldman wrote: post #8

>Alex Hanna, the Google ethicist who criticized the Neurips speech-to-face paper, told me, over the phone, that she had four objections to the project. First, ...Second, ....Third, ....Finally, the system could be used for surveillance. I'm curious about this. As I understand it, an ethicist is objecting to the publication of software that could be used for surveillance. If that is correct, does it follow that this e…

There are very few, if any, clear cut, night-and-day subjects in ethics. Not wanting to engage with ethics because slippery slopes exist is simply turning from incredibly important work because it’s difficult and not work you want to do. These technologies can incarcerate people. It’s really important to dive onto the slippery slope and find out where it’s stable.

Agreed.

Therefore, I ask: how does one tell the difference between software that can and cannot surveil?

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#22

Post by atmosx »

djoldman wrote: post #8

>Alex Hanna, the Google ethicist who criticized the Neurips speech-to-face paper, told me, over the phone, that she had four objections to the project. First, ...Second, ....Third, ....Finally, the system could be used for surveillance. I'm curious about this. As I understand it, an ethicist is objecting to the publication of software that could be used for surveillance. If that is correct, does it follow that this e…

...and the fact that we deal with it and get to decide who we want to be is what separates from other animals.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#23

Post by djoldman »

anigbrowl wrote: post #15
djoldman wrote: post #8

>Alex Hanna, the Google ethicist who criticized the Neurips speech-to-face paper, told me, over the phone, that she had four objections to the project. First, ...Second, ....Third, ....Finally, the system could be used for surveillance. I'm curious about this. As I understand it, an ethicist is objecting to the publication of software that could be used for surveillance. If that is correct, does it follow that this e…

The unstated implication here is that ethicists either don't comment comment on such things (and are therefore hypocrites) or that their critique is so broad as to subsume all utility (and is therefore excessive). Rather than throw up hypotheticals which this ethicist is probably not around to refute, I think it's be better to look at the person's body of work in this area and if you think they have some sort of inte…

I didn't mean to imply anything other than what I wrote.

I actually mean to ask the exact question: How does one distinguish between software that can be used for surveillance and software that cannot?

To be more specific, if an ethicist objects to the publication of software that can be used for surveillance, they are assuming that the software can be used for surveillance. How did they arrive at that conclusion?

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#24

Post by coretx »

I'd be more worried about individual homo sapiens sapiens trying to stop immoral but otherwise ethical AI. Judging from humanities history of conflicts and what drives them, this seems to be of much greater concern.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#25

Post by Guest42 »

_y5hn wrote: post #20
timkam wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't get it. Nobody at an AI conference is alarmed at what they see in terms of AI research progress. Most well-educated people are alarmed about societal issues that _are also relevant to the application of automated decision-making and machine learning_. It's an applied research opportunity to investigate the issues (and as such, it is hyped because it is easy to "sell" to get funding); but it's not that…

The whole point is that biases are inherent in most models, no matter who the builders are.

What types of models and what types of bias are you referring to?

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#26

Post by logicslave »

iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #3

> At artificial-intelligence conferences, researchers are increasingly alarmed by what they see. This is because there is an increasing proportion of people that is not going to the conferences for the science and instead to try to hijack the conferences with their own agenda. It's of course their right to make a fuss, but it would be nice to still have venues that are focused on the science and not the other politic…

A good way to gain notoriety and press coverage is to demonize machine learning. Its a bad feedback loop caused by clickbait

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#27

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

Kosinski's argument seems pretty strong to me, and I really wish the article had dedicated more space to discussing it. If NeurIPS instituted the kind of ethics rules Hanna or Hecht are calling for, I don't think it would be feasible for researchers to study e.g. predictive policing algorithms. Doesn't that mean predictive policing firms would become the only source of information on the topic?

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#28

Post by [deleted] »

djoldman wrote: post #8

>Alex Hanna, the Google ethicist who criticized the Neurips speech-to-face paper, told me, over the phone, that she had four objections to the project. First, ...Second, ....Third, ....Finally, the system could be used for surveillance. I'm curious about this. As I understand it, an ethicist is objecting to the publication of software that could be used for surveillance. If that is correct, does it follow that this e…

[deleted]

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#29

Post by teddyh »

djoldman wrote: post #8

>Alex Hanna, the Google ethicist who criticized the Neurips speech-to-face paper, told me, over the phone, that she had four objections to the project. First, ...Second, ....Third, ....Finally, the system could be used for surveillance. I'm curious about this. As I understand it, an ethicist is objecting to the publication of software that could be used for surveillance. If that is correct, does it follow that this e…

A Google ethicist? Who critizes something because it could be used for surveillance? The irony is thick.

Re: Who Should Stop Unethical A.I.?

#30

Post by anigbrowl »

djoldman wrote: post #23
anigbrowl wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The unstated implication here is that ethicists either don't comment comment on such things (and are therefore hypocrites) or that their critique is so broad as to subsume all utility (and is therefore excessive). Rather than throw up hypotheticals which this ethicist is probably not around to refute, I think it's be better to look at the person's body of work in this area and if you think they have some sort of inte…

I didn't mean to imply anything other than what I wrote. I actually mean to ask the exact question: How does one distinguish between software that can be used for surveillance and software that cannot? To be more specific, if an ethicist objects to the publication of software that can be used for surveillance, they are assuming that the software can be used for surveillance. How did they arrive at that conclusion?

If you're so curious, I suggest you do what I did and read more of their public statements and writings to satisfy your curiosity.
Post reply on HN