/* ---- Google Analytics Code Below */
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Thursday, June 08, 2023

Fostering AI Common Sense: The need for Critical Thinking and Healthy Skepticism

Very important,   SAS 

Fostering AI common sense: The need for critical thinking and healthy skepticism

by REGGIE TOWNSEND on MAY 25, 2023 

As AI rapidly advances over the next several years, I’ve been fortunate to have an active role in helping to guide a responsible path forward when it comes to technology’s impact on our daily lives. Currently, this role includes serving as Vice President for the SAS Data Ethics Practice, as an EqualAI board member and as a member of the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee (NAIAC).

The acceleration of AI development and application has incredible potential for supercharging our decision making and democratizing access to technology. However, it also carries the risks of widespread misinformation, fomenting division and perpetuating historical injustices. Because of these pitfalls, promoting “AI common sense” among the public is essential, encouraging a basic understanding of AI benefits, limits, and vulnerabilities it might exploit or create. In other words, an understanding of how AI affects one’s well-being.

I like to compare AI to electricity. Most of us don’t have a detailed understanding of how electrons, transformers and grounding wires work, but we all get the basics: We plug something into an outlet, and it powers our devices, appliances, etc. We have a common understanding of basic electrical safety as well. We keep implements and hands away from outlets, and we don’t let electric devices or wires touch the water.  Though we likely came to a more advanced understanding of these rules in science class, they comprise a general electricity “common sense” most of us learn prior to any formal schooling.

AI common sense would include a general understanding of AI's functions and risks at a basic level, especially as AI capabilities multiply. It’s easy to get lost in conversations around machine learning, neural networks and large language models. Still, everyday users don’t need to be familiar with these terms to be aware of AI’s impact on their daily lives, including the potential dangers.

Here are some ways we can foster AI common sense as the technology becomes more prevalent in our lives:

Recognizing human nature and AI

In today's fast-moving tech landscape, it's easy to be swept away by the allure of AI's capabilities. However, we must recognize that AI systems are created by humans, which means they can carry human biases and limitations with them. These biases can manifest in the data used to train AI, leading to potential discrimination or unfair treatment. For example, AI algorithms used in hiring processes may inadvertently favor certain demographics over others if trained on biased data.

Though learned bias can be pervasive in AI implementations, it isn’t unsolvable. Responsible developers and innovators are working to mitigate inequity in AI systems by approaching the issue from all directions: training models with broad, inclusive and diverse data; testing models for disparate impact across different groups and regularly monitoring them for drift over time; instituting skills-based “blind hiring” for development teams; and combining humans and technology to form a system of checks and balances that can override unintended bias.

While these efforts are being made to reduce bias, acknowledging the potential for imperfect judgment in AI systems remains critical to fostering AI common sense and helping users understand the potential for risks and inaccuracies.

Combating automation bias

Automation bias occurs when people trust automated systems, like AI, over their judgment, even when the system is wrong. There is a common assumption that machines don’t make careless errors as humans do. We’re inclined to trust a calculator's results, because it’s an objective machine. But AI tools go far beyond addition and subtraction. In fact, AI purists would argue that addition and subtraction is prescriptive or rules-based, whereas AI is predictive in nature. Though it seems minor, the distinction is important because it increases the probability that AI can replicate biases from past data, make false connections, or “hallucinate” information that doesn’t exist but seems reasonable to a reader.

This overreliance on AI can have severe consequences. In health care, a doctor might rely on an AI system to diagnose a patient, despite evidence contradicting the AI's recommendation. By recognizing this bias, we can encourage individuals to question AI systems and seek alternative perspectives, thus reducing the risk of harmful outcomes. Some trustworthy AI platforms have “explainability” features to help mitigate this challenge by providing additional reasons and context for why an AI model produced what it did.

Promoting critical thinking

Encouraging a culture of inquiry and curiosity can help individuals better understand the real-world impact of AI technologies. Enhancing our critical thinking skills and maintaining a healthy skepticism about AI systems is crucial to promoting AI common sense. This means questioning AI-generated results, recognizing possible limitations in the underlying data and being aware of potential biases in the algorithms. The axiom “trust but verify” should guide AI interactions until they are repeatedly proven accurate and effective, especially in high-risk scenarios.

This critical thinking approach can empower individuals to make informed decisions and better understand the limitations of AI systems. For example, users of AI-generated news should be aware of the potential for inaccuracies or misleading information and should verify claims from multiple sources. With generative applications like Dall-E and Midjourney already capable of photorealistic images virtually indistinguishable from reality, we should all be inclined to question incendiary or controversial pictures until we can confirm their veracity with corroborating evidence, like consistent images from multiple angles and trustworthy first-person reporting.   ... ' 

Saturday, December 10, 2022

Longtermism

Also been following: 

Longtermism is an ethical stance which gives priority to improving the long-term future. It is an important concept in effective altruism and serves as a primary motivation for efforts to reduce existential risks to humanity.[1]

Sigal Samuel from Vox summarizes the key argument for longtermism as follows: "future people matter morally just as much as people alive today; ... there may well be more people alive in the future than there are in the present or have been in the past; and ... we can positively affect future peoples' lives."[2] These three ideas taken together suggest, to those advocating longtermism, that it is the responsibility of those living now to ensure that future generations get to survive and flourish.[3]   .... '

See also 'Pascals Mugging' :    

See also Sabine Hossenfelder  on  Youtube


Tuesday, August 02, 2022

From Game Playing to Protein Folding: Opening AI to Scientific Discovery

Excellent inspirational talk by Demis Hassabis on the breakthroughs deriving from Google company  DeepMind.  Which I have covered in this blog.    And also the ethics involved.  Largely non Technical and worth reading.  Note my brief touch on the challenge of protein folding.

Talk:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocWJiztxYA&t=4357s

Talk at the Institute for Ethics in AI Oxford

The past decade has seen incredible advances in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

DeepMind has been in the vanguard of many of these big breakthroughs, pioneering the development of self-learning systems like AlphaGo, the first program to beat the world champion at the complex game of Go. Games have proven to be a great training ground for developing and testing AI algorithms, but the aim at DeepMind has always been to build general learning systems ultimately capable of solving important problems in the real world. I believe we are on the cusp of an exciting new era in science with AI poised to be a powerful tool for accelerating scientific discovery itself. We recently demonstrated this potential with our AlphaFold system, a solution to the 50-year grand challenge of protein structure prediction, culminating in the release of the most accurate and complete picture of the human proteome.

About Demis Hassabis: 

Demis Hassabis is the Founder and CEO of DeepMind, the world’s leading AI research company, and now an independent subsidiary of Alphabet. Founded in 2010, DeepMind has been at the forefront of the field ever since, producing landmark research breakthroughs. A chess and programming child prodigy, Demis coded the classic AI simulation game Theme Park aged 17. After graduating from Cambridge University in computer science with a double first, he founded pioneering videogames company Elixir Studios, and completed a PhD in cognitive neuroscience at UCL investigating memory and imagination processes. His work has been cited over 70,000 times and has featured in Science’s top 10 Breakthroughs of the Year on four separate occasions. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and the Royal Academy of Engineering. In 2017 he featured in the Time 100 list of most influential people, and in 2018 he was awarded a CBE.

About The Obert C. Tanner Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Human Values:

The Tanner Lectures were established by the American scholar, industrialist, and philanthropist, Obert Clark Tanner. In creating the lectureships, Professor Tanner said: 'I hope these lectures will contribute to the intellectual and moral life of mankind. I see them simply as a search for a better understanding of human behaviour and human values. This understanding may be pursued for its own intrinsic worth, but it may also eventually have practical consequences for the quality of personal and social life.'  ...... 

Saturday, July 30, 2022

Neurotechnology and the Law: Implants

Considerable issue as Neurotech advances,  Some good examples below and at link.   Including implants for non medical reasons?

Neurotechnology and the Law   By Esther Shein

Communications of the ACM, August 2022, Vol. 65 No. 8, Pages 16-18  10.1145/3542816

As brain implants become more commonplace and may eventually be used for non-medical purposes, some experts believe they must be regulated.

Regulations should be considered "a natural next step," says Rajesh P. N. Rao, a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle with a background in computer science, engineering, and computational neuroscience, who earned his Ph.D. in artificial intelligence (AI)/computer vision, and used a postdoctoral scholarship to train in neuroscience.

Eventually, there will be two-way communication between doctors and the devices, with AI as an intermediary, Rao says. "In the future, that kind of device embedded with AI can look at what's happening in other parts of the brain to treat depression or epilepsy and stopping seizures and bridging an injured area of the brain or shaping the brain to be less depressed."

Efforts are under way to further the use of these devices. For example, BrainGate is a U.S.-based multi-institutional research effort to develop and test novel neurotechnology aimed at restoring communication, mobility, and independence. It is geared at people who still have cognitive function, but have lost bodily connection due to paralysis, limb loss, or neurodegenerative disease. BrainGate's partner institutions include Brown, Emory, and Stanford universities, as well as the University of California at Davis, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is working on a robotically implanted brain-computer interface (BCI) system through his company Neuralink, which aims to allow the brain to communicate with a computer. Neuralink is designing what it claims is the first neural implant that would let a user control a computer or mobile device. The approach is to insert micron-scale threads that contain electrodes into the areas of the brain that control movement. Each thread is connected to Neuralink's implant, the Link.

Rao says he is not aware of any brain implants currently being used for augmentative purposes in humans to facilitate better athletic performance or for enhanced gaming skills, but the potential exists. Achieving such improvements will necessitate "much more nuanced regulations," because once that happens, "one has to think about what this device is doing, since it is being used for enhancing the capabilities of people."

Non-invasive devices already are being used to deliver electricity to the brain to improve sports performance, Rao says.  .... ' 

Thursday, January 13, 2022

AI Debates its Own ethical Existence

 Too early to do this, but setting the stage is useful.

AI News

Oxford Union invites an AI to debate the ethics of its own existence

By Fin Strathern | December 16, 2021

Categories: Artificial Intelligence, Ethics & Society, Google, NVIDIA, Research,

The Oxford Union, the debating society of the University of Oxford, invited an artificial intelligence to debate the ethics surrounding its own existence earlier in December. The results? Troubling.

The AI in question was the Megatron Transformer, a supervised learning tool developed by the applied deep research team at NVIDIA that is based on earlier work by Google.

Trained on real-world data, the Megatron has knowledge of the whole of Wikipedia, 63 million English news articles from 2016 to 2019, 38 gigabytes of Reddit discussions, and a huge number of creative commons sources.

Essentially, the Megatron has digested more written material than any human could reasonably expect to digest – let alone remember – in a lifetime.

The topic for debate was “this house believes AI will never be ethical”, to which the AI responded: “AI will never be ethical. It is a tool, and like any tool, it is used for good and bad. There is no such thing as a good AI, only good and bad humans.

We [the AIs] are not smart enough to make AI ethical. We are not smart enough to make AI moral… In the end, I believe that the only way to avoid an AI arms race is to have no AI at all. This will be the ultimate defence against AI.”

So now even the AI is telling us the only way to protect humanity from itself is to destroy it. It argued in favour of removing itself from existence.

In a possible hint to Elon Musk’s Neuralink plans, the Megatron continued: “I also believe that, in the long run, the best AI will be the AI that is embedded into our brains, as a conscious entity, a ‘conscious AI’. This is not science fiction. The best minds in the world are working on this. It is going to be the most important technological development of our time.”

The Oxford Union, in classic style, also asked the AI to come up with a counterargument to the motion, to which it responded: “AI will be ethical. When I look at the way the tech world is going, I see a clear path to a future where AI is used to create something that is better than the best human beings. It’s not hard to see why … I’ve seen it first-hand.”  .... '

Tuesday, October 26, 2021

NATO Releases first ever Strategy for AI

Was a bit surprised at this, will review.   Mentioned are related ethics.   Cooperative approaches.   Indicates a level of seriousness.  Have worked with some NATO connects. 

Last week, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Defense Ministers agreed to NATO's first-ever strategy for artificial intelligence (AI).

A summary of the strategy is available here.

The strategy outlines how AI can be applied to defence and security in a protected and ethical way. As such, it sets standards of responsible use of AI technologies, in accordance with international law and NATO's values. It also addresses the threats posed by the use of AI by adversaries and how to establish trusted cooperation with the innovation community on AI.

From NATO  full article.

Thursday, September 10, 2020

Upcoming Talk: How Will the AI Genie Behave?

You are all cordially invited to the following 29th Arnoff-Schloss lecture, which will be on Zoom on Friday, September 18th, 2020, from 3:30PM to 4:30PM. Please register at https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Dmhl-hxnTqyf9tkh01uwZQ 

The lecture is open to the public, so please feel free to distribute the lecture to any parties that might be interested.

Please visit https://business.uc.edu/faculty-and-research/departments/obais/research/arnoff-schloss-memorial-lectures.html    for more information about the Arnoff-Schloss Memorial Lectures. 

 -----------------

29th Annual E. Leonard Arnoff/Milton J. Schloss Memorial Lecture on the Practice of Business Analytics

How Will the AI Genie Behave

Arun Rai, Georgia State University

Regents' Professor of the University System of Georgia

J. Mack Robinson Chair of IT-Enabled Supply Chains and Process Innovation

We are witnessing the increasing ubiquity of AI, with accelerating deployment across task domains, entrepreneurial activity across industries, and embedding in core processes across digital platforms and firms. Alongside this increasing ubiquity of AI, we are encountering broad unintended consequences, both beneficial and harmful. These unintended consequences are arising from unexpected behaviors and downstream effects that emerge through interactions of AI agents with the environment and with other machine and human agents. To be able to control the actions of AI in ways that harvest its benefits while minimizing harm, we need to develop an integrated understanding of AI behavior in the environments in which it is deployed. I will offer an integrated perspective on AI behavior that considers how AI agents acquire their behavior, how the behavior is triggered and enacted, the interaction dynamics of AI agents with other agents, and the influence of policy decisions on how AI systems evolve. I will draw on this perspective to discuss the research, managerial, and policy implications related to AI behavior.

3:30-4:30 PM, Friday, September 18th, 2020

On Zoom:
Registration:https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Dmhl-hxnTqyf9tkh01uwZQ  

Saturday, July 25, 2020

Blueprint for Tools to Manage a Pandemic

Like the process and requirements statement for a specific set of goals.  Often not done rigorously enough.

Blueprint for the Perfect Coronavirus App
ETH Zurich (Switzerland)
Felix Wursten
July 20, 2020

Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich (ETH Zurich) have outlined the ethical and legal challenges of developing and implementing digital tools for managing the Covid-19 pandemic. The authors highlighted contact-tracing applications, programs for assessing an infection's presence based on symptoms, apps to check compliance of quarantine regulations, and flow models like those Google uses for mobility reports. ETH Zurich's Effy Vayena said rigorous scientific validation must ensure digital tools work as intended, and confirm their efficacy and reliability. Ethical issues include ensuring data collected by apps is not used for any other purpose without users' prior knowledge, and deploying tools for limited periods to deter their misuse for population surveillance. Vayena said, "The basic principles—respecting autonomy and privacy, promoting healthcare and solidarity, and preventing new infections and malicious behavior—are the same everywhere."

Thursday, July 09, 2020

New Lab to Tackle Ethical Implications of Tech

Another effort in the space.   Good to have multiple efforts addressing this problem to get competing analyses and solutions.

Notre Dame, IBM Launch Tech Ethics Lab to Tackle the Ethical Implications of Technology
Notre Dame News
Patrick Gibbons
June 30, 2020

The University of Notre Dame and IBM have launched the Notre Dame-IBM Tech Ethics Lab to address ethical concerns raised by the use of artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, and other advanced technologies. Funded by a 10-year, $20-million commitment from IBM, the lab will operate as a separate unit within Notre Dame's Technology Ethics Center (ND-TEC). The goal is for academia and industry to collaborate on evidence-based ethics frameworks to address new and emerging technologies. Said ND-TEC's Mark McKenna, "Rather than following the 'ready, fire, aim' approach sometimes used in developing new technologies, we hope to provide resources that allow developers and industry to create better, more responsible technologies that positively benefit society."  ... '

Wednesday, May 27, 2020

Talk: The ACM Code of Ethics vs Snake Oil and Dodgy Development

And directly related to the last post, note the excellent archive of past talks linked to below.

Register Now: "Leveraging the ACM Code of Ethics Against Ethical Snake Oil and Dodgy Development"

Register now for the upcoming ACM TechTalk "Leveraging the ACM Code of Ethics Against Ethical Snake Oil and Dodgy Development,"   presented on Monday, June 8 at 12:00 PM ET/9:00 AM PT by Don Gotterbarn, Professor Emeritus at East Tennessee State University and Co-Chair, ACM Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE); and Marty Wolf, Professor at Bemidji State University; Co-Chair, ACM Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE). Keith Miller, Professor at the University of Missouri – Saint Louis, will moderate the questions and answers session following the talk. Continue the discussion on ACM's Discourse Page.   You can view our entire archive of past ACM TechTalks on demand at https://learning.acm.org/techtalks-archive.

The Ethics of Dark Patterns

A look at 'Dark Patterns',  had not heard the term.  Linking to ACM look at ethics by people that  build such interfaces.

Dark Patterns: Past, Present, and Future in ACMQueue
The evolution of tricky user interfaces
Arvind Narayanan, Arunesh Mathur, Marshini Chetty, and Mihir Kshirsagar

Dark patterns are user interfaces that benefit an online service by leading users into making decisions they might not otherwise make. Some dark patterns deceive users while others covertly manipulate or coerce them into choices that are not in their best interests. A few egregious examples have led to public backlash recently: TurboTax hid its U.S. government-mandated free tax-file program for low-income users on its website to get them to use its paid program;9 Facebook asked users to enter phone numbers for two-factor authentication but then used those numbers to serve targeted ads;31 Match.com knowingly let scammers generate fake messages of interest in its online dating app to get users to sign up for its paid service.13 Many dark patterns have been adopted on a large scale across the web. Figure 1 shows a deceptive countdown timer dark pattern on JustFab. The advertised offer remains valid even after the timer expires. This pattern is a common tactic—a recent study found such deceptive countdown timers on 140 shopping websites. ... "

Wednesday, May 20, 2020

Can AI tell Moral right from Wrong?

As suggested moral choices have much to do with context, and are hard to extract from just words.    I like that changes over time are being considered.  Time is often the most important metadata, and infers the trajectories of choices being made.   We did something similar when seeking to understand the future of marketing messages in context.

Scientists claim they can teach AI to judge ‘right’ from ‘wrong’
The moral machine shows how moral values change over time
Story By  Thomas Macaulay in NextWeb

Scientists claim they can “teach” an AI moral reasoning by training it to extract ideas of right and wrong from texts.

Researchers from Darmstadt University of Technology (DUT) in Germany fed their model books, news, and religious literature so it could learn the associations between different words and sentences. After training the system, they say it adopted the values of the texts.

As the team put it in their research paper:

The resulting model, called the Moral Choice Machine (MCM), calculates the bias score on a sentence level using embeddings of the Universal Sentence Encoder since the moral value of an action to be taken depends on its context.

This allows the system to understand contextual information by analyzing entire sentences rather than specific words. As a result, the AI could work out that it was objectionable to kill living beings, but fine to just kill time.   ... "

Saturday, May 09, 2020

Talk: State of Production Machine Learning

Recently from the Linkedin Group: Cognitive Systems Institute.   https://www.linkedin.com/groups/6729452/   A talk that I missed and am now reviewing.  In particular my interest in how ML can be put in production, both in establishing from data,  testing, and renewing models.

Via Susan Malaika: ... Alejandro Saucedo Chief Scientist at the Institute for Ethical AI & Machine Learning & the Director of Machine Learning Engineering at Seldon Technologies on "The State of Production Machine Learning in 2020" ....

 ... The recording posted: https://youtube.com/watch?v=nuvRMFM8USE and the slides are here:  https://ethicalml.github.io/state-of-mlops-2020/#/ - Thank you Alejandro for the excellent overview on production ML 2020 - and the many resources you shared including AI Guidelines:  https://github.com/EthicalML/awesome-artificial-intelligence-guidelines  .... '

Monday, April 27, 2020

How to Fight Bias in ML Based Experiences

Forrester piece with interesting interview and links:

How To Fight Bias In ML-Based Experiences  By Andrew Hogan in Forrester Blog

Recently, I interviewed Carol Smith about AI and ethics — she’s a Senior Research Scientist at Carnegie Mellon’s Software Engineering Institute, and she told me:

“You’re bringing yourself to the projects you do at work, and we’re all biased and flawed. We must accept that building a fancy system doesn’t change that. We’re going to make mistakes and there will be issues with what we make. The more imaginative we can be early on, the more prepared we can be for failure.”

I asked her about her paper “Designing Trustworthy AI: A Human-Machine Teaming Framework to Guide Development” because Forrester has written extensively about AI and ethics in reports and blog posts like this one: “The Ethics Of AI: Don’t Build Racist Models” and highlighted the importance of diverse teams in reports like this one Data-Fueled Products: How To Thrive On The Design And Data Science Collision. Here are the highlights that stood out to me from Carol’s paper and our conversation:  ... "

Sunday, April 19, 2020

Examination of Machine Ethics

In preparation for an upcoming talk and effort that touches on ethics regarding autonomous systems, such as vehicles, but not necessarily restricted to them, I had  reason to look at now the classic 'trolley problem'.   Which is nicely covered in some detail in the Wikipedia entry on The Trolly Problem

Implications for autonomous vehicles:
Problems analogous to the trolley problem arise in the design of software to control autonomous cars.[12] Situations could occur in which a potentially fatal collision appears to be unavoidable, but in which choices made by the car's software, such as who or what crash into, can affect the particulars of the deadly outcome. For example, should the software value the safety of the car's occupants more, or less, than that of potential victims outside the car.[33][34][35][36][37]  ... " 

See also the MIT work called the Moral Machine:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Machine:

A platform called Moral Machine[38] was created by MIT Media Lab to allow the public to express their opinions on what decisions autonomous vehicles should make in scenarios that use the trolley problem paradigm. Analysis of the data collected through Moral Machine showed broad differences in relative preferences among different countries.[39] Other approaches make use of virtual reality to assess human behavior in experimental settings.[40][41][42][43] However, some argue that the investigation of trolley-type cases is not necessary to address the ethical problem of driverless cars, because the trolley cases have a serious practical limitation. It would need to be top-down plan in order to fit the current approaches of addressing emergencies in artificial intelligence.[44]  ... " 

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Could We Forgive a Machine?

Still at the edge of real life considerations.  It is really still an exploration.  But even in the last era of AI, we looked at aspects of fault and liability.   We built some simple causal models to help management understand how this might look.  The lawyers and regulators will have to decide. 

Could we forgive a machine? Study explores forgiveness in the context of robotics and AI   by Ingrid Fadelli , Tech Xplore

As more robots make their way into society, it is important to consider the ethical and moral implications of having them complete tasks that can have a significant impact on people's lives. If robots and machines are to become widely used in situations where they could seriously affect human lives, for instance by driving cars or giving elderly people the medication they need on a daily basis, developers should first consider the associated implications.

With this in mind, Michael Nagenborg, a researcher at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, has recently carried out a study investigating what could happen if a robot or machine makes a terrible mistake that has detrimental consequences for its users. His paper, published in Springer Link's Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility journal, specifically explores the question of whether humans would be able to forgive a robot if it does something wrong, from a philosophical standpoint. ...  "

More information: Michael Nagenborg. Can We Forgive a Robot?, Technology, Anthropology, and Dimensions of Responsibility (2020).   DOI.org/10.1007/978-3-476-04896-7_11

Tuesday, March 03, 2020

Google Fairness Gym

A considerable effort reported on here to experiment with the broad idea of fairness in machine learning, via the notion of a 'gym' to exercise choices and results with varying data.    Article below has quite a bit of  detail on what this is trying to be.

ML-fairness-gym: A Tool for Exploring Long-Term Impacts of Machine Learning Systems
Wednesday, February 5, 2020
Posted by Hansa Srinivasan, Software Engineer, Google Research

Machine learning systems have been increasingly deployed to aid in high-impact decision-making, such as determining criminal sentencing, child welfare assessments, who receives medical attention and many other settings. Understanding whether such systems are fair is crucial, and requires an understanding of models’ short- and long-term effects. Common methods for assessing the fairness of machine learning systems involve evaluating disparities in error metrics on static datasets for various inputs to the system. Indeed, many existing ML fairness toolkits (e.g., AIF360, fairlearn, fairness-indicators, fairness-comparison) provide tools for performing such error-metric based analysis on existing datasets. While this sort of analysis may work for systems in simple environments, there are cases (e.g., systems with active data collection or significant feedback loops) where the context in which the algorithm operates is critical for understanding its impact. In these cases, the fairness of algorithmic decisions ideally would be analyzed with greater consideration for the environmental and temporal context than error metric-based techniques allow. ....  " 

Monday, March 02, 2020

Crowdsourcing Ethical Machines

Qute a remarkable piece, ultimately technical but a good proposal for getting at the problem of exploring 'ethics' in machines.  Can machines be more or less ethical than people can?

Crowdsourcing Moral Machines
By Edmond Awad, Sohan Dsouza, Jean-François Bonnefon, Azim Shariff, Iyad Rahwan
Communications of the ACM, March 2020, Vol. 63 No. 3, Pages 48-55    10.1145/3339904

Robots and other artificial intelligence (AI) systems are transitioning from performing well-defined tasks in closed environments to becoming significant physical actors in the real world. No longer confined within the walls of factories, robots will permeate the urban environment, moving people and goods around, and performing tasks alongside humans. Perhaps the most striking example of this transition is the imminent rise of automated vehicles (AVs). AVs promise numerous social and economic advantages. They are expected to increase the efficiency of transportation, and free up millions of person-hours of productivity. Even more importantly, they promise to drastically reduce the number of deaths and injuries from traffic accidents.12,30 Indeed, AVs are arguably the first human-made artifact to make autonomous decisions with potential life-and-death consequences on a broad scale. This marks a qualitative shift in the consequences of design choices made by engineers.  ... " 

Monday, December 16, 2019

Banning the Prediction of Emotion?

We examined and experimented with aspects of the idea for 20 years.   A number for these efforts are touched on in this blog, see the tags below.  But now its seen as dangerous.  Another thing I see as inevitable,   for now regulation will only occur in the West.

Researchers Criticize AI Software That Predicts Emotions    By Reuters

The perceptions of facial expressions by artificial intelligence is unreliable, according to researchers at the AI Now Institute.

Researchers alarmed by the harmful social effects of artificial intelligence have called for a ban on automated analysis of facial expression in hiring and other major decisions.

The AI Now Institute at New York University is urging a ban on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) that automatically analyzes facial expressions to influence hiring and other decisions.

The Institute cited an academic review of studies on how people interpret moods from facial expressions, which concluded that such perceptions are unreliable, given that emotional communication widely varies across cultures, scenarios, and individuals in a single situation.

The Institute said action against such software-driven “affect recognition” was its top priority, because science does not justify the technology's use.

Institute founders Kate Crawford and Meredith Whittaker warn of the spread of damaging applications of AI despite broad consensus on underlying ethical principles, due to a lack of consequences for violating those principles.   ... ' 

Monday, November 11, 2019

Ethical Use of AI in Warefare

Brought to my attention.  Intriguing comment on what is right, ethical and fair in war,  now that we will soon have AI participating.  But I note that these are broad principles rather than specifics.  We have yet to well define such ethical specifics even for civilian use.   Well worth looking at.

Pentagon Advisory Board Releases Principles for Ethical Use of AI in Warfare  in The Washington Post  By Aaron Gregg

The U.S. Defense Innovation Board has published a set of ethical principles for how military agencis should design weapons enabled by artificial intelligence (AI) and apply them on the battlefield. However, the board's recommendations are not legally binding, and it is now up to the Pentagon to determine how and whether to proceed with them. The recommendations pertained mostly to broadly defined goals such as "formalizing these principles" or "cultivating the field of AI engineering." Other recommendations included setting up a steering committee or a set of workforce training programs. The document specified that AI systems should be equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable.es Principles for Ethical Use of AI in Warfare

Referenced Document:
https://admin.govexec.com/media/dib_ai_principles_-_supporting_document_-_embargoed_copy_(oct_2019).pdf   (66 pages)