4 ms·

There is a lot of interesting research on the societal impact and the (potential) problems caused by the use of large-scale data analysis and artificial intelli

There is a lot of interesting research on the societal impact and the (potential) problems caused by the use of large-scale data analysis and artificial intelligence, e.g. by Kate Crawford at MSFT Research. Last year I gave a talk on this at 32C3 where I tried to elucidate some of the problems that can pop up when using data analysis to automate things that were previously done by humans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRY9IceaVig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRY9IceaVig Personally I see a lot of potential in data analysis & artificial intelligence, but like all technologies they pose significant risks as well. What we really need therefore (IMHO) is to teach ethics to people that work with data, and establish organizations and methods that ensure data analysis isn't used to do harm (deliberately or not).

Noseshine 10y ago
> What we really need therefore (IMHO) is to teach ethics to people The issue with almost all organized teaching (as opposed to when you don't even know you are doing it, e.g. to your children, every day) is that it only targets conscious thinking. Do you already see the problem with teaching "ethics" (and empathy)? It's the wrong brain area. People will ace the tests but how they actually act won't change. Another big reason for why teaching ethics (the way it is usually done) is that much of behavior is environment-driven. So you can teach someone all you want, if you then place them in a cut-throat competitive "result-driven" environment you can see empathy and ethics quietly sneak out the back door.
- tsylba 10y ago
  Furthermore, ethics is way too cultural and subjective to be taught. Even if we could all agree on macro-rules, eg. hurting peoples is bad whatever hurt they infliged, the more specifics (and micro) we become, the more divergences will arise. And as everythng, our perception of what is "ethics" will evolve.
- tunap 10y ago
  Being deliberately obtuse goes a long way to delay a logical ending. Flashback to 2004 and the same type of debate/affirmations were posited to Dr Mandelbrot's apocalyptic warnings[0][1] of the imminent subprime crisis. Instead of learning lessons, the players continue to 'print money out of thin air'[2] and deny any fault for the last collapse. The rationale seems to be, 2007 was an extreme culmination of events that wouldn't happen again in millions of years. Problem is, in a universe of infinite variables, an infinite number of combinations exist and could manifest anytime a given set of vulnerabilities and unanticipated outlier events present themselves concurrently. [0] The (Mis)Behavior Of Markets 2004 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/665134.The_Mis_Behavior_of_Markets http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/665134.The_Mis_Behavior_o... [1] 2006 reminder http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e2340.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e23... [2]The Quants Great Monday Morning QB analysis on what went wrong & why it will be repeated(hint:greed +ability +hubris) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7495395-the-quants http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7495395-the-quants edit: fixed links
skywhopper 10y ago
People learning or not learning ethics doesn't really have much to do with it. Read up on the Fraud Triangle. Unethical job tasks follow a similar pattern. Perceived need ("I might lose my job if I refuse") and rationalizations ("the results of this flawed algorithm surely won't get taken seriously") get you two-thirds of the way there. The third leg, opportunity, is inherent in this sort of job. So "ethics" are really beside the point when the workers confront the reality of their situation.
qrendel 10y ago
> What we really need therefore (IMHO) is to teach ethics to people that work with data Studies seem to indicate that studying and teaching ethics does not make you more inclined towards ethical behavior.[1] On top of that, from personal experience in business ethics courses, "ethical" has an extremely suspicious equivalence with "the thing which limits the company's exposure to liability." [1] http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/BehEth-140123a.pdf http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/BehEth-14...
Sniffnoy 10y ago
The ethics being discussed here, though, are, well... not obvious. Political, really. Are you going to be able to get serious agreement about what the correct decisions are in cases like these? By actual argument, and not by shouting down one's opponents?

Noseshine 10y ago

> What we really need therefore (IMHO) is to teach ethics to people The issue with almost all organized teaching (as opposed to when you don't even know you are doing it, e.g. to your children, every day) is that it only targets conscious thinking. Do you already see the problem with teaching "ethics" (and empathy)? It's the wrong brain area. People will ace the tests but how they actually act won't change. Another big reason for why teaching ethics (the way it is usually done) is that much of behavior is environment-driven. So you can teach someone all you want, if you then place them in a cut-throat competitive "result-driven" environment you can see empathy and ethics quietly sneak out the back door.

tsylba 10y ago
Furthermore, ethics is way too cultural and subjective to be taught. Even if we could all agree on macro-rules, eg. hurting peoples is bad whatever hurt they infliged, the more specifics (and micro) we become, the more divergences will arise. And as everythng, our perception of what is "ethics" will evolve.
tunap 10y ago
Being deliberately obtuse goes a long way to delay a logical ending. Flashback to 2004 and the same type of debate/affirmations were posited to Dr Mandelbrot's apocalyptic warnings[0][1] of the imminent subprime crisis. Instead of learning lessons, the players continue to 'print money out of thin air'[2] and deny any fault for the last collapse. The rationale seems to be, 2007 was an extreme culmination of events that wouldn't happen again in millions of years. Problem is, in a universe of infinite variables, an infinite number of combinations exist and could manifest anytime a given set of vulnerabilities and unanticipated outlier events present themselves concurrently. [0] The (Mis)Behavior Of Markets 2004 http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/665134.The_Mis_Behavior_of_Markets http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/665134.The_Mis_Behavior_o... [1] 2006 reminder http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e2340.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5372968a-ba82-11da-980d-0000779e23... [2]The Quants Great Monday Morning QB analysis on what went wrong & why it will be repeated(hint:greed +ability +hubris) http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7495395-the-quants http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7495395-the-quants edit: fixed links

skywhopper 10y ago

People learning or not learning ethics doesn't really have much to do with it. Read up on the Fraud Triangle. Unethical job tasks follow a similar pattern. Perceived need ("I might lose my job if I refuse") and rationalizations ("the results of this flawed algorithm surely won't get taken seriously") get you two-thirds of the way there. The third leg, opportunity, is inherent in this sort of job. So "ethics" are really beside the point when the workers confront the reality of their situation.

qrendel 10y ago

> What we really need therefore (IMHO) is to teach ethics to people that work with data Studies seem to indicate that studying and teaching ethics does not make you more inclined towards ethical behavior.[1] On top of that, from personal experience in business ethics courses, "ethical" has an extremely suspicious equivalence with "the thing which limits the company's exposure to liability." [1] http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/BehEth-140123a.pdf http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/BehEth-14...

Sniffnoy 10y ago

The ethics being discussed here, though, are, well... not obvious. Political, really. Are you going to be able to get serious agreement about what the correct decisions are in cases like these? By actual argument, and not by shouting down one's opponents?