27 ms·
It is well attested that these human rights declarations have a strong western bias. I am personally fine with that. But what about other societies that don't a
by royapakzad 8y ago
It is well attested that these human rights declarations have a strong western bias. I am personally fine with that. But what about other societies that don't agree with the declarations? There will need to be international treaties and policies, similar to nuclear policies, that keep everyone on board.
I think you are right. It's very hard to have a common understanding of human values and ethics. But regarding "rights" and their universality, I should say how is it "well attested that these human rights declarations have a strong western bias?" I agree there are biases, cultural differences, etc. But, do we have any other framework that is more universal (and well-defined) than human rights? I myself am from a non-western developing country, I studied EE and also Human Rights Studies. With regards to AI and ethics, in fact, whenever I talk to non-western individuals they emphasize on the importance of human rights framework instead of abstract words such as "ethics", "values", etc.
This might surprise you but 185 countries have ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women except "the US" and 6 other countries including Sudan, Somalia, etc. the US has neither ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. You can find out about all the countries here, you'll be surprised: http://indicators.ohchr.org/ http://indicators.ohchr.org/
My point is not to speak negatively about the US and its commitment to the international human rights treaties but to mention that these treaties are more universal than you think. At a digital rights conference, I spoke with a Tunisian digital rights activist, I used a phrase "ethics in AI" and she corrected me to actually say the word "human rights." Because it has a clear framework, it has clear indicators and metrics to measure (to some extent), it's legally binding (depending on different cases and with respect to certain actors), not anybody (in this case any company) can create its own definition and interpretation.
- vowelless 8y agoThe example you provide about the US highlights the issue I am talking about. I was referring to the objection, at least historically, by Muslim nations (i.e, governments based on Islamic theocracy in some form): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Muslim_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... I personally believe that no government should be based on Islamic theocratic values. But even the quickest conversation with legal scholars from those nations will highlight the fact that they believe that their system is "universal" (because it encompasses all of humanity in it's legal system: muslims, dhimmis, etc). There are very strong quranic reasons for them to believe this. So it boils down to beliefs and values. Most of the world indeed signed the UN declarations. But lets say a country that is opposed to that concept ends up creating a "human centric AI". They didn't sign the declaration. How will we enforce the UN declaration on them?