36 ms·

The problem is that researchers and engineers rarely engage in the public debate except if they need to drive corporative interests. The debate sees corporatio

The problem is that researchers and engineers rarely engage in the public debate except if they need to drive corporative interests. The debate sees corporations and the tech elite on one side and artists, activists and philosophers on the other, with journalists split between the two. Engineers are used by either side but they don't have their own voice and mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and interest to join a non-technical debate as a cohesive force. The result is that the whole debate is conducted mostly by people that has no idea how this stuff really works and cannot separate marketing mumbo jumbo from the actual practice of building "AI" systems. It's therefore very refreshing to see the work of artists like Hito Steyerl or ssbkyh that actually learn how to work with Deep Learning or other techniques to actually create critique of the existing narrative.

NarcolepticFrog 8y ago
I whole-heartedly agree. This is one of the reasons I think that education about AI and ML is important (and, on the flip side, I also think that it wouldn't hurt to educate AI and ML researchers/engineers about humanist issues so that they can participate in non-technical debate).
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  I found there's not much to learn about "humanist" issues, in the sense of background knowledge of consensus of the field. United States and North Korea agree on nuclear physics: they use the exactly same number for cross section. They don't agree much on humanist issues.
  - RodericDay 8y ago
    the USA is the only country that has murdered innocent people with nuclear weapons
  - chobeat 8y ago
    "humanist issues" are about the management (not the solution) of unsolvable disagreements. The knowledge is different in nature from scientific knowledge but for no reason should it be considered inferior. By thinking this way you just exclude yourself from any discourse and just hinder your condition.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > United States and North Korea agree on nuclear physics: they use the exactly same number for cross section. They don't agree much on humanist issues. This is true but concluding that therefore there's "not much to learn" seems like the worst possible way of resolving this conflict.
NotAnEconomist 8y ago
> mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and interest to join a non-technical debate This is somewhere between slander and trying to explain away other social groups bullying engineers. The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without approval or buy-in from other parties. So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves.
- chobeat 8y ago
  > The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without approval or buy-in from other parties. Truth is never simple. Engineers have been "bullied" out of the debate (this is not really how I see it but ok) because they often hold beliefs that renders the debate impossible. The narrative of "engineer is a pure discipline" or that "tools have no political color" are still strong despite countless counter-evidence. In the case of software-engineers that are left alone in the hands of managers and their interests, the social devastation that follows is very evident just by looking at the news. > So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves. This is a real and pressing concern for many of them but it's not easy. I'm an engineer and I'm trying to do just that, or at least bring the existing discourse to the engineers if I can't bring the engineers to the discourse. But believe me, the cultural and personal resistance is extremely strong, first of all because it forces them to re-evaluate the belief system and take responsability for what they are doing and what they did in the past. Staying in an ethical comfort zone where you can ignore the consequences of your action is much easier.
  - deleted 8y ago
RodericDay 8y ago
James Mickens is obviously aware of "how this stuff works" and his arguments are very similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k
thetricia 8y ago
But the leading researchers are very much on the hype train. I agree that lack of knowledge only makes it worse. But feel like there's a lot more going on. Hype in of itself is a very attractive thing. For a practitioner it's hard to pass on a narrative that puts you in the center of the universe. Then world-is-about-to-end/change alarmism is very attractive too. And on the other side skepticism and cynicism generally isn't something that spreads easily. Unless the hype is so absurd that the criticism itself becomes sensational. Which might be happening at the moment.
bigger_cheese 8y ago
>Engineers are used by either side but they don't have their own voice and mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and interest to join a non-technical debate as a cohesive force. Not strictly true engineers do concern themselves with ethics and issues are discussed including in professional journals etc(For example look at what IEEE has to say about ethics of AI) it may not be public debate but it is not ignored. One thing you are missing is Engineers work for companies which tend to place limits what you can communicate publicly. Pretty much everything has to be released via official channels which go through all the PR Spin. I can think of at least two reasons for this. 1. The information could be considered stock market sensitive and 2. it's very easy for something you say informally 'off the cuff' to be taken as a company position by lazy media who can't distinguish between "engineer who works for company x says..." and "company x says..." I am an Engineer (I don't work in AI) but my company places strict limits on what we can say on things like social media and to reporters, at conferences etc so yes that does exclude participation in 'the public debate'. I don't know about software world (I am the non software type of engineer) but we had courses on professional conduct at university (which covered professional communication, alongside topics such as, Ethics, regulatory compliance, liability etc).

NarcolepticFrog 8y ago

I whole-heartedly agree. This is one of the reasons I think that education about AI and ML is important (and, on the flip side, I also think that it wouldn't hurt to educate AI and ML researchers/engineers about humanist issues so that they can participate in non-technical debate).

sanxiyn 8y ago
I found there's not much to learn about "humanist" issues, in the sense of background knowledge of consensus of the field. United States and North Korea agree on nuclear physics: they use the exactly same number for cross section. They don't agree much on humanist issues.
- RodericDay 8y ago
  the USA is the only country that has murdered innocent people with nuclear weapons
- chobeat 8y ago
  "humanist issues" are about the management (not the solution) of unsolvable disagreements. The knowledge is different in nature from scientific knowledge but for no reason should it be considered inferior. By thinking this way you just exclude yourself from any discourse and just hinder your condition.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > United States and North Korea agree on nuclear physics: they use the exactly same number for cross section. They don't agree much on humanist issues. This is true but concluding that therefore there's "not much to learn" seems like the worst possible way of resolving this conflict.

NotAnEconomist 8y ago

> mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and interest to join a non-technical debate This is somewhere between slander and trying to explain away other social groups bullying engineers. The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without approval or buy-in from other parties. So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves.

chobeat 8y ago
> The truth is much simpler: engineers have responded to being bullied out of the debate by simply ignoring it, and implementing AI without concern for the results of that debate. Engineers have that power -- they can unilaterally change society by implementing a new kind of mind without approval or buy-in from other parties. Truth is never simple. Engineers have been "bullied" out of the debate (this is not really how I see it but ok) because they often hold beliefs that renders the debate impossible. The narrative of "engineer is a pure discipline" or that "tools have no political color" are still strong despite countless counter-evidence. In the case of software-engineers that are left alone in the hands of managers and their interests, the social devastation that follows is very evident just by looking at the news. > So I think my position is the reverse of yours: if business leaders, activists, etc want to meaningfully impact the AI debate, they should engage with the engineers actually building it -- rather than having a debate among themselves. This is a real and pressing concern for many of them but it's not easy. I'm an engineer and I'm trying to do just that, or at least bring the existing discourse to the engineers if I can't bring the engineers to the discourse. But believe me, the cultural and personal resistance is extremely strong, first of all because it forces them to re-evaluate the belief system and take responsability for what they are doing and what they did in the past. Staying in an ethical comfort zone where you can ignore the consequences of your action is much easier.
- deleted 8y ago

RodericDay 8y ago

James Mickens is obviously aware of "how this stuff works" and his arguments are very similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k

thetricia 8y ago

But the leading researchers are very much on the hype train. I agree that lack of knowledge only makes it worse. But feel like there's a lot more going on. Hype in of itself is a very attractive thing. For a practitioner it's hard to pass on a narrative that puts you in the center of the universe. Then world-is-about-to-end/change alarmism is very attractive too. And on the other side skepticism and cynicism generally isn't something that spreads easily. Unless the hype is so absurd that the criticism itself becomes sensational. Which might be happening at the moment.

bigger_cheese 8y ago

>Engineers are used by either side but they don't have their own voice and mostly because they don't have informed opinions or the cultural means and interest to join a non-technical debate as a cohesive force. Not strictly true engineers do concern themselves with ethics and issues are discussed including in professional journals etc(For example look at what IEEE has to say about ethics of AI) it may not be public debate but it is not ignored. One thing you are missing is Engineers work for companies which tend to place limits what you can communicate publicly. Pretty much everything has to be released via official channels which go through all the PR Spin. I can think of at least two reasons for this. 1. The information could be considered stock market sensitive and 2. it's very easy for something you say informally 'off the cuff' to be taken as a company position by lazy media who can't distinguish between "engineer who works for company x says..." and "company x says..." I am an Engineer (I don't work in AI) but my company places strict limits on what we can say on things like social media and to reporters, at conferences etc so yes that does exclude participation in 'the public debate'. I don't know about software world (I am the non software type of engineer) but we had courses on professional conduct at university (which covered professional communication, alongside topics such as, Ethics, regulatory compliance, liability etc).