4 ms·

Blaming technology for societal failures... here we go again. Development of more powerful technology will always require development of responsible regulations

Blaming technology for societal failures... here we go again. Development of more powerful technology will always require development of responsible regulations. It's not a good argument toward becoming a nation of Luddites, and more importantly, abdicating our regulatory responsibility to the companies who stand to profit from it. > AI technology is the fundamental technology that underlies "Surveillance Capitalism," How about this -- capitalism is the fundamental system of economics that underlies "Surveillance Capitalism". To the deleted comment: My point in turning that statement around is that if you see surveillance capitalism as being bad (the author says this plainly), then perhaps the discussion is really about economic policies and not AI. The author bends over backwards to paint nebulous "AI" and "machine learning" in a bad light over problems that existed long before their arrival. What these more powerful tools have done is to ramp up the problems and put them front and center. But in the end, the economic profitability of surveillance capitalism has never been challenged. Nothing in this article really has to do with AI at all, and it's confusing why the author spends so much time trying to draw up so much negative sentiment, in order to deflect from the real underlying issues.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Beldin 5y ago
> Nothing in this article really has to do with AI at all, and it's confusing why the author spends so much time trying to draw up so much negative sentiment, in order to deflect from the real underlying issues. I'm not sure if you're referring to Moshe Vardi or the deleted comment with "the author". The former recognises that he is in a position of influence in "the" CS society and is instructing them to account for ethics better, even if that leads to uncomfortable discussions (and repercussionsin the form of less sponsor money). The latter: no clue. That comment was deleted, let's stop the discussion there. (If for no other reason as to not exclude those who missed the comment. )
- deepsquirrelnet 5y ago
  > The former recognises that he is in a position of influence in "the" CS society and is instructing them to account for ethics better, even if that leads to uncomfortable discussions (and repercussionsin the form of less sponsor money). We probably haven't worked at the same places, but in my experience, unethical decisions aren't made at the bottom. I don't understand the point of the author making a populism-styled appeal here. What are we going to do, ramp up cancel culture? Furrow our brows harder and wag our fingers more sternly? These things aren't working, and if anything, have allowed the actual problem to persist: "surveillance capitalism" is legal and profitable. If the best company doesn't take up the profit, the worst certainly will. If a business stands to profit by doing unethical things, how can we expect them to act differently if they won't face any legal accountability? Most people in the US believes that it's the primary responsibility of companies to make money for their shareholders by any legal means. If we collectively deem surveillance capitalism to be predatory, then the only answer is to either make it unprofitable, or illegal. I feel like I should say something about AI, but it adds nothing to this discussion, other than it has made surveillance capitalism more aggressive. We used to have little guns, and now we have bigger ones. This will always be the case as long as technology is pursued.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    > unethical decisions aren't made at the bottom But they sure are implemented at the bottom. This article was published in CACM, whose target audience is CS academics and industry professionals. They are the people actually building and researching these technologies. I have literally heard a researcher in deep fakes say without irony that it's not their role to think about ethics in their research, because it will get done anyway, there the ethics questions should be left to others who are better trained to think about such things. That's sure a position to take, but I would say this article serves to speak in opposition to that kind of view. Moshe Vardi is highly respected and very influential, and he's basically calling out researchers and developers in engaged in this work as unethical: Surveillance capitalism is perfectly legal, and enormously profitable, but it is unethical, many people believe, including me Those are heavy words coming from someone of his import. Personally due to the respect I have for him, if Moshe Vardi said that about my work, I'd maybe think twice about how I was spending my time. Because Lord knows the people doing the work of implementing and maintaining surveillance capitalism have very lucrative options. It's not like there isn't interesting work to do outside of this area. It's not like there isn't important work that needs to be done but can't because "surveillance capitalism" is so profitable that it acts as a black hole of young talent. And so what this piece is really about is saying that if these people are going to be engaged in arguably unethical work, then maybe we shouldn't be elevating then with recognition within this particular (very influential) industry group. Instead we should call out what they're doing and introspect a little bit about our relationship with them (I say we and our as a member of the ACM, and I agree with what Moshe Vardi wrote here).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Beldin 5y ago

> Nothing in this article really has to do with AI at all, and it's confusing why the author spends so much time trying to draw up so much negative sentiment, in order to deflect from the real underlying issues. I'm not sure if you're referring to Moshe Vardi or the deleted comment with "the author". The former recognises that he is in a position of influence in "the" CS society and is instructing them to account for ethics better, even if that leads to uncomfortable discussions (and repercussionsin the form of less sponsor money). The latter: no clue. That comment was deleted, let's stop the discussion there. (If for no other reason as to not exclude those who missed the comment. )

deepsquirrelnet 5y ago
> The former recognises that he is in a position of influence in "the" CS society and is instructing them to account for ethics better, even if that leads to uncomfortable discussions (and repercussionsin the form of less sponsor money). We probably haven't worked at the same places, but in my experience, unethical decisions aren't made at the bottom. I don't understand the point of the author making a populism-styled appeal here. What are we going to do, ramp up cancel culture? Furrow our brows harder and wag our fingers more sternly? These things aren't working, and if anything, have allowed the actual problem to persist: "surveillance capitalism" is legal and profitable. If the best company doesn't take up the profit, the worst certainly will. If a business stands to profit by doing unethical things, how can we expect them to act differently if they won't face any legal accountability? Most people in the US believes that it's the primary responsibility of companies to make money for their shareholders by any legal means. If we collectively deem surveillance capitalism to be predatory, then the only answer is to either make it unprofitable, or illegal. I feel like I should say something about AI, but it adds nothing to this discussion, other than it has made surveillance capitalism more aggressive. We used to have little guns, and now we have bigger ones. This will always be the case as long as technology is pursued.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  > unethical decisions aren't made at the bottom But they sure are implemented at the bottom. This article was published in CACM, whose target audience is CS academics and industry professionals. They are the people actually building and researching these technologies. I have literally heard a researcher in deep fakes say without irony that it's not their role to think about ethics in their research, because it will get done anyway, there the ethics questions should be left to others who are better trained to think about such things. That's sure a position to take, but I would say this article serves to speak in opposition to that kind of view. Moshe Vardi is highly respected and very influential, and he's basically calling out researchers and developers in engaged in this work as unethical: Surveillance capitalism is perfectly legal, and enormously profitable, but it is unethical, many people believe, including me Those are heavy words coming from someone of his import. Personally due to the respect I have for him, if Moshe Vardi said that about my work, I'd maybe think twice about how I was spending my time. Because Lord knows the people doing the work of implementing and maintaining surveillance capitalism have very lucrative options. It's not like there isn't interesting work to do outside of this area. It's not like there isn't important work that needs to be done but can't because "surveillance capitalism" is so profitable that it acts as a black hole of young talent. And so what this piece is really about is saying that if these people are going to be engaged in arguably unethical work, then maybe we shouldn't be elevating then with recognition within this particular (very influential) industry group. Instead we should call out what they're doing and introspect a little bit about our relationship with them (I say we and our as a member of the ACM, and I agree with what Moshe Vardi wrote here).