6 ms·

Recommendations? Someone nonadjacent to the lesswrong smooth brains, pretty please.

smoldesu 3y ago
Seriously, I'd also really appreciate some examples of moderate AI ethicists. The vocal minority is all I've heard so far, and their arguments sound closer to fiction than science.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I mean we wrote a whole ass engineering standard for this: https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/7010/7718/ https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/7010/7718/ I wrote the implementation annex
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    TIL. That's a neat standard and I'm glad it exists, it's an interesting reflection of what opt-in ethical frameworks can look like. For every reasonable and non-authoritarian suggestion I read for regulating AI, I feel like I wade through 10 Neuromancer-level takes. It's definitely a me-problem, I gotta stop scrolling through /new...
    - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
      Thanks. This was the effort of dozens of engineers, ethicists and systems people all done prior to the LLM revolution so it doesn’t have all the mystical junk that the newcomers seem to be latching onto.
      - nullstyle 3y ago
        I'd like to say thank you as well. I've got reading material for the day :)
        AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        You’re welcome. Please also see the other comment from John Havens who led the effort with Laura Musikanski from IEEE
- johnchavens 3y ago
  Thanks, Andrew. And I’m happy to send links to a free read only verizon of the standard of helpful. Or do a webinar with Andrew on 7010 to demonstrate the moderate AI ethicist stance which I hope I embody but don’t need to focus on titles too much. My ideology or agenda, as it were, is that AI governance prioritizes ecological flourishing and human wellbeing at the outset of design, which also means the outset of funding. Accountability then moved from a focus on the output of one AI system or product to how the people making and releasing it demonstrate their ongoing, full value chain commitment to giving back more to the planet than they take and working to create genuine l, symbiosis level caregiving oriented value to an end user.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    That's an interesting perspective. What's the hope that AI will ensure human symbiosis when traditional software models (arguably) fail to do so? The best analog that comes to mind for me is Open Source software, and viral licenses that encourage a literal obligation to "give back" to the community. As helpful as that is, Open Source software still consumes power and can't ensure ecological symbiosis with it's users (even if it's ethically superior to proprietary alternatives). With that in mind, I'm curious how AI licensing differs, and how it's increased cost of training/execution will be subsidized by the value of the gross output. The other more common question that comes to mind is enforcement. In your "agenda" as it were, would AI governance be obligatory or optional? Should we draw the line differently for research/nonprofit/commercial entities? In a traditional economy, the existence of Open Source software has enabled better value extraction for businesses which ultimately do not prioritize environmental concerns. Along the same line of thought as the first question, I'd be interested to hear how AI governance can avoid overreach while still addressing the same issue we had with traditional software creating excess value that mostly does not benefit the ecology or greater good. This is something I'm very interested in generally, but I question if we have the framework to actually achieve meaningful human-AI symbiosis. Open Source succeeded in it's goal to subvert copyright and capitalism by carefully following the rules and managing it's expectations from the start. I worry that you're biting off more than you can chew asking for human-computer, human-AI or even AI-ecology symbiosis. I'd be glad to summon another boffin who can prove me wrong though :P
potatoman22 3y ago
I mainly read on algorithmic fairness, safety, and auditing since they're more practical for work. Authors I enjoy are Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, and Timnit Gebru.

Seriously, I'd also really appreciate some examples of moderate AI ethicists. The vocal minority is all I've heard so far, and their arguments sound closer to fiction than science.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I mean we wrote a whole ass engineering standard for this: https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/7010/7718/ https://standards.ieee.org/ieee/7010/7718/ I wrote the implementation annex
- smoldesu 3y ago
  TIL. That's a neat standard and I'm glad it exists, it's an interesting reflection of what opt-in ethical frameworks can look like. For every reasonable and non-authoritarian suggestion I read for regulating AI, I feel like I wade through 10 Neuromancer-level takes. It's definitely a me-problem, I gotta stop scrolling through /new...
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    Thanks. This was the effort of dozens of engineers, ethicists and systems people all done prior to the LLM revolution so it doesn’t have all the mystical junk that the newcomers seem to be latching onto.
    - nullstyle 3y ago
      I'd like to say thank you as well. I've got reading material for the day :)
      - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
        You’re welcome. Please also see the other comment from John Havens who led the effort with Laura Musikanski from IEEE
johnchavens 3y ago
Thanks, Andrew. And I’m happy to send links to a free read only verizon of the standard of helpful. Or do a webinar with Andrew on 7010 to demonstrate the moderate AI ethicist stance which I hope I embody but don’t need to focus on titles too much. My ideology or agenda, as it were, is that AI governance prioritizes ecological flourishing and human wellbeing at the outset of design, which also means the outset of funding. Accountability then moved from a focus on the output of one AI system or product to how the people making and releasing it demonstrate their ongoing, full value chain commitment to giving back more to the planet than they take and working to create genuine l, symbiosis level caregiving oriented value to an end user.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  That's an interesting perspective. What's the hope that AI will ensure human symbiosis when traditional software models (arguably) fail to do so? The best analog that comes to mind for me is Open Source software, and viral licenses that encourage a literal obligation to "give back" to the community. As helpful as that is, Open Source software still consumes power and can't ensure ecological symbiosis with it's users (even if it's ethically superior to proprietary alternatives). With that in mind, I'm curious how AI licensing differs, and how it's increased cost of training/execution will be subsidized by the value of the gross output. The other more common question that comes to mind is enforcement. In your "agenda" as it were, would AI governance be obligatory or optional? Should we draw the line differently for research/nonprofit/commercial entities? In a traditional economy, the existence of Open Source software has enabled better value extraction for businesses which ultimately do not prioritize environmental concerns. Along the same line of thought as the first question, I'd be interested to hear how AI governance can avoid overreach while still addressing the same issue we had with traditional software creating excess value that mostly does not benefit the ecology or greater good. This is something I'm very interested in generally, but I question if we have the framework to actually achieve meaningful human-AI symbiosis. Open Source succeeded in it's goal to subvert copyright and capitalism by carefully following the rules and managing it's expectations from the start. I worry that you're biting off more than you can chew asking for human-computer, human-AI or even AI-ecology symbiosis. I'd be glad to summon another boffin who can prove me wrong though :P

potatoman22 3y ago

I mainly read on algorithmic fairness, safety, and auditing since they're more practical for work. Authors I enjoy are Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, and Timnit Gebru.