singularityswebsite | Entries tagged with notes

Sources: Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics and Stanford Ethics of Robots and AI

Notes:

AI or Artificial Intelligence is a computer system that is able to display human like behavior. The main goal of an Artificial Intelligence is to be able to "sense, model, plan, and act". The typical ways that an AI like system is developed currently is through simulating natural cognition or machine learning neural networks. A sufficiently advanced AI would be able to "eliminate poverty, reduce disease, and provide better education to almost everyone on the planet". Although this all sounds well and good we get into the topic of do we want robots or AI to do that for us? For some the answer would be yes as it eliminates the need for many jobs and problems around the world. For others the loss of their job and ability to sustain for themselves would be seen as detrimental rather than beneficial to their life. That is all problems for the future though. Humanity is already having to face the problems that arise from the AI systems that we have in place already. Facial recognition, data tracking, and video and sound manipulation are the current biggest factors. Data privacy is an issue that has been growing rampantly over the past two decades and it will only get worse with the evolution of AI. Facial tracking is one of the most popular issues related to data tracking currently as smart phones and street cameras are able to collect a large amount of data allowing an AI to build a large profile of the populations faces which could be used for tracking or even recording where and when you visit certain places. It has already been used by China for the purpose of tracking protestors in Hong Kong. The other sphere of data tracking that AI influences is the large amount of data that is produced by interacting with the internet. The data generated from websites you visit, places you get Google maps directions to, purchases you make online, and your browser history are all susceptible to being acquired by various companies. These companies can input that data into an AI for a wide variety of purposes; few of them benefiting you. Lastly, AI's ability to fake images and audio are getting scarily hard to distinguish from their real counterparts. A tool known as a 'Deepfake' is able to use video and audio recordings from real people to then be used to create fake video or audio of them doing and saying things that are completely false. Anybody that gets a hold of a decent amount of audio or video recordings of somebody can use tools like these to create Deepfakes of them. As AI advances tools like these will only get harder and harder to distinguish as real or fake. This can of course be used as a tool for comedy, like putting Donald Trump into a scene from the office for instance. The ethics of these applications of AI are ultimately down to the one using them. They can be used both maliciously or beneficially depending on the user's own morality.

What do you think of the ten commandments of computer ethics?

What kind of ethics does the Rabbit Ridge Mountain Bike Trail guidelines follow?

What character traits would work in this example?

How would you redesign this code of ethics to be more utilitarian, deontological or humean virtue based?

How can laws or required rules in the ACM not be ethics based?

“lex iniusta non est lex” Can you guess any words?

What type of ethics explains the latin phrase?

How could the same thing be coded using a different type?

Which works better?

How can you tell?

How do you speak effectively at rallies?

To effectively speak at rallies you have to be able to relate to your audience, give rational arguments, and non logical ones to appeal to their emotions because emotions aren't always logical.

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a statement that's logic is undermined by some failure in reasoning.

The animal experiments case was a fallacy, why?

It was an ad hominem attack because it insinuated that the whole study was wrong and should be dismissed because it might have had poor experiment design. The entire experiment should not have been dismissed for that reason.

Joshua Nash's Nobel Prize, logical fallacy?

Yes, just because he has schizophrenia doesn't invalidate his work.

Amy Winehouse 27 Club, logical fallacy?

Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.

Jimi Hendrix 27 Club, logical fallacy?

Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.

Irving's Project Idea, logical fallacy?

Yes, the degree of someone's coolness doesn't determine the quality of one's idea.

Parent smoking, logical fallacy?

Yes there's a logical fallacy there. Just because someone asserts something they don't practice doesn't mean that what they're asserting can't be true.

Al Gore's house, argument against global warming?

No, it's not an argument against global warming. Just because Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't mean that his assertions that global warming is real are false.

Al Gore's house, argument against reducing CO2 output?

No, it's not an argument against reducing CO2 output, the fact that Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't negate the need for CO2 reduction.

Scenario 1a, logically okay or logical fallacy?

Logically okay, someone being paid to defend or argue against someone should be viewed with some skepticism, it could mean that they are giving false arguments but it's not okay to dismiss them entirely.

Scenario 1a pt. 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?

Logical fallacy, dismissing someone's argument entirely because they're being paid to do a job is an ad hominem attack. Being paid to defend someone doesn't make their argument entirely dismissable.

Scenario 1b, logically okay or logical fallacy?

pt.1 is logically okay for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.1, it's okay to argue that someone's argument should be viewed with healthy skepticism as money is a motivator to not tell the complete truth.

pt.2 is a logical fallacy for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.2, it's not fair to dismiss someone's argument entirely due to them being paid to do a job.

Scenario 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?

Pt.1: Logically okay, it is understandable to view someone's defense of a company they got paid by with skepticism.

Pt.2: This is a logical fallacy because they're asserting that their defense of the company is entirely false due to them getting paid by the company.

Is using an ad hominem attack in your argument ethical?

No, it's not ethical because your argument is not based in logic and reason. If there is not a way to make your argument without an ad hominem attack then is it a fair argument?

Women giving opinion on football/sports, logical flaw?

The logical flaw is determining the woman's opinion as false simply because she is a woman.

Is it ethical?

No, saying that a woman's opinion is invalid simply because of gender is not logical. One's gender does not determine the validity of their opinions.

Ad feminam, scenario 1:

Yes this is a logical fallacy. Arguing that a woman's opinion is wrong about football because she doesn't know football is an invalid argument. Just because someone doesn't know everything about a subject doesn't mean that they can't have insight into it.

Ad feminam, scenario 2:

No, this is logically okay. If someone doesn't know anything about a subject then it is logically okay to determine that their idea could be false.

Ad feminam, scenario 3:

This is a logical fallacy, someone's experience in the sport no matter how vast does not instantly determine that their argument is right or wrong.

Ad feminam, scenario 4:

This is a logically okay argument. Having experience in a field does give your argument more weight.

PR Spin, to the man?

Yes this is an ad hominem attack.

Is it logically fallacious?

Yes it is. Just because he's paid to say something doesn't mean that everything he says is false.

Does the adversarial approach affect believability of an argument?

Yes it does. It incentivizes politicians to argue what their side believes regardless of fact.

Can you think of a better method?

Yes, if people were to honestly argue their ideals regardless of what they think people will vote for then it would lead to more rational arguments.

We should not reduce troops, logical fallacy?

Iran wanting us to reduce troops does not mean that we should or should not do it.

So your argument is traitorous, logical fallacy?

Yes this is a logical fallacy. Just because you want to or don't want to reduce troops does not mean that you're a traitor. There are many reasons to want both options.

So your argument is wrong, logical fallacy?

Yes this is a logical fallacy. What Iran wants us to do does not determine what we should do.

What is ethics? :

Ethics is the study of morality and good and bad behavior.

What is good character? :

Good character is having strong moral fiber and being able to perform the ethical and good action when presented with different options.

How to improve good character traits? :

One can improve good character traits in themselves by trying to embody them and follow them even when it is inconvenient.

Does the result or what you do determine if something is ethical? :

I believe the result determines if the action was ethical. One can have good intentions but their actions can result in bad outcomes, so therefore it is the result that determines if something is ethical. I don't believe that what you did to get there doesn't matter but the result is more important than the steps taken to get there.

Do you lean more toward utilitarianism or deontology?

I lean more toward utilitarianism.

Scenario A, outcome homeless man gets drunk:

No you were not ethical although your intentions were good. You intended to help a homeless man but the result was bad. Your money could have been spent in a better way if your intention was to help the homeless. You could have bought food for a local homeless shelter or soup kitchen or even donated your time, that is a more guaranteed way to see that your money and effort leads to good outcomes.

Scenario A, outcome homeless man buys a hamburger:

You were ethical in this scenario. Although my point from the first outcome still stands, in this case the result led to something positive so therefore you were ethical in this case.

Scenario B, outcome you offer him a job and he accepts:

You were ethical in this scenario. You gave the homeless man a path out of the life he was living and gave him a chance at changing.

Scenario B, outcome he gets sick from lack of food:

I still believe that you were ethical, you offered him a job and gave him an opportunity. There is no guarantee he would have spent your money on food in the first place and if your desire was to assist the homeless then as I said in scenario A, you could have donated your time or money to a soup kitchen or homeless shelter, guaranteeing that somebody in need will get assistance through your efforts.

Do the ends justify the means? :

I have explained my take on this previously, but to reiterate, I don't believe that they do. Although the result is the more important aspect of the two in my opinion, the way you accomplish your task is still important and if you are not being ethical in the steps you take to accomplish your goal then the end was not ethical. Both are important and can not be considered without the other.

Is the concept of "a war to end all wars" ethical? :

I cannot say without more context. What is the war based on? Was the war stopped to end tyranny, or so that a rich country can get richer? Is the reason given to the people to go fight and end lives a farce to enlist more, or is it truly a righteous and ethical goal? If the scenario is that there is one country that refuses to govern ethically and treats their people as a mere means to their ends and does not consider their rights, as well as frequently encroaching on other country's rights and is generally causing chaos throughout the world; then I believe that if all other diplomatic options have failed and any attempt inside the country by the people have been turned aside by authoritarian regimes, then yes perhaps a war to end all wars would be ethical.

So . . . what is Kant’s categorical imperative? :

Kant's categorical imperative is a system of ethics that hard defines morals and ethics as laws that must be followed regardless of situation, intent, or personal opinion.

What is the golden rule? :

The golden rule as I learned it was treat people how you want to be treated.

Does The Declaration of Independence contain the categorical imperative? :

Yes The Declaration of Independence contains the categorical imperative. The statement "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." categorically states that all men are created equal with the imperative that they have rights such as Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that nobody can take away.

What do you think of the categorical imperative? :

I'm not a big fan of Kant's categorical imperative. It seems more like a describing the natural consequences for events rather than describing the morality of them. One example I found in an article by Britannica "Steal whenever you can get away with it" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/categorical-imperative) is a categorical imperative that states that thievery is okay as long as you do not face the consequences of it even though it is not moral. It can be used by people for whatever they believe to be true and does not deal with the larger question of if the actions taken themselves are moral. The morals that can be defined are tied to the individual rather than what humanity as a whole may believe, which can lead to some dicey universal laws.

Notes on blogging:
Will be submitting daily attendance notes on dreamwidth.
Explanations given for multiple blogging website

Wordpress:
Very functional website with lots of features
Not optimal solution for just blogging.

Blogger.com:
Links to google accounts, pro and negative
Intrinsically blog posts with your google account
Configurable profile for pseudonymous posting

Blog.com:
Required interacting with advertisements (big negative)
Infinite loading so no longer usable

Blackboard:
Very feature friendly blogging but non user friendly design

Medium:
Simple and easy to use.
Account is linked to your google or facebook account, can't post anonymously.

Wix:
Signup process too complicated
Possibly still personally identifiable.

Tumblr:
Allows comments on posts
Requires additional configuration and a delay
Good modern blog, not personally identifiable.

LiveJournal.com:
Easy to make and simple to use
Repeated problems of account suspension.
Russian user agreement.

Dreamwidth.org:
Easy to use for signup and UI
Not personally identifiable

Information on class website, syllabus, and course information given.
Weekly assignments as well as lecture assignments and given notes for online students. Some assignments given out multiple times in a week for questions on cases.
Group formation for discussions given (only in class students)