You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
One of the interesting things about this New Yorker piece is how much it highlights the HCI community - both the SIGCHI research ethics committee (that I've been on since it was founded) and the "negative impacts" post with mostly HCI researcher authors.https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/who-should-stop-unethical-ai …
It seems like part of the answer to "who should stop unethical AI?" is "people who've been thinking about the impact that technology has on humans for a few decades now" and who are often dismissed as doing "easy" (LOL) computer science.
I also think that the SIGCHI research ethics committee is a model that others can learn from. It's not perfect, but I tend to describe it as an expert R3 or R4 brought in to provide a review based on ethical implications.pic.twitter.com/5QSzrJYTxD
The article notes that "the committee’s decisions are nonbinding" but I would go even farther than that and say that the committee doesn't make decisions anymore than any single reviewer makes decisions. But I think that our input has been really useful to reviewers.
What the New Yorker piece doesn't mention is that (and this is not a secret) the most common outcome of engagement with the SIGCHI research ethics committee is not rejection, but instead suggestions for authors add more context and ethical reflection to their papers.
As the article notes, research is often "a matter of norms, not rules" and writing about ethical considerations and decisions (including possible negative impacts - and how to mitigate them) is HOW we form good ethical norms.
also if you read the New York article please come back and read this thread after :)https://twitter.com/luke_stark/status/1361308435585851392?s=20 …
Also a weird plot twist on the AI ethics New Yorker article... this paragraph that describes the author's previous piece? That was the "I'm just an engineer" article. You know, the quote that launched a thousand tweets? Well, apparently it wasn't a real quote...pic.twitter.com/0HEmP8IRh5
This paragraph used to directly quote the researcher as saying "I'm just an engineer." Then over a year later, updated: "This article previously misquoted Hau Chan. An event recording released after the article’s publication has clarified his wording." https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/artificial-intelligence-could-identify-gang-crimes-and-ignite-ethical-firestorm …pic.twitter.com/022Q2b90RY
![Hau Chan, a computer scientist now at Harvard University who was presenting the work, said they were not. “[These are the] sort of ethical questions that I don’t know how to answer appropriately,” he said, being just “a researcher.” Lemoine quoted a lyric from a song about the wartime rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, in a heavy German accent: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?” Then he angrily walked out.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EuSjXfvXcAUl1w_.png)
I know this because I wrote this oped that quoted that quote. And last year the researcher contacted me and asked that I update my piece to remove the mis-quote (which I did). He was doing reputational damage control. :-\https://howwegettonext.com/what-our-tech-ethics-crisis-says-about-the-state-of-computer-science-education-a6a5544e1da6 …
I'm happy to keep talking about the "I'm just an engineer" problem.. I've heard enough similar statements uttered. But can't help but find it ironic that the New Yorker article has a dig at people "trigger-happy with their moral outrage" given the misquote launched a bunch.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
