Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
If computing systems have a similar potential to harm people, either at the individual and the systemic level, would you still reject an impact assessment? (btw I am not in favour of ethics review as I believe we need a fundamental rights impact assessment).
But that's for systems to be deployed. We're talking about research papers here.
Agreed that there is profound difference. Though in a sense research design may have even more impact than an application. This is about what training data you cherry picked, how the feature space is developed (for instance). 1/2
That is also why we need law here. Such a review should no depend on ethical inclinations of whoever does the review, or on hidden ethical criteria. See chapter 10 of Law for Computer Scientists and Other Folk: https://fdslive.oup.com/www.oup.com/academic/pdf/openaccess/9780198860884.pdf …
Same with medical research, actually. Ethics of gene research , for example, is evaluated on possible uses.
How does that work? Is it about not performing some experiments, or is it about hiding information from the public?
If you're expecting your research papers to not have an effect in the world then they're pretty awful research papers.
Nevertheless ‘ethical review’ sounds similarly naive: whose ethics, what criteria, is this about good or bad or about right or wrong - who get to decide on what basis what’s bad or wrong? These are political issues, not to be hidden behind notion of ‘ethics review’ 1/2
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
