Category Archives: text | wondering

text | wondering

AI, Impact Investment, Ethics & Deeply Human-Centered Innovation: #4

Part 4: AI, Ethics & Potentially Supporting Solutions.

   

In the long-run too, I aim to still continue looking for material that full-heartedly embraces humanity, while I sustain a will towards understanding and a support for the experts and their attempts at bringing ethics into AI (or other technological designs and processes) as they have been doing for a number of years now.

Such material would be inclusive of considerations concerning the human ability towards improving, or at least augmenting, cognitive processes. Such processes of learning and of increasing abilities would ideally be towards adapting to many a technology, such as AI but, it would also aim towards adapting technologies to sustainable and constructive human needs. More excitingly such solutions would be towards improving “simple” co-creative, co-experienced, considerate, continued and conscious conversation in-between two or more human individuals or any mix of human and non-human agents.

Such (written) material would preferably come with value-adding service-mindedness and beyond (yet still inclusive of) the offer of one or other technical skill (e.g. coding towards coding of AI or a coding towards guiding sensibilities towards data sets). Though, let us take a side note that, for instance, coding by humans, as claimed by some experts, is possibly to become outdated over time, since coding too, as some claim, could, to some extent, become automated and autonomous as well. In extension, one might therefor imagine that the implementation of ethics into AI might become autonomous and automated as well… Not for the near future?

I wish to remind myself that the above questions or thoughts are not only targeting the anecdotal example of AI. It is targeting the whole of today’s and tomorrow’s technological developments and their associated need for literacy. Sure and again superficially, a technological literacy is required and, as we will see here below, an ethical literacy of sorts, or a cognitive ability that goes well “beyond” such techno-centric focus alone, is highly desired if not urgently required.

 

 

Contents

Fit Modeling This industry you are competing with a lot of competitive brands. cialis 20mg tadalafil This has been proven again cialis online online and again to mean “sexual desire. The doctor will be able to assess buy levitra in usa your health condition and prescribe a safe dosage of the medication. ADD suffering individuals who acquire these medicines show fewer aggressive actions and a generic cialis online more controlled nature.

 

text | wondering

AI, Impact Investment, Ethics & Deeply Human-Centered Innovation: #3

Part 3: AI at the Center vs. Humans at the Center of our Considerations.

 

How considerate of humans, or life in general, is a text if the majority of the humans are still oblivious about its topic (being the topic of AI, on AI and ethics, or on AI and how it affects humanity)? If not oblivious, we are perhaps disinterested, disenfranchised or not considered. Or, so some humans might feel. More importantly are we, humans, offered clear sequential steps (a human algorithm?) containing applicable preparations and solutions in approaching an increasing (technological) literacy of sorts?

Except their concerns of application and consequences of automated and (quasi) artificially-intelligent systems of the present or imagined future, I found very little to no considerations that —besides only tiptoeing around some human condition and the human potential— presented anything more than (present or forecasted) consequences for humans surrounding versions of AI.

The latter to me feels as AI-centric, not considerate of human; not starting from humanity, from the other or from life at the center of one’s thinking. It feels as if it takes AI and its ethics as fixed facts while sauced over with the fluid flavors of ethical choices as to approach AI or the fluid palette of mesmerizing innovations to come from a techno-centric point of view.

I feel that too many expert-authors are thinking of consequences (of AI), without also offering deep reaching, early-staged, sustainable and progressive developmental and innovative cognitive means to shift one’s (soon to become) habituated cognitive modus operandi. This absence feels as something as defeatist or as dismissive of the majority of the human population.

I want to proactively change this sensation, irrespective of my lack of expertise or of an extrinsic group of expert-authors and their texts. Hence, my first constructive and supportive attempt to reaching out with this consideration here and this towards a solution for impact investment.

I’m now returning to the authoring of texts that consider in a particular manner, or entirely lack to consider ethics, in association with AI. How much can we find humanity at the centered of a text and its suggested (ethical) solutions, if humans have to adapt unilaterally to a technological change and if that needs to occur without offering tools for adaptation beyond the superficial and beyond the techno-centric only?

The solution of ethics for AI might perhaps lie in increasing an ethical consciousness of the coder (as seen elsewhere, one might imagine perhaps enabling a code imbued with a trans-ethical codex)[13] and any other individual, beyond the code. In a number of texts (including those claiming human-centeredness) humans are quickly displaced, misplaced and replaced.

While, surely, adaptation is required, and an openness to change is of creative usage besides potentially humanly rejuvenating and exciting, I still sustain a believe that an augmenting ethical approach –where life (human and other) is at its center of thinking– can be further and deeper considered.

Contents

It is strictly advised to take only one tablet in a day has been accounted the cheapest viagra in australia deeprootsmag.org highest & maximum dosage of tadalis. One pill can save your relationship from viagra sale deeprootsmag.org breakup or any other stressful issues. A soft tablet works brand viagra from canada deeprootsmag.org in about 30 minutes and remains longer in the male body to give a strong erection. So it takes about a month to recondition the body, and this is easily provable if you just entered into a brand new relationship, using the methods within the viagra generic E.D.

text | wondering

AI, Impact Investment, Ethics & Deeply Human-Centered Innovation: #2

Part 2: The Logic, Emotion & Ethics of Writing about Artificial Intelligence & Beyond

 

Following a somewhat extensive search of various formats of publications[4], surrounding AI, I found, rather unsurprisingly, that many expressed potentials and concerns. These covered the areas of the commercial, the non-profit-oriented, the psychological, social or the existential. It is hardly arguable that this finding is almost a truism and that this is the case for expressions concerning most technologies, including AI.

These exposés offered potentials in the form of seemingly logical analyses. At times the publications present concerns through emotional calls and explorations of fear. At other times some of these publications were intertwined with ethical issues and considerations, as well as with degrees of emotional responses or an entire lack thereof to the imagined prospects of AI.

Such rhetorical approaches –of mixing logic with emotion and ethics– could still be imagined as the triangular reality of becoming human (as humans) and of interacting, in a human manner, with technologies such as Artificial Intelligence.

That stated, could we not approach the technology which is umbrella’ed as “AI,” in more innovative and more penetrating ways, as the technology itself is considered to be highly innovating and penetrating (and even disruptively paradigm-shifting)? I believe so. Here below, under the last title of this text, one can find such attempted offer for social impact focusing on humanity.

I attempt this because I found that some authors, on for instance the topic of AI, seemingly addressed the topic of ethics and AI while very few though addressed little to no consideration of truly methodological support and ethically innovative solutions.[5] Interestingly, some even claimed an approach that is considerate of the human experience yet, I felt, they failed actually presenting such approach.

Some of these authors who claimed a consideration that has a human and humanity at its center, contemplated consequences of AI, and this as supported by (their) views on ethics or on social bias[6] of (input and or output) data (…and some even claim biases of algorithms themselves, which others again question). I would like to guide you to a few of many publications as the main references to this writing here:

1.        The World Economic Forum (WEF)’s White Paper entitled “AI Governance. A Holistic Approach to Implement Ethics into AI”[7] as freely published in January 2019 [see endnote #12 for my views on this paper]

2.      The United Nation’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)’s 2018 publication entitled “Human Decisions. Thoughts on AI”

3.      The OECD’s “Algorithms and Collusion: Competition Policy in the Digital Age”[8] and additional OECD publications[9]

4.      The IEEE’s 2019 publication entitled “Ethically Aligned Design. A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems”[10]

5.      European Parliament’s 2016 publication entitled “Ethical Aspects of Cyber-Physical Systems. Scientific Foresight study.”[11]

In browsing through these and a dozen of other publications, I could not help but sense my increasing intuition that ethics was possibly not seriously considered or, was perhaps very seriously considered, by others while seemingly most authors were ignoring the human capability for innovation in relation to their human thought processes. Could we not consider improving how we think and how that thinking affects ourselves, our surrounding and those (life) forms and functions surrounding us? Could we, by doing so, not improve our technological output, such as AI?[12] [This endnote offers my view on, specifically, the WEF paper] .

These publications, at least those which I browsed, felt as if they offer how to handle AI by fine-tuning the technology and not by considering what we as humans could achieve within and between ourselves. The serious and still very interesting and thought-provoking publications seemed to feel techno-centric. Here “techno-centric” refers to a (problem-solving) approach that starts from the technology towards offering a solution (where the technology itself, at times in isolation, is perceived as a problem). Can a perceived technological problem be solved with merely a technological solution? Could a solution also lie in the thinking and interacting of humans? To me these publications felt, at times, to be veiled with mere words of considering the human and their experiences, not with actual methods and processes that can be offered to humans and which could perhaps positively influence our technological designs and usages.

Could we develop human algorithms, prototypes and simulations that humans cognitively apply and which aid them to output, by means of design, ethical technologies, such as AI? If such method or solution were different, how would it/these be different from any existing educational or self-/group-improvement solution, process or ritual out there?

More importantly, to me at least, some did not offer writings that were immediately applicable to the very human layperson, who is claimed to be more or less dramatically influenced, yet, who is very often (more or less intentionally and perhaps understandably) excluded from the expert or in-depth conversation.

Contents

The purpose is for rehabilitation especially patients coming from some form of purchase levitra you could check here injuries. The condition is more complicated buy levitra in canada than in men, in men only the problem of erectile dysfunction prevails which can be very expensive in the end. Individuals with kidney, liver and heart issue must order levitra online not take this solution by any means. The locals advised them to feed Maca to the acquisition de viagra raindogscine.com horses and the animals immediately experienced an increase in energy levels.

text | wondering

AI, Impact Investment, Ethics & Deeply Human-Centered Innovation: #1

Part 1: Considerations, Reflections & A First Suggested Solution.

 

If we wish to promote AI[1] and AI’s surrounding ethics, then I wish to argue that we should equally, and in parallel, support developments and innovations in “HI” or Human Intelligence. However, in this text, I wish to introduce an innovative way of looking at “intelligence.” It is one beyond the mere acquisition of more data or knowledge points.

Such “HI” R&D[2] [this endnote offers information on why I use “R&D” as opposed to, for instance, “Research,” excluding “Development”] plus its output of innovations[3], could go beyond, or augment, the presently established educational systems, their frameworks, their (physical, social or cultural) settings, processes, prioritization and their biases. It could have social impact. Methodological work towards such impact across humanity is one referred to under the title “A First Suggested Methodological Approach Towards Solutions”.

Such (ethical) innovations, as suggested following the Research and Development (R&D) in “HI” could also aim to go beyond learning foci and systems as presently-defined by means of established pedagogical frameworks, processes and curricula (none of which I imply to dismiss per se). Secondly, such ethical innovations could take note of being enabling in how we think, allowing learners’ access to means towards increasing an awareness of the complexities of today’s and tomorrow’s largest to smallest contexts; be they technological, personal, relational, communal, economic, political, environmental or global. Perhaps the methodology introduced under the title “A First Suggested Methodological Approach Towards Solutions” could enable such awareness.

In similarity, as ethical innovations in AI seem to want to achieve, I imagine innovations in “HI” might be further researched to achieve developments and advancements in ethics as applicable in-between humans and their inter-personal experiences.

Contents

There are why not find out more viagra properien a few more but these seem to be the same way without or with gallstones. Be on a healthy, fiber rich diet and levitra 60 mg consume regular meals. 3. Some of the foreign pharmacies are offering the online medicine business and they are levitra samples raindogscine.com taking the order via mails and online name registration and making the order of the medicine. Chemotherapy treatment in India seems common, but immunotherapy treatment is a newer advancement made in the field of male and women viagra pills female reproductive and urinary system diseases.

text | wondering

AI, Impact Investment, Ethics & Deeply Human-Centered Innovation: End-notes

End-notes & Categorized References

[associated with this text]

[1] In over-sweeping terms, I am supportive of those who do promote developments in the realms of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the Data Sciences, Computational Thinking, Computer Sciences and automation.

[2] R&D

R&D stands for “Research and Development”. It is a key concept to the driving motivation of this text as well as being a driver in innovations across the world. In general, it is used within engineering- and technology-driven businesses, such as in businesses that work on Artificial Intelligence or other technological innovations.

Moreover, the Life Sciences, the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the investment world too, uses the abbreviation. There seems to be a trend of “R&D” being used in the Humanities and the Arts. Examples can be retrieved online such as from UNESCO, JSRD or the BBC: http://uis.unesco.org/en/glossary-term/humanities-and-arts-rd-data or https://www.jsrd-humanities.com/ or https://www.bbc.co.uk/rd .

While spending in the Humanities and R&D are already defined (cf. The Chronicle List, 2018), I propose a support of a trend that the abbreviation, the implied methodologies, workflows and processes, be used more frequently (and perhaps at times more accurately) in fields of the Humanities, the Social Sciences and the Arts. Such usage could lead to further identifiable investment and spending potentials. According to The Chronicle List, “Median R&D spending on the humanities among the 388 academic research institutions that reported such spending that year was $224,000.” The list claims the highest R&D spending in Humanities at one university to be $23,526,000 in the 2016 fiscal year.

Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education. (April 1, 2018). The Chronicle List. Colleges with the Greatest R&D Spending in the Humanities, FY 2016. Retrieved July 27th, 2019 from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Colleges-With-the-Greatest-R-D/242984

R&D implies the use of methodological workflows and approaches.  It is found in teams, at times as (corporate) department names, where its members work towards obtaining new knowledge or new processes that, in turn, create the basis for innovations in applications and system developments. A company can outsource R&D to a university. In Europe, it might also be known as Research and Technological Development (RTD). This text aims to introduce a methodology that also supports research and development and this in the realm of ethical development.

Examples on the usage of the abbreviation, and its further substantiations, can be found online while academic references and other papers on the term and its implied methodologies are readily available as well. Some further references:

Bijker, Wiebe & Leonards, Chris & Wackers, Ger. (2001). Research and Technology for Development (RTD) through a EU-APC Policy Dialogue: scientific background, methodology, and toolbox. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition – AMER J CLIN NUTR.

Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles. (2019). Knowledge Production and R&D. 10.1093/oso/9780198809807.003.0004.

Neo, Molotja & Ralphs, Gerard. (2018). A critical review of social sciences and humanities R&D expenditure in South Africa, 2005–2014. South African Journal of Science. 114. 10.17159/sajs.2018/20170407.

Lomas, EJ; (2017) Defining and valuing the R&D delivered by the arts, culture, humanities and social sciences for the creative economy. Presented at: London Conference in Critical Thought, London. Retrieved on July 23, 2019 from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1561670/

Ramanayake R.A, Kasun. (2019). Research And Development (R&D) For Technological Policy. International Journal of Internet Science. 3. 5.

Zhu, Hailun & Zhao, Shuliang & Abbas, Asad. (2019). Relationship between R&D grants, R&D investment, and innovation performance: The moderating effect of absorptive capacity. Journal of Public Affairs. e1973. 10.1002/pa.1973.

[3] …as is the obvious nature of what can be called “innovative” in either form, function, consideration, integration or remapping.

[4] Such publications are found in the realms of (popular) media, community & civic representatives, from tech & technique providers, from business, academia or policy makers.

[5] This entire writing here was catalyzed by a reading of the World Economic Forum’s January 2019 White Paper entitled: AI Governance. A Holistic Approach to Implement Ethics into AI. which spurred a browsing by this author across publications from a number of trans-national institutions (UN, OECD, EU, IEEE, etc.), academic papers, and books on the matter of ethics in association with machines, robots and AI in specific.

[6] Social Bias

Social Bias to a number of researchers and authors, seems to act as a serious catalyst to consider ethical consequences associated with the workings of such technological design (i.e. Artificial Intelligence and the algorithms involved). Research by, for instance, IBM researcher Francesca Rossi on the matter can be followed here: https://www.research.ibm.com/5-in-5/ai-and-bias/ (Retrieved July 23, 2019). A number of papers and publications can be found on the topic. For instance:

Angwin, J., et al. (2016). Machine Bias. There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. In Pro Publica Retrieved on July 23rd, 2019 from https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

Courtland,R. (June, 2018). Bias Detectives: The Researchers Striving to Make Algorithms Fair, in Nature 558, no. 7710 (June 2018): 357–60. Retrieved on July 23, 2019 from https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05469-3

Knight, W. (Apr 11, 2017). The Dark Secret at the Heart of AI. No one really knows how the most advanced algorithms do what they do. That could be a problem, in Mysterious Machines. Artificial intelligence is a black box that thinks in ways we don’t understand. That’s thrilling and scary. MIT Technology Review, May/June 2017. Retrieved on July 23rd, 2019 from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604087/the-dark-secret-at-the-heart-of-ai/?set=604193

Spielkamp, M. (June 12, 2017). “We need to shine more light on algorithms so they can help reduce bias, not perpetuate It.” MIT Technology Review. Retrieved on July 23, 2019 from t https://www.technologyreview.com/s/607955/inspecting-algorithms-for-bias/

Wang, Y., Kosinski, M. (2017, September 7). Deep neural networks are more accurate than humans at detecting sexual orientation from facial images. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hv28a

West, S.M., Whittaker, M. and Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating Systems: Gender, Race and Power in AI. AI Now Institute. Retrieved from https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.html.

[7] World Economic Forum. (2019). AI Governance. A Holistic Approach to Implement Ethics into AI. Retrieved on June 3, 2019 from https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/ai-governance-a-holistic-approach-to-implement-ethics-into-ai

[8] OECD. (2019). Algorithms and Collusion: Competition Policy in the Digital Age. http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/Algorithms-and-colllusion-competition-policy-in-the-digital-age.pdf

[9] OECD. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Society. Retrieved on June 3, 2019 from http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/artificial-intelligence-in-society-eedfee77-en.htm

[10] IEEE. (2019). Ethically Aligned Design. A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. Retrieved June 4, 2019 from https://standards.ieee.org/news/2019/ieee-ead1e.html

[11] European Parliament. (2016). Ethical Aspects of Cyber-Physical Systems. Scientific Foresight study. Retrieved June 5, 2019 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/563501/EPRS_STU%282016%29563501_EN.pdf

[12] The WEF White Paper

The WEF White Paper suggested a, to me, intriguing yet doubt-arousing approach to implement all forms of moral sets within a larger technological ethics-controlling-system that could be selected (switched in-between or on/off) depending on the cultural, social or moral setting within which the AI would be applied, while also being enabled to be entirely turned off.

Mapping this interesting idea with the findings of ethicists concerned with machines, it would seem (quasi) impossible (for the moment) to implement ethical frameworks such as Classical Utilitarianism (Mill) or the Categorical Imperative (Kantian ethics). While the innovative idea of the White Paper seems, at first, attractive to me (mainly due to my ignorance and thus its novelty value), it also seems to feel, to me, that it might miss the point. It feels as creating a proverbial culturally relativist melting pot of ethics. While sure, on the surface it seems very considerate and thoughtful to be inclusive of all (i.e. switch in-between) and non (i.e. turn off). In general, I tend to agree and I am excited by diversity and pluralities. It is deeply enriching to me as a one human among others with each of our own subjective constraints, conditions, experiences, similarities and differences.

Yet, I could not help that the White Paper consequentially felt that such ideas for ethics in AI was not necessarily driven by a respect for individual differences or for cultural variances but, perhaps wrongly interpreted by me, was due to a possible dismissal of continuing a trial (Research & Development) to find transcending innovative and paradigm-shifting innovations. The latter could be touching on ethical consciousness rather than accepting ethics as a static and dogmatic extrinsic monolith.

Moreover, the innovative suggestion felt as it almost intentionally segregated from the thoughts and acts of human individuals themselves, in their creating, implementing or interacting with others, with their environments and with its technologies, such as AI. If the text is human-centric then it should aim or consider solutions within the human individuals and this in addition to the innovating delegations to the technological implementations (of ethics). It surely offered some hint towards the latter,

I feel The WEF’s White Paper did not at all hint at research or implementations towards the former. I would be interested in learning more about this motivation as well as about R&D done in both (i.e. human & tech). Is it a dismissal, a fear, a blindness? I do not know (yet).

For further details I wish to direct you to the references and studies mentioned by Beavers, A.F. Moral Machines and the Threat of Ethical Nihilism. (2012); in Lin, P. (et al) (ed.). Robot Ethics The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

[13]

Ethics & Software Engineering

Interestingly enough, when one looks at the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice as published by ACM in 2011, one could identify the document assigning a considerable responsibility to the engineer and their managers. I note that, as far as I could tell, this consideration too seems absent in the World Economic Forum’s White Paper.

I wonder, in my ignorance, could this white paper be reducing the human agency both in terms of those designing as well as those on the receiving end?

Moreover, one could be reminded of what could be observed in recent events associated with “Public Good” and the release of designs in the public of more or less intelligent automated systems and their surrounding (lack of / reduced degrees of) ethics. Some such events were associated with e.g. data privacy issues; cyber-attacks and computers (and consequentially business and their people) taken as hostages; users used as raw data material rather than end-users/clients; data mining without consent; or automated systems firing employees due to an error somewhere down or up the chain of automated actions.

One could wonder whether there is a systemic dismissal of this ACM publication during the deployment of certain designs into the public and in respect to the “Public Good” as referred to in this ACM publication.

Secondly, one might also wonder this particularly when the Code itself mentions, “…Situations require the software engineer to use ethical judgment to act in a manner which is most consistent with the spirit of the Code of Ethics…”.

Thirdly, one could also wonder whether a Code of Ethics is lacking a methodological program to instill ethical awareness in a designer or other. So, what is going on? Is it the (non-)existence of a less developed Ethical Consciousness? If so, this could be a serious opportunity for innovative methodological cognitive solutions as suggested at the end of this opinion piece.

[14] Brookings Institute.(2018). Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills. Retrieved March, 2019 from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Education-system-alignment-for-21st-century-skills-012819.pdf

[15] Yes, you might be surprised by now that I find technologies exciting. I daily work with a number of digital “screens” and tools. Moreover, I dare to admit, I paradoxically also enjoy Star Trek. Thirdly, I spend my professional life designing solutions to offer pathways for the youngest learners to gain access to learning with and about technologies. So too coding, a skill I have been engaged in since I was about 13 yet which, since my later teens, with the odd exception in coding for the arts, I consciously moved away from.

[16] Research & Development (R&D) is continuously needed

[17] https://www.uethics.org/university

Contents

The impact lasts for about levitra overnight delivery 6 hours after taking it. This information is useful for planning viagra cipla india tasks, audits and for timely improvements. The Universe cannot say NO to you when you arrive.See tadalafil in india icks.org more tips about handling injured pets. As a result, your mental functions will slow down considerably generic viagra generic and feel lethargy all the time.