#SV
– Vad gjorde du första dagen på semestern Per?
– Jag skrev replik på en debattartikel i SvD.
– Om vadå?
– [tyst en stund…] Ahem. AI.
Nu ligger den på nätet.
"Det är inte skrivet i sten att AI:s fördelar kommer överträffa nackdelarna. Det är därför regleringar behövs, för att säkerställa en riktning som mildrar skada och skapar nytta för flertalet, inte fåtalet, skriver Per Axbom i en replik."
https://www.svd.se/a/dwQEkA/per-axbom-reglering-av-ai-ar-ett-maste
#AiEtik #DigitalEtik #DigitalOmtanke
The way I can actually edit my posts here, change wording, add links, update images, etceteras, puts me in control of my social media / microblog in the same way that I am in control of my regular blog.
This truly feels like the way it should always have been.
(I am aware that my changes may not propagate to all servers in the fediverse, but I am at least in control over my own ”original”)
#Fediverse
@pauldaoust
To be fair that is more of an intentionally provocative number, as OpenAI won't disclose energy use. There are estimates claiming that one ChatGPT query costs (in money) 100x more than a Google search, or consumes 10x as much energy. And one ChatGPT session, to get the response you want, can be estimated at 10 prompts.
But in the end there are many examples of things that can be done in more environmentally friendly ways. For example, writing a speech for a wedding. There's a lof of that going around now. Another way to write a speech for a wedding is pen and paper, and from the heart 😊
More on carbon costs here:
https://axbom.com/aielements/#carbon-costs
@Cleopatra
I understand what you mean, with a caveat: how would you use it without harming those who were already harmed during the development of the AI?
I agree that AI is not intrinsically bad (it *is* a tool), but the examples we are seeing today of how they are manufactured in dangerous ways and designed to mislead contributes to negative impact. This means that you can't dismiss harms by saying that it's *just* a tool.
@brooklynman From having to think… 😬
The EU AI Act addresses high-risk AI.
Consider an AI that assists someone who is visually impaired by describing what is in front if them (by taking a picture or using a live feed from ”smart glasses”).
This can be lifechanging. But also, when deployed using a model like GPT-4 that often gets things wrong, extremely dangerous.
As the Wired article points out: ”If an AI gets a description wrong by misidentifying medication, for example, it could have life-threatening consequences.”
The tool may not, just like ChatGPT, disclose level of certainty to help the user make an informed decision based on the output,
The million-dollar question is this: would an image-to-audio description tool be categorized as high-risk?
https://www.wired.com/story/ai-gpt4-could-change-how-blind-people-see-the-world/
#AiEthics
@brooklynman
Yeah I agree with your point. I’d say my main concern is that the statement itself removes accountability and consideration for the bigger picture effects. Saying something is just a tool creates the faulty mental model of all tools having interchangeable qualities frrom an ethical perspective, which simply isn’t true.
Which is just me repeating what you just said. 😂
The word to watch out for is ”just”. If we instead said ”it’s a tool” that would make more sense. The word ”just” is there to shed accountability.
I’m considering how the technocratic belief that AI will save us all is related to a defense mechanism wherein one avoids acknowledging the harm technology has also contributed to.
It is easier to double down on a future where technology turns out to be the savior after all, rather than face a reality where you have to deal with harms done by something you have been promoting as a force for good all along,
@rm4
Thanks, yeah Soapbox is mentioned and linked in the blog post. There are quite a few that aren't in the infographic but are mentioned in the blog post. Fitting them all in the diagram would make it overly complicated I believe.
Not even the software I'm using myself (Akkoma) is in the diagram. I don't use Mastodon.
If a service becomes especially relevant to add to the infographic due to sudden growth or media coverage I'll consider adding it to the infographic. But I always welcome new ones that can be added to the associated blog post.
https://axbom.com/fediverse/
@samuel @konstellationen
Skriver ju mycket om digital etik och ansvarsfull innovation. Dock 85% på engelska. 😊
The way that you delete your Threads account is that you also delete your Instagram account. Quite unclear whether these two services will split or get even more integrated in the future…
https://techcrunch.com/2023/07/06/threads-delete-profile-instagram-meta/
A few aspects of flooding bookstores with AI-generated and assisted books:
– Plagiarism and copyright infringement. These texts don’t appear out of thin air. They are sourced from human authors without consent. Sometimes passages from other books or articles will make their way into ”generated” books.
- Misinformation. One non-fiction generated book sucking up its content from other non-fiction generated books creates a feedback loop where sources (and facts) become obscure.
- Quality. Don’t expect excellence. These books aren’t written out of a passion for writing, but rather out of the interest in making a quick buck.
- Energy and water use. Using AI for generating books is not cost-free to the environment despite being essentially cost-free to the person making the book.
- Non-disclosure. ”Authors” currently don’t have to label their books as being AI-generated.
- Fake reviews. All those reviews praising the books? How do you think they were written?
- Time waste. Imagine how many billions of hours will be wasted by regular people on volume upon volume of disappointing content…
https://www.inkl.com/a/gxXxAMtzqvN
If you want to understand how the sausage is made, I wrote about this in February:
https://axbom.com/ai-generated-literature/
#AiEthics #DigitalEthics
Trying to figure out if my phone has made me forget more things than it has helped me remember…
Hold that thought, I just got a message.
@iamlayer8 @vincent @emilymbender
+1 for Pocket Casts. I also use filters to group different podcasts. This also means I can have two different filters with the same podcast in them.
https://blog.pocketcasts.com/2019/09/24/filters/
How harmful does something need to be for people to stop using it? How much do you yourself need to benefit to choose to ignore the harm done to others?
These are not always easy questions, but I think its beneficial to your own (and others'!) wellbeing to reflect on them…
https://axbom.com/ignoring-harm/
This is a great walkthrough of the ways generative AI is stealing (and storing!) content. And placing clear efforts on stealing (removing watermarks for example).
Long read, 3 parts. Entertaining and maddening. Lots of reference links.
With the ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI it’s good to boost awareness.
https://johancb.substack.com/p/sam-altman-and-the-sorcerers-stone
#DigitalEthics #AiEthics
I had an epiphany yesterday. I know some (many?) people perceive me as overly and naively critical of tech, even though I myself of course love tech and have since I started programming on my Sinclair ZX81 in 1982.
A great deal of my content often turns out to be about calling out harm done unto others. Because that is something I detest and am disappointed to see being such a big and overt part of the industry I love. Human rights issues are very dear to me.
So an unbalanced amount of what people see from me is the criticism.
What people don’t tend to see, and what I think I've been bad at internalising, are all the ways I am actually working to help people and organisations find ways of designing and developing tech that avoids and mitigates negative impact to wellbeing.
I do talks, I teach courses and workshops, and I consult for months at a time with amazing organisations that see the immediate value of efforts placed on foresight, inclusive design, risk management and monitoring systemic effects.
Organisations that truly see how they are accountable for the things they make and want to make sure they do not contribute to harms like prejudice, abuse and inequity. Who are okay with stumbling along the way but will keep moving towards that clear vision.
In the end of course most of us are just people with all the challenges of being human in many different contexts of a complex life. So when people get upset with me for calling out tech problems, I have to remember they’re not seeing all of me.
And I should perhaps do a better job of balancing my messaging.
The reason for my epiphany was that I started writing my own bio related to *maybe* producing an online course. I realised all the fun and awesome ways I am using tech to streamline my work and communicate better. A whole other side of what I’m doing that I could teach to help others improve their relationships with digital services.
And my bio certainly wasn’t reflecting the full extent of my ambitions. And just changing a couple of sentences made me see myself in a new light.
Imagine that, being stuck in my own limited perception of myself.
So here’s my concrete advice: have a look at your bio. How are you describing yourself? How is that description perhaps limiting how others, but more importantly you yourself, think about your work?
The summer is a great time to reflect. Reflecting on and changing your bio description in various places may actually change the way you approach work, and how you feel about yourself. You may want to do it together with someone else.
When was the last time you looked at and revised your LinkedIn bio?
Give it a try and let me know what happens!
P.S. About to enter my own period of summer reflection and rest so this was a good gateway to that. My intent is to take a break from digital platforms for a few weeks. I’ll obviously let you know how that goes 😅 And then my 3-week course in design ethics at Nackademin takes off in August. Yay! ❤️
Some tasks that are being handed over to automation should arguably never have been tasks in the first place. Or should at least be revised regularly. But instead of questioning and reinventing tasks, many will now be automated to run perpetually. And with no human involved, why would someone then question its validity?
I believe this is part of the non-intuitive aspect of AI and automation, that it will actually in many instances resist change rather than encourage it.
People will forget why that machine is running and worry that cutting its power will break something.
When, in fact, it might *free* something.
#Automation #AiEthics #DigitalEthics