While a misleading narrative of doom is being widely pushed, I want to contribute to bringing attention to the real harms and risks of AI. And I do this, honestly, with an intent to show how the harms are tangible and can be addressed.
This is a good thing.
If we can be open and honest about the actual risks then we stand a better chance of owning them and acting to evade or mitigate them. If we don't talk about them, our chances of managing them responsibly are zero.
All the harms are human-made and hence are under human control. What we need to do is demand more transparency around each issue, and acknowledge how all teams that deploy or make use of AI need a mitigation strategy for many different types of harms.
I give you The Elements of AI Ethics, which borrows from and builds on my chart from 2021, The Elements of Digital Ethics.
Read about it here and download the chart in PDF format for your own, free, use: https://axbom.com/aielements/
Let me know what you think.
#AIEthics #DigitalEthics
Tagged: Akkoma
I have developed this communication model as a guide for conversations and strategic work aimed at improving AI tools. Note that the focus here is on human interaction with the tool. It is about the components that affect input data (from the human) and output data (from the computer), and by extension how a human chooses to act based on the output data.
The diagram contributes a communication science perspective to better understand when, where and how in the use and application of these AI tools that one can make an effort to improve for example
* comprehensibility,
* satisfaction and
* benefit.
It is useful in implementation planning, design decisions, communicative efforts and training. I've provided a complete walkthrough of all components.
And you are free to use it in your work (PDF download in the post).
https://axbom.com/aicom/
#DigitalEthics #AIEthics #UXDesign #CommunicationModel
@brianbilston Love this!
Altman to the senate two weeks ago: AI needs regulation and you should let me decide what that means!
Altman to the EU last week: Calling our tool “high-risk” is too harsh. We may have to pull out of the EU.
Altman by way of a statement he just signed: These tools are an existential risk on par with pandemics and nuclear war!
Attention-seeking, much?
Meanwhile, it’s an accelerator for harm that is already happening. And volatility is clearly a trait he shares with his tool.
⚠️ LinkedIn behavior ("link in comments")
People adding links to what they want to share in their comments rather than in the main post is a great example of humans adapting to machines rather than using machines to support human wellbeing.
Saying "the link is in the comments" and then adding links in the comments section make them more difficult to find for people with visual and cognitive impairments. Heck, they're more difficult for anyone to find once there are many comments on the post.
Yet this is the behavior that the design of LinkedIn encourages, and that many choose to act on. Because there is a strong belief that LinkedIn penalises posts with links to external sources, as showcased by a few studies.
The "visibility and click"-yearning becomes more important to appease than any yearning to cater to various accessibility needs. And yes, this is by design.
Sidenote: Some of my most viewed and shared posts on LinkedIn have had the link in the main post. I'm not even sure the widespread belief is a concrete truth.
@kolombiken Thank you! So glad you enjoy them. 🙏
And completely understand about the time it may take to read. 😊
@sintrenton Very cool! Thank you for introducing me to this.
@isotopp I've done the same since. a few years but feel it's helping less and less. I believe I will just have to delete most apps as well.
It's time for a reminder that I maintain an open list of links to articles, research and interesting takes related to digital ethics that I read.
It's right now up to 2,641 bookmarks.
I suppose I really don't have to mention this list has been overrun by AI topics in the last months.
I made a landing page for it here and yes there is an RSS feed, if that is how you roll:
https://axbom.com/delinks/
#DigitalEthics #AIEthics
@lebout2canap
👍 Do you keep one in your pocket, or several in different places for easy access?
1) Get an idea.
2) Open phone to note down idea.
3) Get distracted by a notification or app.
4) Spend 5-10 minutes dealing with something else entirely.
5) Lose track of what I was actually trying to do.
6) Repeat.
This is how my phone makes me bit dumber, step-by-step, every day.
My take: Any research saying that ChatGPT provides more empathetic responses to vulnerable patients is irrelevant as long as the company can not guarantee that a response from ChatGPT won’t encourage self-harm, be racist or in others ways provide advice that hurts a patient.
As it turns out, no such guarantees can be given.
Also, in the study everyone is quoting, the study evaluators were also co-authors. Hmm...
Do read Jenniffer Lycette's reflection on this study, bringing everyone back to reality. Lycette is a rural community hematologist/oncologist and writer in Oregon. Her first novel is “The Algorithm Will See You Now".
https://www.statnews.com/2023/05/04/medical-chatbots-empathy-research-human-doctors/
@Beantin
Great storytelling! 😁
@markhurst
@markhurst
Great post. I agree all the way.
@BjornToftMadsen
Very good catch. Thank you! 🙏
@Merovius 😁 Sorry. Bear in mind that this was an example and it is the full impression of the text that I have issues with. But that said, finding other ways to express this can do wonders for your text and finding your own form 😊
These words from Harvard’s writing center bring home the point.
> Avoid phrases like "in conclusion," "to conclude," "in summary," and "to sum up." These phrases can be useful--even welcome--in oral presentations. But readers can see, by the tell-tale compression of the pages, when an essay is about to end. You'll irritate your audience if you belabor the obvious.
Harvard College Writing Center:
https://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/ending-essay-conclusions
The Writing Center at George Mason University also addresses this:
https://writingcenter.gmu.edu/articles/7015
@Beantin @brad_frost
Here's when we booked that interview 😁
https://twitter.com/beantin/status/350622986379857921?s=20
Will be in Lisbon next week doing interviews with @Beantin for @uxpodcast at #UXLx.
Just a heads up if anyone here is also there and wants to say hi. 😊
@MaierAmsden
Good counterpoint. While Mark Mason takes a stance about "good" in his article I would assume the underlying theory itself does not account for a value perspective. Whether or not something ruins your experience will always be based on your own context and values.
On the other hand, one way of interpreting the whole argument is that the neo-Nazis are few in number and the reason you are seeing their arguments at all is because of the network effects that bring attention to their relatively small bucket of content. That notion perhaps fails by extension when the nazis are using AI-tools to amplify their messaging.
Your point is valid and I think the the reasoning in the opinion piece may need some additional work. The landscape of trolls and how they are amplified keeps changing.