[aiethics] Let's begin...

[Brenda R. Freedman]

Alicebot AI Ethics Committee - http://www.alicebot.org


I agree this should be an open discussion area because AI is so new to =
the=20
majority of people, and with the AI movie only weeks away, there will be =

new discussions and much imagination to fuel the debate. There is =
nothing=20
more exciting then sparking the imaginations of people by allowing them =
to=20
talk and think freely. I worked in a corporate atmosphere and Noel is =
right=20
on target, it stifles creativity; and caused many frustrating times for =
me.=20
I then went on to work for an online community and had a chance to be=20
creative until they became a corporate entity and became a political=20
battlefield. Not that I do not like a good debate, it is when I am told=20
"you have to do this and follow all the rules" that I tend to rebel just =
a=20
bit (although those that know me will say "only a bit').

The theory or opinion I should state that as technology excels, machines =

will become super intelligent and exceed human intelligence. If you look =
at=20
the whole picture it makes sense. I have no doubt that machines will =
bring=20
us to exploration of other worlds and one day we will exceed the speed =
of=20
light despite the present laws of physics. I do not know how or when but =
I=20
have always believed we will not only visit but discover many things in =
the=20
Universe outside of our own galaxy. It probably will not happen in our=20
generation and maybe not for a billion years, but I believe it will =
occur.=20
Our time here on this planet is but an eye blink or less in the scheme =
of=20
things and like to think of my own involvement with AI as the other=20
inventors in the not too distant past have envisioned with their own=20
inventions. We only have to look to Alice to get a glimpse of the =
future.

We have the best opportunity on this discussion group to make an impact, =

and to allow people to become part of a process that can  enhance their=20
lives. I am looking forward to being a part of this group.

Brenda



>Pedro wrote:
>
> > I think a clear statement of policy is needed from the foundation
> > before to start on the purpose and goals of this forum in order to
> > refine it and elaborate on details.
> >
> > Otherwise the debates might lead to nowhere.
>
>Noel wrote:

>Hey Pedro, I agree with you w/r/t other committees, but I think that =
the
>ethics committee is a real exception to this. I think that this is one =
where
>the floor is wide open, and should remain so for some time. I think =
that the
>AI ethics discussion will work *most* fruitfully as a sort of =
free-for-all,
>where all manner of messages fly about, ranging from paranoiac =
fantasies
>about bots taking over the world to carefully reasoned arguments, =
heated
>personal arguments, and the whole nine yards. I think that a discussion =
of
>ethics can't be reasonably constrained by anything! This is the place =
to
>"let it all hang out". If the ethics mailing list were a room, I would =
put a
>big "BEWARE" sign on the door. This ought to be the list that will =
flood
>your mailbox with hundreds of messages a day!!! :-)
>
>Really, I'm serious. This is the kind of topic that stirs up lots of =
energy
>in people. Everyone has opinions about ethics. Every opinion has some
>implicit ethics. Discussions of ethics are by nature irrational and
>anarchic. I may be subverting the Chair by saying all this :-), but I =
would
>encourage a completely "rhizomatic" (cf. Deleuze & Guattari or
>www.rhizome.org if you prefer) discussion on this list. I think this is =
an
>"open space".
>
>"Open space": Rather than getting myself a "proper" education, I spent =
my
>meager years of higher education in a zany and credentialless =
experimental
>department of tiny Bard College in a program called "Music Program =
Zero".
>The entire curriculum of this department depended entirely on
>self-organization. A key component of the program was something called =
a
>"commonspace", which was a weekly meeting open to the whole community
>(meaning students and anyone) in which people would appear and, um, do
>something. I say "um, do something" because in this space there was =
rarely a
>fixed agenda. One time I arrived early and brought gigantic sheets of =
black
>plastic which I used to turn the whole space into a lightless cave. =
Everyone
>who arrived was greeted with a warning sign on the door, and when they
>entered they spent 2 hours sitting in the dark with the complete =
recordings
>of Blind Willie Johnson playing at maximum volume. There was no =
discussion
>afterwards, no metatext to give everyone a set of instructions about =
how to
>think or what to think about. Afterwards people were variously angry,
>befuddled, inspired, blase, etc. The professor branded me a sadist. My =
aim
>had simply been to create a very immersive listening experience. The =
social
>aspects were frightening, sitting in the utter darkness with strangers
>listening to this music that covers a wide range of intensities and
>topicalities and banalities and profundities within a very narrow sonic
>expressive bandwidth. I'm not sure what the outcome of this was -- I =
mean
>that nothing in future discussions was directly "traceable" to =
particular
>"inputs" from this event. But in its radical refusal to be explicit in =
its
>discourse and total in its ontological prioritization of *experience* =
over
>description it typified the work of that program.
>
>There were for sure ethical issues being addressed in work like that. =
In
>fact many "issues" were addressed -- also a fair amount of time wasted =
--
>but the absence of any regulated process with an associated =
hard-and-fast
>risk/reward ratio brought with it the possibility, occasionally =
realized, of
>making more profound progress than any academic structure would permit.
>
>On the other hand, as the person responsible for organizing the =
day-to-day
>development work of a company that had about ten product development =
efforts
>and numerous customer projects going on simultaneously, and a
>frequently-shifting set of priorities for the same, I had to organize
>development team work in a way that would produce real results, and =
fast,
>and within budgetary constraints. Never mind that most of those results
>never got out the door; nonetheless work had to get done and it did. =
What I
>frequently noticed in those experiences was that many good ideas had to =
be
>tossed out the window. Part of my job, in fact, was to try to make
>on-the-spot evaluations of whether the idea someone was proposing was
>relevant to the task at hand, and if not, to quickly "can it" before
>resources allocated to the project were wasted. I found this a
>not-so-pleasant task, because in the corporate setting there is usually =
no
>outlet for creative energies.
>
>Very little of interest was addressed, consequently, except a business =
plan.
>
>Alice is a unique situation because everybody involved is doing it =
freely,
>purely on the basis of self-motivation. Nobody is employed by Alice =
Inc. We
>still have the same need to channel energies, though. The architecture
>mailing list became moderated precisely because it rapidly deformed =
into a
>collective stream of consciousness in which few ideas were traceable, =
very
>little of an agenda clear. Even in its reincarnation it's still =
bursting
>with ideas and will need to have a more explicit agenda set soon.
>
>But the ethics list is, I think, the place for a lot of that "excess"
>energy. Most of the discussions we can have about ethical issues are =
purely
>speculative. We are not at this moment threatened by Matrix-like =
extinction
>from superbots. It is still possible to slam the door when the Grim
>Singularity comes calling. As Rich said in our published conversation, =
there
>are far more serious and pressing issues in the world today than what =
to do
>about bots. That doesn't mean this conversation isn't interesting; =
quite the
>contrary, as evidenced. And when bot technology becomes more =
sophisticated
>and more pervasive, we may indeed have something to worry about. In the
>meantime, this is a great place to exercise our minds, our capacities =
for
>imagining all kinds of weird possibilities, even to expose our =
fantasies
>about what those of us interested in bots are really after. From all of =
this
>self-organization and mutual titillation and provocation and so on =
ought to
>come not hard and fast results, but attitudes -- attitudes with clearer
>shapes, deeper convictions.
>
>Noel
>
>