#ethics21 - Ethics, Size and Influence

After lurking casually for a few weeks (my training schedule always conflicted with the live discussions) I was finally able to attend one of the twice weekly zoom calls that Stephen Downes facilitates as part of Ethics, Analytics and the Duty of Care. It was time well-spent.

Since I've been "invisible" for most of the course, I mostly listened. There were numerous insights that sparked and endless trail of considerations.

One main point: our AI will be as ethical as we and society are (Downes). But what if the AI gets ahead of us? What if artificial intelligence moves from mimicking our own ethics (as varied as they are) into creating its own? As the AI evolves (as Sherida pointed out) who claims the discussion? Who manages the management? We may well find ourselves governed by an ethic with didn't choose.

I kept thinking of the article from Wired, The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete, which shows how ethics is influenced by the sheer speed and massive volume of disruption as organizations have begun to rely more on data, that data has taken over directing the course. Apparently, if the data set is large enough "we" feel comfortable simply abandoning the old caution that "correlation is not causality" with the new acceptance that, since it is so massive, "correlation is enough." That makes me uncomfortable, but then so does the power of so much data. AI can simply decide much faster than humans.

Some of the interesting questions raised during our discussion:

Is there such a thing as "society" or does everything get done by individuals and groups? (Mark Wilson)
Are we reaching a point (massive crowd share?) when "society" IS acting as ONE?
How do we (and how should we) feel about Autonomous Armed Quadropeds? (we decided not to refer to these as Robot Dogs)
Are non-players (those who don't care to influence the ethics of it all) excluded?
Are ethics independent from consensus or even concordance?
Does all of this massive shifting feed the desire for control, perhaps by one person or a powerful few?
How will AI handle deviance? Will it tend to zero out deviance?

After Mark raised that last question, Stephen gave a long explorative answer which, convinced me that AI will not, ultimately, zero out deviance - because deviance will arise in response to a loss of influence. I drew this in my notes in response:

The short answer is "no, AI will not zero out deviance." I'm not sure my chart clarifies this, but I find hope in thinking that ethics is always open to our input, small as it may be, and that any tool that can be used can be used by opposing forces.

If those opposing forces were directly equal, as Downes pointed out, we'd achieve stasis. But, stasis is NOT the way of the universe. Change is.

The same tools (even neutral tools) are subject to use by competing agendas.

We look forward to future iterations of this MOOC. As more people join the discussion utilizing the resources that Stephen has so diligently gathered, the program will grow ever more robust, and perhaps, influential in helping create a world of learning built on ethics we can live with and embrace.

-- doug smith

Comments

Measures Matter

Some people measure quantify first and quality later. Some people measure money first and impact to the team later (not even second!). How you measure productivity might determine your character and your reputation. Put people first. -- doug smith

Your Reputation

More authority means higher levels of responsibility. More power requires more service to others, not less. What you do with your power is who you will be known as. Also, how you use the power you have creates who people will remember you as. How do you want to be remembered? -- doug smith

What You Need

Use what you've learned to become what you need. -- doug smith

New Ideas

New ideas won't break you but they can make you bigger. -- doug smith

Personally

Improving performance does require us to take our work seriously. But it does not require us to take ourselves too seriously. Taking things personally is a waste of self-esteem. -- doug smith

For example

Get good at something that won't obsolete itself. For example: emotional intelligence creating great conversations encouraging people leadership What would you add to the list? Which ones are you developing? -- doug smith

Decide

What do you want? Are you getting what you want? Intention is direction. Decide. And, then go. -- doug smith

High Performance Leadership Combination

We can rationalize anything without making it justified. Leaders should always ask: who is this good for other than me? High performance leadership does NOT mean performance at any cost. It means performance that serves a noble cause while also benefiting people. High performance leadership is a combination. Results without relationships are shallow and temporary. Take care of both, and you'll be a high performance leader. -- doug smith

Start With Kindness

When you start with kindness you don't have to stay there, but you probably will. It works better for others. It works better for you. If you're human, you'll probably relapse. It does take practice to stay the course. The course starts by starting. When you start with kindness, it becomes more naturally the way. High performance leadership develops from the core leadership strengths of clarity, creativity, courage, and compassion. Build one of those strengths today thru some act of kindness and the others will get stronger as well. -- doug smith

The Problem With Compromises

Think about the last time you compromised on something. Whether it was a big compromise or a little compromise, how do you feel about it now? While we often call it "meet in the middle" it seldom does. Compromises are not automatically fair, no matter how implied that fairness is. Someone usually gets more out of a compromise than the person they are "compromising" with. If the low end is you, you don't like it -- and you remember that. If the top end of the compromise is you, you probably forget all about it even though the inequity simmers in the background. Compromises must be constantly revisited because they are inevitably unfair. If you get the chance to balance things out, your relationship will prosper. If you miss that chance, the relationship will suffer. What's your choice? -- doug smith

High Performance Leadership

Search This Blog