Vatican, Catholic colleges weigh-in on emerging AI ethics debate

Jack Jenkins
National Catholic Reporter
Originally posted May 25, 2019

Here is an excerpt:

Mastrofini also noted that the partnership emerged after Pope Francis asked the academy to study the topic of ethics and AI.

"The technologies are advancing but they are not neutral," he told Religion News Service via email. "The Church, expert in humanity, can show the way for a development that makes the world more human and fair."

Microsoft officials declined to comment on the meeting.

The conversation between the Pope and Smith is one of several recent attempts by religious groups to wade into Silicon Valley's ongoing debate over the ethics of artificial intelligence.

Not long after Microsoft announced its partnership with the Vatican, Francis addressed the issue directly during a speech to a plenary meeting of the Pontifical Academy for Life. The pontiff noted that he had previously spoken to the seriousness of artificial intelligence during his January 2018 address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, but doubled-down on the potential dangers of misusing technology.

"It should be noted that the designation of 'artificial intelligence,' although certainly effective, may risk being misleading," Francis told the Pontifical Academy. "The terms conceal the fact that — in spite of the useful fulfillment of servile tasks (this is the original meaning of the term 'robot'), functional automatisms remain qualitatively distant from the human prerogatives of knowledge and action. And therefore they can become socially dangerous."

The info is here.

When states monitored their citizens we used to call them authoritarian. Now we think this is what keeps us safe

By Susan Moore
The Guardian - Comments
Originally published July 3, 2013

Here is an excerpt:

What I failed to grasp, though, was quite how much I had already surrendered my liberty, not just personally but my political ideals about what liberty means. I simply took for granted that everyone can see everything and laughed at the idea that Obama will be looking at my pictures of a cat dressed as a lobster. I was resigned to the fact that some random FBI merchant will wonder at the inane and profane nature of my drunken tweets.

Slowly but surely, The Lives of Others have become ours. CCTV cameras everywhere watch us, so we no longer watch out for each other. Public space is controlled. Of course, much CCTV footage is never seen and often useless. But we don't need the panopticon once we have built one in our own minds. We are all suspects.

Or at least consumers. iTunes thinks I might like Bowie; Amazon thinks I want a compact tumble dryer. Really? Facebook seems to think I want to date men in uniform. I revel in the fact that the algorithms get it as wrong as the man who knocks on my door selling fish out of a van. "And not just fish," as he sometimes says mysteriously.

The entire comment is here.

Avoiding the digital ‘flock’

By Chuck Leddy,
Harvard Gazette
Originally published June 27, 2013

Here are two excerpts:

Digital tools actually encourage flocking (called “homophily” by social scientists), Zuckerman said. For instance, “Facebook is very good at connecting us with people we’re already connected with.”  Zuckerman also mentioned Facebook’s search function, which personalizes results based on your “likes” and the preferences of your friends. “It’s kind of creepy,” said Zuckerman. “I’m not sure I want my friends pre-filtering for me.”

Whether in the real or virtual worlds, said Zuckerman, “We have a talent for finding people with the same socioeconomic background or racial background. But this tendency to flock may be keeping us from finding the information we need,” and the tools we’ve built for the Internet only enhance our flocking bias.

“My fear is that our tools are not promoting diversity,” said Zuckerman, whose appearance served as a launch party for his book “Rewire.” Personalization tools “want to give you precisely what you want, to make you comfortable” and ready to buy things, he said. “The danger is that we may be driven into small circles of the same content,” a sort of digital self-segregation into echo chambers where none of our assumptions get scrutinized.

(cut)

How then should people manage their tendency to seek out like-minded folk? First, they need to track their behavior for the presence of flocking bias. Zuckerman showed a graph exposing his own Twitter “follow bias”: Only 27 percent of the people he follows are women. “This is an embarrassing slide,” Zuckerman said, “but now when I follow someone, I think about” the follow bias. He said people need to be self-reflective about their media-consumption preferences, and push back against them. “I know that left on my own, I’d spend all my time reading cute cat macros on Reddit” or constantly consuming news about his beloved Green Bay Packers.

The entire story is here.

Morality and ethics - the 'next big thing' for IT suppliers

By Brian Glick
Computer Weekly Editor's Blog
Originally published on June 10, 2013

Here is an excerpt:

But with that greater influence, comes greater responsibility. It is inevitable there would be a backlash, and that backlash is well and truly underway.

IT was at the heart of the global boom in financial services. Today it stands accused of enabling the behaviours of bankers that crippled Western economies.

Facebook and social media have transformed personal communications, enabled new communities and improved information sharing for all. But at what cost for privacy of our personal information.

Google and Amazon have made it easy to find information, to buy quickly and cheaply, opening up new knowledge and commercial opportunities. And they are pilloried as arrogant tax avoiders.

But the biggest example of the dark side of technology so far is dominating front pages and web pages alike around the world - the US National Security Agency (NSA) monitoring of electronic communications, and the allegations of complicity on the part of the global internet giants that provide that data.

Look at all the great things the web allows us to do - and look at how easy that makes it to create a surveillance society. As someone said recently, if you could give George Orwell one Tweet from beyond the grave, he would write: "I told you so #Prism".

This backlash is an inevitable stage in the progress of technology and the digital revolution, but of course it presents challenges on a scale that the world has never before had to comprehend.

The entire blog post is here.

Cyberharassment and Cyberstalking

Bruce E. Mapes, Ph.D., and Samuel Knapp, Ed.D.

                                                           

As the list of potential uses of technology to aid the practice of psychology grows, so does the list of potential misuses by disturbed or angry clients. For example, social network sites and public tax or utility records can provide personal information about a psychologist. A virus or worm may be embedded in or attached to an e-mail. An e-mail sent to a client may be modified. For example, in response to his client’s e-mail, Dr. Smith wrote “I am concerned about your distress and would like you to come to my office this evening.” The client edited the message to read “I am concerned about your wife’s distress and would like her to come to my office this evening”; the e-mail was forwarded to his attorney who was representing him in a custody hearing the following day. More recently, computers have become a means to harass or stalk psychologists.

Cyberstalking (CS) and cyberharassment (CH) are relatively new problems. Although they share many characteristics, the primary difference is CS most likely involves the risk of offline contact and physical harm, while CH involves the intent to attack character or reputation. Both may be driven by revenge, mental illness, jealousy, or anger, but CH may also be driven by the desire to intimidate or embarrass the victim. The anonymity of the Internet often empowers the individual to send multiple e-mails or text messages to the victim or to the victim’s significant others. Or the individual may hack into the victim’s computer; sign up the victim for spam or porn sites; send offensive e-mails in the name of the victim; or post on Web sites and include fabricated, misrepresented, or embellished information about the victim.

Although Canada has passed laws for both CH and CS, the United States has been slower in passing legislation, especially for CH. Some of the reasons for the lack of legislation include: (1) issues of legal jurisdiction since the Internet is an international medium; (2) limited resources to collect and authenticate evidence; and (3) the double-edged sword of free speech. Typically, CS is handled through the criminal courts and CH is handled through the civil courts. If CH is related to a custody matter, it may be possible to pursue criminal charges under laws related to intimidation or harassment of a court official or witness. Victims may try to file a complaint with the harasser’s ISP to have the account canceled or the Web site shut down. This is rarely successful since the ISP is not a publisher, but rather a means to access the Internet and therefore can rarely be held accountable for the “free speech” of the harasser.

When stalkers attempt to meet the victim offline, immediate consultation should be sought from law enforcement because this may pose a serious threat to the victim’s safety and welfare. Pursuing civil action in the case of CH can be more difficult. Harassers typically represent themselves which can result in a very lengthy process (years) and excessive attorney fees for victims. Even if victims are able to win damages and attorney fees, they may not actually collect any money, and it is unlikely the civil court will issue an order to shut the site down.

In the case of CH, the victim should keep a file of all offensive messages and posts, but should not provide intermittent reinforcers by responding. Typically, the harasser needs to be in control and wants to debate. Any response usually results in exchanges which escalate and can quickly get out of control (flaming wars). Harassers want to be recognized and will continue to make postings that are likely to become more outlandish and/or unbelievable, and ultimately discredit themselves. Most harassers discontinue when after a while they fail to elicit a response from the victim.

Harassment and stalking are stressful. Psychologists who are victims may experience a variety of symptoms, including but not limited to anger, demoralization, withdrawing, hypervigilance, avoidance of the computer, excessive self-consciousness, sleep disturbance, nightmares, impairment in concentration and memory, hypersensitivity to the comments or actions of colleagues and clients, and other symptoms common to prolonged stress. Psychologists who are victims should continue regular personal and professional routines, and remain active in recreational activities, family activities, and other activities that will help to reduce the preoccupation with and the harm from the CH. As in other situations, if the “symptoms” begin to impact one’s daily functioning, the psychologist should consult with a colleague or contact PPA’s colleague assistance resources.

For additional information on CS, CH, topics such as cyber-bullying, ways to protect yourself, and other resources, the reader is referred to the Stalking Resource Center, a program of the National Center for Victims of Crime (www.ncvc.org), and Cyber911 Emergency at www.wiredsafety.org. Occasionally google your own name to see in what contexts it may be used on the Internet.