The American Lawyer
First published on May 11, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Ross, “the world’s first artificially intelligent attorney” built on IBM’s cognitive computer Watson, was designed to read and understand language, postulate hypotheses when asked questions, research, and then generate responses (along with references and citations) to back up its conclusions. Ross also learns from experience, gaining speed and knowledge the more you interact with it.
“You ask your questions in plain English, as you would a colleague, and ROSS then reads through the entire body of law and returns a cited answer and topical readings from legislation, case law and secondary sources to get you up-to-speed quickly,” the website says. “In addition, ROSS monitors the law around the clock to notify you of new court decisions that can affect your case.”
The article is here.
Here is a video ad for Watson. For me, it is both amazing and scary.
Monday, May 30, 2016
Sunday, May 29, 2016
In ethics debate, what to disclose at issue
By David Saleh Rauf
The Houston Chronicle
Originally posted May 28, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
More than 30,350 certificates have been filed with the ethics commission, a process Capriglione says is "like watching transparency happen every single day."
However, implementing the far-reaching law has proven complicated. Regulators have been inundated with questions since the law touches on contracts approved by state agencies, cities, counties, school districts or any special districts like a water authority.
Industry groups, which unsuccessfully waged a late attempt to have Abbott veto the law, said they have been unsure of what to disclose.
The article is here.
The Houston Chronicle
Originally posted May 28, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
More than 30,350 certificates have been filed with the ethics commission, a process Capriglione says is "like watching transparency happen every single day."
However, implementing the far-reaching law has proven complicated. Regulators have been inundated with questions since the law touches on contracts approved by state agencies, cities, counties, school districts or any special districts like a water authority.
Industry groups, which unsuccessfully waged a late attempt to have Abbott veto the law, said they have been unsure of what to disclose.
The article is here.
Corruption? Here? Bill would require ethics training for N.J. elected officials
By S. P. Sullivan
NJ.com
Originally posted May 9, 2016
In an effort to stem public corruption scandals, the state Senate on Monday unanimously passed a bill that would require all New Jersey elected officials undergo ethics training as soon as they're elected.
The bill (S84) mandates elected officials take the training within six months of their first term. Officials who skip out on the ethics education would face a $5,000 fine.
Sponsors of the legislation point to investigations by the state Comptroller's Office, which over the years has detailed many examples of public corruption, as evidence that the training is needed.
The article is here.
NJ.com
Originally posted May 9, 2016
In an effort to stem public corruption scandals, the state Senate on Monday unanimously passed a bill that would require all New Jersey elected officials undergo ethics training as soon as they're elected.
The bill (S84) mandates elected officials take the training within six months of their first term. Officials who skip out on the ethics education would face a $5,000 fine.
Sponsors of the legislation point to investigations by the state Comptroller's Office, which over the years has detailed many examples of public corruption, as evidence that the training is needed.
The article is here.
The job of ‘ethics committees’ should be ethically informed code consistency review
Søren Holm
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103343
Moore and Donnelly argue in the paper ‘The job of “ethics committees”’ that research ethics committees should be renamed and that their job should be specified as “review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code” only. They raise a large number of issues, but in this comment I briefly want to suggest that two of their arguments are fundamentally flawed.
The first flawed argument is the argument related to the separation of powers. Moore and Donnelly proceed from the premise that it is pro tanto better to have an institutional arrangement that separates code-making powers and decisional powers, and then proceed to argue that this separation is not feasible for what they call ‘ethics consistency review’ because “no matter who established any prespecified review standards, the review decision maker must be empowered at review to revise those standards when this would make for an ethical improvement.
The response article is here.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-103343
Moore and Donnelly argue in the paper ‘The job of “ethics committees”’ that research ethics committees should be renamed and that their job should be specified as “review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code” only. They raise a large number of issues, but in this comment I briefly want to suggest that two of their arguments are fundamentally flawed.
The first flawed argument is the argument related to the separation of powers. Moore and Donnelly proceed from the premise that it is pro tanto better to have an institutional arrangement that separates code-making powers and decisional powers, and then proceed to argue that this separation is not feasible for what they call ‘ethics consistency review’ because “no matter who established any prespecified review standards, the review decision maker must be empowered at review to revise those standards when this would make for an ethical improvement.
The response article is here.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
The job of ‘ethics committees’
Andrew Moore and Andrew Donnelly
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102688
Abstract
What should authorities establish as the job of ethics committees and review boards? Two answers are: (1) review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code and (2) review of proposals for ethical acceptability. The present paper argues that these two jobs come apart in principle and in practice. On grounds of practicality, publicity and separation of powers, it argues that the relevant authorities do better to establish code-consistency review and not ethics-consistency review. It also rebuts bad code and independence arguments for the opposite view. It then argues that authorities at present variously specify both code-consistency and ethics-consistency jobs, but most are also unclear on this issue. The paper then argues that they should reform the job of review boards and ethics committees, by clearly establishing code-consistency review and disestablishing ethics-consistency review, and through related reform of the basic orientation, focus, name, and expertise profile of these bodies and their actions.
The article is here.
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102688
Abstract
What should authorities establish as the job of ethics committees and review boards? Two answers are: (1) review of proposals for consistency with the duly established and applicable code and (2) review of proposals for ethical acceptability. The present paper argues that these two jobs come apart in principle and in practice. On grounds of practicality, publicity and separation of powers, it argues that the relevant authorities do better to establish code-consistency review and not ethics-consistency review. It also rebuts bad code and independence arguments for the opposite view. It then argues that authorities at present variously specify both code-consistency and ethics-consistency jobs, but most are also unclear on this issue. The paper then argues that they should reform the job of review boards and ethics committees, by clearly establishing code-consistency review and disestablishing ethics-consistency review, and through related reform of the basic orientation, focus, name, and expertise profile of these bodies and their actions.
The article is here.
Friday, May 27, 2016
Scientific Studies, Hype, Limitations and Media
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Originally aired May 8, 2016
Originally aired May 8, 2016
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Cosmopolitan ethics
Muhammad Ali Musofer
Dawn
Originally posted May 6, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Looking at the ethical challenges of a connected world, social scientists have been seeking such ethical principles that should be inclusive and help people of diverse backgrounds live in harmony and peace. Over time, different ethical perspectives, with different terms, have been proposed to deal with ethical issues of the contemporary world, and cosmopolitan ethics is one the most discussed ethical perspectives.
The concept of cosmopolitism can be traced in different societies in history; however, after the Second World War, the term ‘cosmopolitan ethics’ received increasing attention from scholars. Broadly speaking, cosmopolitan ethics is based on the principle that all human beings belong to a single community. Cosmopolitan ethics envisage a society where inclusive morality, shared economic interest and social relationship is used to encompass cultural differences. A cosmopolitan society regards the difference of identities and values as strengths. It encourages dialogue within and between cultures and societies to make this world a better place to live in.
The article is here.
Dawn
Originally posted May 6, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Looking at the ethical challenges of a connected world, social scientists have been seeking such ethical principles that should be inclusive and help people of diverse backgrounds live in harmony and peace. Over time, different ethical perspectives, with different terms, have been proposed to deal with ethical issues of the contemporary world, and cosmopolitan ethics is one the most discussed ethical perspectives.
The concept of cosmopolitism can be traced in different societies in history; however, after the Second World War, the term ‘cosmopolitan ethics’ received increasing attention from scholars. Broadly speaking, cosmopolitan ethics is based on the principle that all human beings belong to a single community. Cosmopolitan ethics envisage a society where inclusive morality, shared economic interest and social relationship is used to encompass cultural differences. A cosmopolitan society regards the difference of identities and values as strengths. It encourages dialogue within and between cultures and societies to make this world a better place to live in.
The article is here.
Morality When the Mind is Unknowable
By Rita A. McNamara
Character and Content
Originally posted on May 2, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Our ability to infer the presence and content of other minds is a fundamental building block underlying the intuitions about right and wrong that we use to navigate our social worlds. People living in Western societies often identify internal motives, dispositions, and desires as the causes of all human action. That these behavioral drivers are inside of another mind is not an issue because, in this Western model of mind, people can be read like books – observers can infer other people’s motives and desires and use these inferences to understand and predict behavior. Given this Western model of mind as an internally coherent, autonomous driver of action, the effort spent on determining whether Martin meant to harm Barras seems so obviously justified as to go without question. But this is not necessarily the case for all cultures.
In many societies, people focus far more on relational ties and polite observance of social duties than on internal mental states. On the other end of the cultural spectrum of mental state focus, some small-scale societies have ‘Opacity of Mind’ norms that directly prohibit inference about mental states. In contrast to the Western model of mind, these Opacity of Mind norms often suggest that it is either impossible to know what another person is thinking, or rude to intrude into others’ private mental space. So, while mental state reasoning is a key foundation for intuitions about right and wrong, these intuitions and mental state perceptions are also dependent upon cultural influences.
The information is here.
Character and Content
Originally posted on May 2, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
Our ability to infer the presence and content of other minds is a fundamental building block underlying the intuitions about right and wrong that we use to navigate our social worlds. People living in Western societies often identify internal motives, dispositions, and desires as the causes of all human action. That these behavioral drivers are inside of another mind is not an issue because, in this Western model of mind, people can be read like books – observers can infer other people’s motives and desires and use these inferences to understand and predict behavior. Given this Western model of mind as an internally coherent, autonomous driver of action, the effort spent on determining whether Martin meant to harm Barras seems so obviously justified as to go without question. But this is not necessarily the case for all cultures.
In many societies, people focus far more on relational ties and polite observance of social duties than on internal mental states. On the other end of the cultural spectrum of mental state focus, some small-scale societies have ‘Opacity of Mind’ norms that directly prohibit inference about mental states. In contrast to the Western model of mind, these Opacity of Mind norms often suggest that it is either impossible to know what another person is thinking, or rude to intrude into others’ private mental space. So, while mental state reasoning is a key foundation for intuitions about right and wrong, these intuitions and mental state perceptions are also dependent upon cultural influences.
The information is here.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Should we be afraid of AI?
by Luciano Floridi
Aeon
Originally posted May 9, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
We should make AI environment-friendly. We need the smartest technologies we can build to tackle the concrete evils oppressing humanity and our planet, from environmental disasters to financial crises, from crime, terrorism and war, to famine, poverty, ignorance, inequality and appalling living standards.
We should make AI human-friendly. It should be used to treat people always as ends, never as mere means, to paraphrase Immanuel Kant.
We should make AI’s stupidity work for human intelligence. Millions of jobs will be disrupted, eliminated and created; the benefits of this should be shared by all, and the costs borne by society.
We should make AI’s predictive power work for freedom and autonomy. Marketing products, influencing behaviours, nudging people or fighting crime and terrorism should never undermine human dignity.
And finally, we should make AI make us more human. The serious risk is that we might misuse our smart technologies, to the detriment of most of humanity and the whole planet. Winston Churchill said that ‘we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’. This applies to the infosphere and its smart technologies as well.
The article is here.
Aeon
Originally posted May 9, 2016
Here is an excerpt:
We should make AI environment-friendly. We need the smartest technologies we can build to tackle the concrete evils oppressing humanity and our planet, from environmental disasters to financial crises, from crime, terrorism and war, to famine, poverty, ignorance, inequality and appalling living standards.
We should make AI human-friendly. It should be used to treat people always as ends, never as mere means, to paraphrase Immanuel Kant.
We should make AI’s stupidity work for human intelligence. Millions of jobs will be disrupted, eliminated and created; the benefits of this should be shared by all, and the costs borne by society.
We should make AI’s predictive power work for freedom and autonomy. Marketing products, influencing behaviours, nudging people or fighting crime and terrorism should never undermine human dignity.
And finally, we should make AI make us more human. The serious risk is that we might misuse our smart technologies, to the detriment of most of humanity and the whole planet. Winston Churchill said that ‘we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us’. This applies to the infosphere and its smart technologies as well.
The article is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)