Michael Spencer
www.medium.com
Originally published January 6, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Facebook is scanning nearly every post on the platform in an attempt to assess suicide risk. Sadly, Facebook has a long history of conducting “experiments” on its users. It’s hard to own a stock that itself isn’t trustworthy either for democracy or our personal data.
Facebook acts a bit like a social surveillance program, where it passes the information (suicide score) along to law enforcement for wellness checks. That’s pretty much like state surveillance, what’s the difference?
Privacy experts say Facebook’s failure to get affirmative consent from users for the program presents privacy risks that could lead to exposure or worse. Facebook has a history with sharing our personal data with other technology companies. So we are being profiled in the most intimate ways by third parties we didn’t even know had our data.
In March 2017, Facebook launched an ambitious project to prevent suicide with artificial intelligence but what is the real reason they make these contructs? It’s to monetize our data, it’s not to “help humanity” or connect the world.
The info is here.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
What Could Be Wrong with a Little ‘Moral Clarity’?
Frank Guan
The New York Times Magazine
Originally posted January 2, 2019
If, in politics, words are weapons, they often prove themselves double—edged. So it was when, on the summer night that Alexandria Ocasio—Cortez learned that she had won a Democratic congressional primary over a 10-term incumbent, she provided a resonant quote to a TV reporter. “I think what we’ve seen is that working—class Americans want a clear champion,” she said, “and there is nothing radical about moral clarity in 2018.” Dozens of news videos and articles would cite those words as journalists worked to interpret what Ocasio—Cortez’s triumph, repeated in November’s general election, might represent for the American left and its newest star.
Until recently, “moral clarity” was more likely to signal combativeness toward the left, not from it: It served for decades as a badge of membership among conservative hawks and cultural crusaders. But in the Trump era, militant certainty takes precedence across the political spectrum. On the left, “moral clarity” can mean taking an unyielding stand against economic inequality or social injustice, climate change or gun violence. Closer to the center, it can take on a sonorous, transpartisan tone, as when Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, and former Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, each called for “moral clarity” in the White House reaction to the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. And it can fly beyond politics altogether, as when the surgeon and author Atul Gawande writes that better health care “does not take genius. It takes diligence. It takes moral clarity.” We hear about moral clarity any time there is impatience with equivocation, delay, conciliation and confusion — whenever people long for rapid action based on truths they hold to be self—evident.
The info is here.
The New York Times Magazine
Originally posted January 2, 2019
If, in politics, words are weapons, they often prove themselves double—edged. So it was when, on the summer night that Alexandria Ocasio—Cortez learned that she had won a Democratic congressional primary over a 10-term incumbent, she provided a resonant quote to a TV reporter. “I think what we’ve seen is that working—class Americans want a clear champion,” she said, “and there is nothing radical about moral clarity in 2018.” Dozens of news videos and articles would cite those words as journalists worked to interpret what Ocasio—Cortez’s triumph, repeated in November’s general election, might represent for the American left and its newest star.
Until recently, “moral clarity” was more likely to signal combativeness toward the left, not from it: It served for decades as a badge of membership among conservative hawks and cultural crusaders. But in the Trump era, militant certainty takes precedence across the political spectrum. On the left, “moral clarity” can mean taking an unyielding stand against economic inequality or social injustice, climate change or gun violence. Closer to the center, it can take on a sonorous, transpartisan tone, as when Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat, and former Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican, each called for “moral clarity” in the White House reaction to the murder of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. And it can fly beyond politics altogether, as when the surgeon and author Atul Gawande writes that better health care “does not take genius. It takes diligence. It takes moral clarity.” We hear about moral clarity any time there is impatience with equivocation, delay, conciliation and confusion — whenever people long for rapid action based on truths they hold to be self—evident.
The info is here.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
New tech doorbells can record video, and that's an ethics problem
Molly Wood
www.marketplace.org
Originally posted January 17, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Ring is pretty clear in its terms and conditions that people are allowing Ring employees to access videos, not live streams, but cached videos. And that's in order to train that artificial intelligence to be better at recognizing neighbors, because they're trying to roll out a feature where they use facial recognition to match with the people that are considered safe. So if I have the Ring cameras, I can say, "All these are safe people. Here's pictures of my kids, my neighbors. If it's not one of these people, consider them unsafe." So that's a new technology. They need to be able to train their algorithms to recognize who's a person, what's a car, what's a cat. Some subset of the videos that are being uploaded just for typical usage are then being shared with their research team in the Ukraine.
The info is here.
www.marketplace.org
Originally posted January 17, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Ring is pretty clear in its terms and conditions that people are allowing Ring employees to access videos, not live streams, but cached videos. And that's in order to train that artificial intelligence to be better at recognizing neighbors, because they're trying to roll out a feature where they use facial recognition to match with the people that are considered safe. So if I have the Ring cameras, I can say, "All these are safe people. Here's pictures of my kids, my neighbors. If it's not one of these people, consider them unsafe." So that's a new technology. They need to be able to train their algorithms to recognize who's a person, what's a car, what's a cat. Some subset of the videos that are being uploaded just for typical usage are then being shared with their research team in the Ukraine.
The info is here.
What if consciousness is just a product of our non-conscious brain?
Peter Halligan and David A Oakley
The Conversation
Originally published December 20, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The non-conscious nature of being
Previously, we argued that while undeniably real, the “experience of consciousness” or subjective awareness is precisely that – awareness. No more, no less. We proposed that while consciousness is created by brain systems, it has no causal relationship with or control over mental processes. The fact that personal awareness accompanies the contents of the personal narrative is causally compelling. But it is not necessarily relevant to understanding and explaining the psychological processes underpinning them.
This quote from George Miller – one of the founders of cognitive psychology – helps explain this idea. When one recalls something from memory, “consciousness gives no clue as to where the answer comes from; the processes that produce it are unconscious. It is the result of thinking, not the process of thinking, that appears spontaneously in consciousness”.
Taking this further, we propose that subjective awareness – the intimate signature experience of what it is like to be conscious – is itself a product of non-conscious processing. This observation, was well captured by pioneering social psychologist Daniel Wegner when he wrote that, “unconscious mechanisms create both conscious thought about action and the action, and also produce the sense of will we experience by perceiving the thought as the cause of the action”.
The info is here.
The Conversation
Originally published December 20, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The non-conscious nature of being
Previously, we argued that while undeniably real, the “experience of consciousness” or subjective awareness is precisely that – awareness. No more, no less. We proposed that while consciousness is created by brain systems, it has no causal relationship with or control over mental processes. The fact that personal awareness accompanies the contents of the personal narrative is causally compelling. But it is not necessarily relevant to understanding and explaining the psychological processes underpinning them.
This quote from George Miller – one of the founders of cognitive psychology – helps explain this idea. When one recalls something from memory, “consciousness gives no clue as to where the answer comes from; the processes that produce it are unconscious. It is the result of thinking, not the process of thinking, that appears spontaneously in consciousness”.
Taking this further, we propose that subjective awareness – the intimate signature experience of what it is like to be conscious – is itself a product of non-conscious processing. This observation, was well captured by pioneering social psychologist Daniel Wegner when he wrote that, “unconscious mechanisms create both conscious thought about action and the action, and also produce the sense of will we experience by perceiving the thought as the cause of the action”.
The info is here.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Proceedings Start Against ‘Sokal Squared’ Hoax Professor
Katherine Mangan
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally posted January 7, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
The Oregon university’s institutional review board concluded that Boghossian’s participation in the elaborate hoax had violated Portland State’s ethical guidelines, according to documents Boghossian posted online. The university is considering a further charge that he had falsified data, the documents indicate.
Last month Portland State’s vice president for research and graduate studies, Mark R. McLellan, ordered Boghossian to undergo training on human-subjects research as a condition for getting further studies approved. In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian’s behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."
Boghossian and his supporters have gone on the offensive with an online press kit that links to emails from Portland State administrators. It also includes a video filmed by a documentary filmmaker that shows Boghossian reading an email that asks him to appear before the institutional review board in October. In the video, Boghossian discusses the implications of potentially being found responsible for professional misconduct. He’s speaking with his co-authors, Helen Pluckrose, a self-described "exile from the humanities" who studies medieval religious writings about women, and James A. Lindsay, an author and mathematician.
The info is here.
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally posted January 7, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
The Oregon university’s institutional review board concluded that Boghossian’s participation in the elaborate hoax had violated Portland State’s ethical guidelines, according to documents Boghossian posted online. The university is considering a further charge that he had falsified data, the documents indicate.
Last month Portland State’s vice president for research and graduate studies, Mark R. McLellan, ordered Boghossian to undergo training on human-subjects research as a condition for getting further studies approved. In addition, McLellan said he had referred the matter to the president and provost because Boghossian’s behavior "raises ethical issues of concern."
Boghossian and his supporters have gone on the offensive with an online press kit that links to emails from Portland State administrators. It also includes a video filmed by a documentary filmmaker that shows Boghossian reading an email that asks him to appear before the institutional review board in October. In the video, Boghossian discusses the implications of potentially being found responsible for professional misconduct. He’s speaking with his co-authors, Helen Pluckrose, a self-described "exile from the humanities" who studies medieval religious writings about women, and James A. Lindsay, an author and mathematician.
The info is here.
Kaiser settled 2014 patient-dumping class-action suit earlier this year
Michael McCough
The Sacramento Bee
Originally posted December 20, 2018
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan recently settled a 2014 class-action lawsuit stemming from two allegations that it dumped patients with severe mental illness.
Plaintiffs Douglas Kerr and Barbara Knighton alleged that in separate incidents, Kaiser psychiatrists told them their sons needed to be transferred to locked residential facilities called IMDs (institutions for mental disease) for treatment, according to court documents. Knighton and Kerr claimed they were both told they should remove their children from their Kaiser health plans in 2014 to be transferred to these county-run institutions — a change that shifted the costs of treatment from Kaiser to government-funded programs such as Medi-Cal.
Despite the settlement, Kaiser said in a statement it continues to dispute some of the claims included in the lawsuit.
“In certain relatively rare cases, Kaiser Permanente members entered a specialized type of locked mental health facility that often preferred Medi-Cal coverage to private insurance,” Kaiser Vice President of Communications John Nelson said in an emailed statement. “In some of these cases, cancellation of Kaiser Permanente coverage was required to enter the facility. However, this was not Kaiser Permanente’s requirement, and we cover many members’ care at such facilities. Any decision to cancel coverage was made by a court-appointed conservator.”
The info is here.
The Sacramento Bee
Originally posted December 20, 2018
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan recently settled a 2014 class-action lawsuit stemming from two allegations that it dumped patients with severe mental illness.
Plaintiffs Douglas Kerr and Barbara Knighton alleged that in separate incidents, Kaiser psychiatrists told them their sons needed to be transferred to locked residential facilities called IMDs (institutions for mental disease) for treatment, according to court documents. Knighton and Kerr claimed they were both told they should remove their children from their Kaiser health plans in 2014 to be transferred to these county-run institutions — a change that shifted the costs of treatment from Kaiser to government-funded programs such as Medi-Cal.
Despite the settlement, Kaiser said in a statement it continues to dispute some of the claims included in the lawsuit.
“In certain relatively rare cases, Kaiser Permanente members entered a specialized type of locked mental health facility that often preferred Medi-Cal coverage to private insurance,” Kaiser Vice President of Communications John Nelson said in an emailed statement. “In some of these cases, cancellation of Kaiser Permanente coverage was required to enter the facility. However, this was not Kaiser Permanente’s requirement, and we cover many members’ care at such facilities. Any decision to cancel coverage was made by a court-appointed conservator.”
The info is here.
Monday, January 21, 2019
Do Recruiters Need a Code of Ethics?
Steve Bates
Society for Human Resource Management
Originally posted January 9, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Most recruiters behave ethically, knowing that their reputation and their company's brand are on the line, said Joe Shaker Jr., president of Oak Park, Ill.-based Shaker Recruitment Marketing. "They're selling the organization."
But for some external recruiters attempting to beat their competitors, "there's a tremendous temptation to be unethical," said Kevin Wheeler, founder and president of the Future of Talent Institute, a think tank in Fremont, Calif.
"You'll hear about the good, the bad and the ugly," said Wanda Parker, president of The HealthField Alliance, a physician recruiting and consulting firm in Danbury, Conn. She is also president of the National Association of Physician Recruiters (NAPR), which is based in Altamonte Springs, Fla. "There are some recruiters who cut all kinds of corners and will do whatever they can to make a buck."
"It's very much like the Wild West," said Fred Coon, founder, chairman and CEO of Stewart, Cooper & Coon, a human capital strategies firm based in Phoenix. "It's a free-for-all."
The info is here.
Society for Human Resource Management
Originally posted January 9, 2019
Here is an excerpt:
Most recruiters behave ethically, knowing that their reputation and their company's brand are on the line, said Joe Shaker Jr., president of Oak Park, Ill.-based Shaker Recruitment Marketing. "They're selling the organization."
But for some external recruiters attempting to beat their competitors, "there's a tremendous temptation to be unethical," said Kevin Wheeler, founder and president of the Future of Talent Institute, a think tank in Fremont, Calif.
"You'll hear about the good, the bad and the ugly," said Wanda Parker, president of The HealthField Alliance, a physician recruiting and consulting firm in Danbury, Conn. She is also president of the National Association of Physician Recruiters (NAPR), which is based in Altamonte Springs, Fla. "There are some recruiters who cut all kinds of corners and will do whatever they can to make a buck."
"It's very much like the Wild West," said Fred Coon, founder, chairman and CEO of Stewart, Cooper & Coon, a human capital strategies firm based in Phoenix. "It's a free-for-all."
The info is here.
The fallacy of obviousness
Teppo Felin
aeon.co
Originally posted July 5, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The alternative interpretation says that what people are looking for – rather than what people are merely looking at – determines what is obvious. Obviousness is not self-evident. Or as Sherlock Holmes said: ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ This isn’t an argument against facts or for ‘alternative facts’, or anything of the sort. It’s an argument about what qualifies as obvious, why and how. See, obviousness depends on what is deemed to be relevant for a particular question or task at hand. Rather than passively accounting for or recording everything directly in front of us, humans – and other organisms for that matter – instead actively look for things. The implication (contrary to psychophysics) is that mind-to-world processes drive perception rather than world-to-mind processes. The gorilla experiment itself can be reinterpreted to support this view of perception, showing that what we see depends on our expectations and questions – what we are looking for, what question we are trying to answer.
At first glance that might seem like a rather mundane interpretation, particularly when compared with the startling claim that humans are ‘blind to the obvious’. But it’s more radical than it might seem. This interpretation of the gorilla experiment puts humans centre-stage in perception, rather than relegating them to passively recording their surroundings and environments. It says that what we see is not so much a function of what is directly in front of us (Kahneman’s natural assessments), or what one is in camera-like fashion recording or passively looking at, but rather determined by what we have in our minds, for example, by the questions we have in mind. People miss the gorilla not because they are blind, but because they were prompted – in this case, by the scientists themselves – to pay attention to something else. The question – ‘How many basketball passes’ (just like any question: ‘Where are my keys?’) – primes us to see certain aspects of a visual scene, at the expense of any number of other things.
The info is here.
aeon.co
Originally posted July 5, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The alternative interpretation says that what people are looking for – rather than what people are merely looking at – determines what is obvious. Obviousness is not self-evident. Or as Sherlock Holmes said: ‘There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.’ This isn’t an argument against facts or for ‘alternative facts’, or anything of the sort. It’s an argument about what qualifies as obvious, why and how. See, obviousness depends on what is deemed to be relevant for a particular question or task at hand. Rather than passively accounting for or recording everything directly in front of us, humans – and other organisms for that matter – instead actively look for things. The implication (contrary to psychophysics) is that mind-to-world processes drive perception rather than world-to-mind processes. The gorilla experiment itself can be reinterpreted to support this view of perception, showing that what we see depends on our expectations and questions – what we are looking for, what question we are trying to answer.
At first glance that might seem like a rather mundane interpretation, particularly when compared with the startling claim that humans are ‘blind to the obvious’. But it’s more radical than it might seem. This interpretation of the gorilla experiment puts humans centre-stage in perception, rather than relegating them to passively recording their surroundings and environments. It says that what we see is not so much a function of what is directly in front of us (Kahneman’s natural assessments), or what one is in camera-like fashion recording or passively looking at, but rather determined by what we have in our minds, for example, by the questions we have in mind. People miss the gorilla not because they are blind, but because they were prompted – in this case, by the scientists themselves – to pay attention to something else. The question – ‘How many basketball passes’ (just like any question: ‘Where are my keys?’) – primes us to see certain aspects of a visual scene, at the expense of any number of other things.
The info is here.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
The Ethics of Paternalism
Ingrid M. Paulin, Jenna Clark, & Julie O'Brien
Scientific American
Originally published on December 21, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Choosing what to do and which approach to take requires making a decision about paternalism, or influencing someone’s behavior for their own good. Every time someone designs policies, products or services, they make a decision about paternalism, whether they are aware of it or not. They will inevitably influence how people behave; there's no such thing as a neutral choice.
Arguments about paternalism have traditionally focused on the extreme ends of the spectrum; you either let people have complete autonomy, or you completely restrict undesirable behaviors. In reality, however, there are many options in between, and there are few guidelines about how one should navigate the complex moral landscape of influence to decide which approach is justified in a given situation.
Traditional economists may argue for more autonomy on the grounds that people will always behave in line with their own best interest. In their view, people have stable preferences and are always weighing the costs and benefits of every option before making decisions. Because they know their preferences better than do others, they should be able to act autonomously to maximize their own positive outcomes.
The info is here.
Scientific American
Originally published on December 21, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Choosing what to do and which approach to take requires making a decision about paternalism, or influencing someone’s behavior for their own good. Every time someone designs policies, products or services, they make a decision about paternalism, whether they are aware of it or not. They will inevitably influence how people behave; there's no such thing as a neutral choice.
Arguments about paternalism have traditionally focused on the extreme ends of the spectrum; you either let people have complete autonomy, or you completely restrict undesirable behaviors. In reality, however, there are many options in between, and there are few guidelines about how one should navigate the complex moral landscape of influence to decide which approach is justified in a given situation.
Traditional economists may argue for more autonomy on the grounds that people will always behave in line with their own best interest. In their view, people have stable preferences and are always weighing the costs and benefits of every option before making decisions. Because they know their preferences better than do others, they should be able to act autonomously to maximize their own positive outcomes.
The info is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)