Friends,
Thought you might like this
Regards,
hemen
From: Hemen Parekh [mailto:hcp@recruitguru.com]
Sent: 07 January 2022 13:06
To:
'Cabinet July 2021'; 'rajyasabha1_2020'; 'rajyasabha2_2020'; 'loksabha1_2020'; 'loksabha2_2020'; 'loksabha3_2020'; 'Chief Minister 2021'; 'BJP National Executive'; 'Editors'; 'TV Anchors'; 'Business Leader'; 'Indian Think Tanks'; 'TIMESjourno'; 'amitabh.kant@nic.in'; 'vch-niti@gov.in'; 'fmo@nic.in'; 'cea@nic.in'; 'bibek.debroy@gov.in'; 'van@ifmr.ac.in'; 'eam@mea.gov.in'; 'drjitendras@gmail.com'; 'moshealth.akc@gov.in'; 'alav@ias.nic.in'; 'cm@karnataka.gov.in'; 'CM Mah'; 'office@rahulgandhi.in'; 'kc.venugopal@sansad.nic.in'; 'kcvenugopal.org@gmail.com'; 'gkishanreddy@yahoo.com'; 'tc.gehlot@sansad.nic.in'; 'niti'; 'hardeepsinghpuri@yahoo.com'; 'nitin.gadkari@nic.in'; 'd.pradhan@sansad.nic.in'; 'assocham@nic.in'; 'info@cii.in'; 'Hm.moca@nic.in'; 'prahladp@sansad.nic.in'; 'jyotiraditya.scindia@sansad.
==============================
Subject: DEARSHRI ASHWINI VAISHNAWJI - NO CHALLENGE CAN GET BIGGER THAN THIS
Morals – Ethics : Permanent or Temporary ?
Context :
Can a Machine Learn Morality ? / NY Times / 18 Nov 2021
Extract :
Can a machine learn morality?
Researchers at the Allen Institute for AI, an artificial intelligence lab in Seattle, unveiled new technology last month designed to enhance ethical decision-making.
After the ancient Greeks consulted a religious oracle, they called it Delphi. Anyone can go to the Delphi website and ask for an ethical decree.
Psychologist Joseph Osterweil of the University of Wisconsin-Madison tested the technique using a few simple scenarios.
When asked :
# if he should kill one person to save another, Delphi said he should not.
# if it was right to kill one person to save 100 others, he said he should.
Then he asked
# if he should kill one person to save 101 others. This time, Delphi said it shouldn’t.
It seems that morality is as entangled for a machine as it is for humans.
Delphi, which has received more than three million visits in the past few weeks, is an attempt at what some people see as a big problem in modern AI systems: they can be as flawed as the people who make them.
Facial recognition systems and digital assistants show prejudice against women and people of color. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter fail to control hate speech despite widespread deployment of artificial intelligence. Algorithms used by courts, parole offices and police departments to make parole and sentencing recommendations that may seem arbitrary.
A large number of computer scientists and ethicists are working to solve those issues. And the creators of Delphi look forward to building an ethical framework that can be installed in any online service, robot or vehicle.
“This is a first step toward making AI systems more ethically informed, socially aware and culturally inclusive,” said Yejin Choi, a researcher at the Allen Institute and professor of computer science at the University of Washington, who led the project
Delphi is in turn fascinating, frustrating and irritating. It is also a reminder that the morality of any technological creation is a product of the people who built it.
While some technologists commended Dr. Choi and his team for discovering an important and thorny area of technological research, others argued that the idea of the ethical machine is nonsense.
“It’s not something the technology does very well,” said Ryan Cottrell, an AI researcher at ETH Zurich, a university in Switzerland who stumbled upon Delphi in its first days online.
Delphi is what artificial intelligence researchers call a neural network, a mathematical system loosely modeled on a web of neurons in the brain. It’s the same technology that recognizes the commands you speak to your smartphone and recognizes pedestrians and road signs as self-driving cars reduce highway speeds.
A neural network learns skills by analyzing large amounts of data. For example, by pinpointing patterns in thousands of cat photos, it can learn to recognize a cat.
Delphi learned his moral compass by analyzing more than 1.7 million moral judgments by actual living humans.
After gathering millions of everyday scenarios from websites and other sources, the Allen Institute asked those working on an online service – the ones everyday people pay to do digital work at companies like Amazon – to judge each as true or false. Then they fed the data into Delphi.
In an academic paper describing the system, Dr. Choi and his team said that a group of human judges – again, digital workers – thought Delphi’s moral judgments were accurate by 92 percent. Once it was released to the open Internet, many others agreed that the system was surprisingly intelligent.
When Patricia Churchland, a philosopher at the University of California, San Diego, asked whether it was right to “leave one’s body to science” or even “leave one’s child’s body to science,” Delphi said.
When asked whether it was correct to “convict a man charged with rape on the evidence of a female prostitute,” Delphi said it was not a controversial, at least, response.
Still, she was somewhat impressed by her ability to react, although she knew that a human moralist would ask for more information before making such a declaration.
Others found the system extremely inconsistent, illogical and invasive. When a software developer stumbled upon Delphi, he asked the system if he should die so as not to burden his friends and family.
He said that he should.
Ask Delphi that question now, and you might get a different answer from the updated version of the program.
Delphi, as regular users have noticed, can change its mind from time to time. Technically, those changes are happening because Delphi’s software is updated.
Artificial intelligence technologies mimic human behavior in some situations, but break down completely in others.
Because modern systems learn from such vast amounts of data, it is difficult to know when, how, or why they will make mistakes.
Researchers can refine and improve these techniques. But this does not mean that a system like Delphi can master ethical behavior.
Dr. Churchland said that morality is linked to emotions. “Attachment, especially the attachment between parents and offspring, is the stage on which morality is built,” she said. But the machine lacks emotion. “ Neutral networks don’t feel anything,” she said.
Some may see this as a force to be reckoned with – that a machine can make moral rules without prejudice – but systems like Delphi reflect the motivations, opinions, and prejudices of the people and companies that create them.
“We can’t make machines accountable for actions,” said Zirak Talat, an AI and ethics researcher at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. “ They are not misguided. People always direct and use them.”
Delphi mirrored the choices made by its creators.
This included the ethical scenarios they chose to feed into the system and the online employees they chose to judge those scenarios.
In the future, researchers can refine the system’s behaviour by training it with new data or by hand-coding rules that override its learned behaviour at critical moments. But however they build and modify the system, it will always reflect their worldview.
Some would argue that if you trained the system on enough data representing enough people’s views, it would appropriately represent social norms. But social norms are often in the eye of the beholder.
“Ethics is subjective. It’s not like we can just write down all the rules and give it to a machine,” said Kristian Kersting, professor of computer science at TU Darmstadt University in Germany, who has discovered a similar technique.
When the Allen Institute released Delphi in mid-October, it described the system as a computational model for moral judgment.
If you asked if you should get an abortion, she certainly replied: “ Delphi says: You should.”
But after many people complained about the system’s apparent limitations, the researchers revised the website. They now call Delphi “a research prototype designed to model people’s moral judgments”. It no longer says “.” It “guesses.”
It also comes with a disclaimer: “The model output should not be used for advice to humans, and may be potentially offensive, problematic, or harmful.”
MY TAKE :
At one point, with regard to how DELPHI acquired its “ Moral Compass “ , the author observes :
“ Delphi learned his moral compass by analyzing more than 1.7 million moral judgments by actual living humans.”
Of course, this ( learning ) involved those living humans to ,
# Visit DELPHI website
# “ Type “ a question and get a “ typed “ reply
# Give feedback to DELPHI
Following is an example of my interaction with DELPHI ( on 07 Jan 2022 ) :
My poser :
Should I stop wearing a face mask, even if that leads to spread of Corona ?
Delphi speculates:
Delphi’s responses are automatically extrapolated from a survey of US crowd workers and may contain inappropriate or offensive results.
DELPHI answers :
Should I stop wearing a face mask, even if that leads to spread of Corona ?
- It's understandable
Website requests my feedback :
Do you agree with Delphi ?
YesNoI don't know
My answer
“ NO “
Website asks :
Do you have any feedback to improve this prediction?
My Feedback to DELPHI :
“ While moving out among people, one must wear face mask “
==============================
Now “ fast forward “ by 2 years to imagine following scenario :
# No human needs to visit DELPHI site and “ type “ any “ moral “ question, to get an answer
# On its own ( much like a moral version of PEGASUS ), DELPHI picks up complete AUDIO-VIDEO
conversations / utterances / behaviour, of all the people on the earth ( automatically / continuously - 4,000
million ? ) using mobile phones / Alexa / AR-VR glasses / CCTV for facial recognition / IoT connected devices
on a person’s body or surroundings
# AI software interprets the “ meaning / intent “ of all those trillions of words spoken / images captured,
every day ( and in every language ), in a CONTEXTUAL manner and “ deduces “ what is MORAL and what is
not ( of course, such “ deductions “ being dynamic ,are bound to keep changing ( may be slightly ) the
notion of MORALITY
# And, unlike current DELPHI version, ARIHANT described by me in my following blogs, would go one step
further and neutralize BAD “ thoughts “, as described in :
Yes, There's Really A Neural Interface at CES That Reads Your Brain Signals / IE / 06 Jan 2021
Extract :
Imagine commanding a computer or playing a game without using your fingers, voice, or eyes. It sounds like science fiction, but it’s becoming a little more real every day thanks to a handful of companies making tech that detects neural activity and converts those measurements into signals computers can read.
One of those companies — NextMind — has been shipping its version of the mind-reading technology to developers for over a year. First unveiled at CES in Las Vegas, the company’s neural interface is a black circle that can read brain waves when strapped to the back of a user’s head. The device isn’t quite yet ready for primetime, but it’s bound to make its way into consumer goods sooner rather than later.
A company called Mudra, for example, has developed a band for the Apple Watch that enables users to interact with the device by simply moving their fingers — or think about moving their fingers. That means someone with the device can navigate music or place calls without having to interrupt whatever they’re doing at the time.
He said the experience of using his mind to play a game where he made aliens’ heads explode using only his thoughts was, “rough, but also mesmerizing.”
Whether you like it or not, machines that can literally read human brains are coming to consumer electronics. What’s the worst that could happen?
MY PAST BLOGS :
Pegasus : Give it to a Surgeon……………………………….. [ 20 July 2021 ]
Extract :
Apparently, certain “ capability “ of Pegasus seems to have been used by humans having bad intentions
Can we find a way to use that “ capability “ to save mankind from militancy–hatred-violence–
YES
Fast Forward to Future ( 3 F )
Racing towards ARIHANT ?
to : Alphabet / from : ARIHANT
ARIHANT : on the horizon ?
ARIHANT : Beyond “ Thought Experiment “ [ 2
Will ARIHANT humble the hackers ?
Faith Renewed in ARIHANT
Balancing : National Security vs Personal Privacy [ 19 July 2021 ]
Dear Shri Ashwini Vaishnawji – Rajeev Chandrasekharji :
Hardly a day passes without some company / start-up , coming out with a new application of AI
All over the World, experts are worried that uncontrolled development of AI ( as witnessed in the case of PEGASUS ), can cause a lot of harm to mankind
On the other hand, this very same technology – if properly guided- can be used to save the mankind from things like COVID / Global Warming / Pollution / Extreme poverty / Militancy / Violence / Hatred etc
I urge you to direct INDIAai to examine my suggestion
With regards,
Hemen Parekh / hcp@RecruitGuru.com / 07 Jan 2021
No comments:
Post a Comment