How
does California’s guess compare to your budget?
California’s
new privacy law could cost companies a total of $55 billion to get in
compliance
California’s
new privacy law could cost companies a total of up to $55 billion in
initial compliance costs, according to an economic
impact assessment prepared
for the state attorney general’s office by an independent research
firm.
… On
the low end, the researchers estimated that firms with fewer than 20
employees might have to pay around $50,000 at the outset to become
compliant. On the high end, firms with more than 500 employees would
pay an average of $2 million in initial costs, the researchers
estimated.
[From
the impact report:
In
general, compliance costs associated with the CCPA fall into four
categories:
1.
Legal: Costs associated with interpreting the law so that operational
and technical plans can be made within a business.
2.
Operational: Costs associated with establishing the non-technical
infrastructure to comply with the law’s requirements.
3.
Technical: Costs associated with establishing technologies necessary
to respond to consumer requests and other aspects of the law.
4.
Business: Costs associated with other business decisions that will
result from the law, such as renegotiating service provider contracts
and changing business models to change the way personal information
is handled or sold.
Back to basics.
Prepared for an online reference volume meant to
enable dialogue on shared terms among people in the various fields
related to ethics and artificial intelligence (e.g., computer
science, political theory, philosophy, law), this piece has two aims.
One is to explain to non-specialists what political theorists and
philosophers are talking about when we talk about “justice.” The
other is to discuss some particular questions of justice implicated
by the use of artificial intelligence. The piece also includes a
thematically-organized reading list designed for those who aren’t
specialists in political theory or philosophy, but who are interested
in learning more about justice as it’s conceptualized in these
disciplines.
Towards a certified compliance? Would anyone want
to do this?
GDPR-Compliant
Personal Data Management: A Blockchain-based Solution
The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
gives control of personal data back to the owners by appointing
higher requirements and obligations on service providers (SPs) who
manage and process personal data. As the verification of
GDPR-compliance, handled by a supervisory authority, is irregularly
conducted; it is challenging to be certify that an SP has been
continuously adhering to the GDPR. Furthermore, it is beyond the
data owner's capability to perceive whether an SP complies with the
GDPR and effectively protects her personal data. This motivates us
to envision a design concept for developing a GDPR-compliant personal
data management platform leveraging the emerging blockchain (BC) and
smart contract technologies.
… The platform enables data owners to impose
data usage consent, ensures only designated parties can process
personal data, and logs all data activities in an immutable
distributed ledger using smart contract and cryptography techniques.
By honestly participating in the platform, an SP can be endorsed by
the BC network that it is fully GDPR-compliant; otherwise any
violation is immutably recorded and is easily figured out by
associated parties.
Would a reciprocal view be, “The care and
feeding of your pet human”
Ethics of
AI: how should we treat rational, sentient robots - if they existed?
Imagine a world where humans co-existed with
beings who, like us, had minds, thoughts, feelings, self-conscious
awareness and the capacity to perform purposeful actions – but,
unlike us, these beings had artificial mechanical bodies that could
be switched on and off.
That brave new world would throw up many issues as
we came to terms with our robot counterparts as part and parcel of
everyday life. How should we behave towards them? What moral duties
would we have? What moral rights would such non-human persons have?
Would it be morally permissible to try to thwart their emergence? Or
would we have a duty to promote and foster their existence?
If AI is better, do we have an obligation to rely
on AI? (Should we vote for the guy with the smartest AI?)
Political
Machines: Ethical Governance in the Age of AI
Policymakers are responsible for key decisions
about political governance. Usually, they are selected or elected
based on experience and then supported in their decision-making by
the additional counsel of subject experts. Those satisfied with this
system believe these individuals – generally speaking – will have
the right intuitions about the best types of action. This is
important because political decisions have ethical implications; they
affect how we all live in society. Nevertheless, there is a wealth
of research that cautions against trusting human judgment as it can
be severely flawed. This paper will look at the root causes of the
most common errors of human judgment before arguing – contra the
instincts of many – that future AI systems could take a range of
political decisions more reliably. I
will argue that, if/when engineers establish ethically robust
systems, governments will have a moral obligation to refer to them as
a part of decision-making.
We need an answer before Siri decides to support a
Presidential candidate.
Does the
First Amendment protect speech made by AI?
When we talk about our right to speak freely, most
of us know intuitively that isn’t just limited to the words that
come out of our mouths. Because when we say that our “speech” is
protected by the First Amendment, we’re also talking about books,
movies, TV shows, video games, music, virtual reality simulations,
art — every way that human beings express themselves. Last week
someone posed the following question: What if the expression isn’t
from a human being at all? Does the First Amendment protect speech
made by artificial intelligence?
… Artificial intelligence (AI) adds a whole
other dimension to this debate, because it’s not always clear who
the speaker is. Right now, most code can be considered to be the
expression of the programmers behind it. But as AI grows more
sophisticated and more able to think for itself, there will come a
point where the things it says and does can’t be attributed to any
human being.
… When the day comes that Siri and Alexa are
able to think for themselves, will the First Amendment protect their
right to express those thoughts? As crazy as that might seem,
there’s nothing in the text of the First Amendment that requires
the speaker to be human. Furthermore, the First Amendment doesn’t
just exist so that speakers can express themselves, but to protect
listeners and viewers and their right to receive information. As
John Frank Weaver wrote in his article, “Why Robots Deserve Free
Speech Rights,” “The First Amendment protects the speaker, but
more importantly it protects the rest of us, who are guaranteed the
right to determine whether the speaker is right,
wrong or badly programmed. We are owed that right
regardless of who is doing the speaking.”
[Articles
mentioned:
“Why Robots Deserve Free Speech Rights”
https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/robots-deserve-a-first-amendment-right-to-free-speech.html
“Siri-ously? Free Speech Rights and Artificial
Intelligence”
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol110/iss5/6/
Am I the only one who sees this as an automated
weapon platform? Today ants, tomorrow the world?
TRACKING
ANTS AND ZAPPING THEM WITH LASERS
Thanks
to the wonders of neural networks and machine learning algorithms,
it’s now possible to do things that were once thought to be
inordinately difficult to achieve with computers. It’s a
combination of the right techniques and piles of computing power that
make such feats doable, and [Robert
Bond’s] ant zapping project is a great example. .
The
project is based around an NVIDIA Jetson TK1, a system that brings
the processing power of a modern GPU to an embedded platform. It’s
fitted with a USB camera, that is used to scan its field of view for
ants. Once detected, thanks to a little OpenCV magic, the
coordinates of the insect are passed to the laser system.
No comments:
Post a Comment