Like “SWATting” but with more serious weapons?
https://www.wired.com/story/fake-warships-ais-signals-russia-crimea/
Phantom Warships Are Courting Chaos in Conflict Zones
… According to analysis conducted by conservation technology nonprofit SkyTruth and Global Fishing Watch, over 100 warships from at least 14 European countries, Russia, and the US appear to have had their locations faked, sometimes for days at a time, since August 2020. Some of these tracks show the warships approaching foreign naval bases or intruding into disputed waters, activities that could escalate tension in hot spots like the Black Sea and the Baltic. Only a few of these fake tracks have previously been reported, and all share characteristics that suggest a common perpetrator.
Will the US follow the EU, again?
Damages Liability for Harm Caused by Artificial Intelligence – EU Law in Flux
Artificial intelligence (AI) is an integral part of our everyday lives, able to perform a multitude of tasks with little to no human intervention. Many legal issues related to this phenomenon have not been comprehensively resolved yet. In that context, the question arises whether the existing legal rules on damages liability are sufficient for resolving cases involving AI. The EU institutions have started evaluating if and to what extent new legislation regarding AI is needed, envisioning a European approach to avoid fragmentation of the Single Market. This article critically analyses the most relevant preparatory documents and proposals with regard to civil liability for AI issued by EU legislators. In addition, we discuss the adequacy of existing legal doctrines on private liability in terms of resolving cases where AI is involved. While existing national laws on damages liability can be applied to AI-related harm, the risk exists that case outcomes are unpredictable and divergent, or, in some instances, unjust. The envisioned level playing field throughout the Single Market justifies harmonisation of many aspects of damages liability for AI-related harm. In the process, particular AI characteristics should be carefully considered in terms of questions such as causation and burden of proof.
Who would have thought politicians could be moral?
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.13567abstract
Moral legitimisation in science, technology and innovation policies
Worldwide, governments and institutions are formulating AI strategies that try to square the aspiration of exploiting the potentials of machine learning with safeguarding their communities against the perceived ills of unchecked artificial systems. We make the claim that these new class of documents are an interesting showcase for a recent turn in policy work and formulation, that increasingly tries to intertwine moral sentiment with strategic dimensions. This process of moralizing is interesting and unprecedented coming from governmental actors, as these documents are guidance documents but not law. Given the significant leeway in development trajectories of open meta-technologies such as artificial intelligence, we argue that these more moralizing elements within policy documents are illustrative of a new class of policy writing, meant to catalyze and shape public opinion and thus by proxy development trajectories.
(Related)
https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/eclic/article/view/18352
EU LEGAL SYSTEM AND CLAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS
We are witnesses and participants of Copernican changes in the world which result in major crises/challenges (economic, political, social, climate, demographic, migratory, MORAL) that significantly change “normal” circumstances. The law, as a large regulatory system, must find answers to these challenges.
… We believe that the most current definition of law is that = law is the negation of the negation of morality. It follows that morality is the most important category of social development. Legitimacy, and then legality, relies on morality. In other words, the rules of conduct must be highly correlated with morality - legitimacy - legality. What is legal follows the rules, what is lawful follows the moral substance and ethical permissibility. Therefore, only a fair and intelligent mastery of a highly professional and ethical teleological interpretation of law is a conditio sine qua non for overcoming current anomalies of social development. The juridical code of legal and illegal is a transformation of moral, legitimate and legal into YES, and immoral, illegitimate and illegal into NO. The future of education aims to generate a program for global action and a discussion on learning and knowledge for the future of humanity and the planet in a world of increasing complexity, uncertainty and insecurity.
Perhaps it isn’t moral, but social?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.12977
The social dilemma in AI development and why we have to solve it
While the demand for ethical artificial intelligence (AI) systems increases, the number of unethical uses of AI accelerates, even though there is no shortage of ethical guidelines. We argue that a main underlying cause for this is that AI developers face a social dilemma in AI development ethics, preventing the widespread adaptation of ethical best practices. We define the social dilemma for AI development and describe why the current crisis in AI development ethics cannot be solved without relieving AI developers of their social dilemma. We argue that AI development must be professionalised to overcome the social dilemma, and discuss how medicine can be used as a template in this process.
There may be a reflexive response to perceived threats to privacy?
https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.11029
User Perception of Privacy with Ubiquitous Devices
Privacy is important for all individuals in everyday life. With emerging technologies, smartphones with AR, various social networking applications and artificial intelligence driven modes of surveillance, they tend to intrude privacy. This study aimed to explore and discover various concerns related to perception of privacy in this era of ubiquitous technologies. It employed online survey questionnaire to study user perspectives of privacy. Purposive sampling was used to collect data from 60 participants. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Our study discovered key themes like attitude towards privacy in public and private spaces, privacy awareness, consent seeking, dilemmas/confusions related to various technologies, impact of attitude and beliefs on individuals actions regarding how to protect oneself from invasion of privacy in both public and private spaces. These themes interacted amongst themselves and influenced formation of various actions. They were like core principles that molded actions that prevented invasion of privacy for both participant and bystander. Findings of this study would be helpful to improve privacy and personalization of various emerging technologies. This study contributes to privacy by design and positive design by considering psychological needs of users. This is suggestive that the findings can be applied in the areas of experience design, positive technologies, social computing and behavioral interventions.
Just because these articles on eliminating lawyers (and judges) amuse me.
https://repositorio.uautonoma.cl/handle/20.500.12728/9128
¿Judges robots? Artificial intelligence and law
The increasing application of artificial intelligence in our day to day, highlights the extraordinary development of this technology. Thus, today we can observe the use of the intelligence artificial for the assistance and execution of tasks of the most diverse nature, including the legal field. There are already in use different programs or platforms nurtured with information of legal interest that allows solving legal cases in a short time. The latter raises the possibility of going one step further and incorporating robot judges for the administration of justice, which raises as many concerns as expectations, issues that this research analyze.
(Related)
https://lida.hse.ru/article/view/12791
On the Prospects of Digitalization of Justice
The article considers the problem of digitalization of judicial activities in the Russian Federation and abroad. Given the fact that in the modern world elements of digital (electronic) justice are gaining widespread adoption, the article presents an analysis of its fundamental principles and distinguishes between electronic methods of ensuring procedural activity and digitalization of justice as an independent direction of transformation of public relations at the present stage. As a demonstration of the implementation of the first direction, the article presents the experience of foreign countries, Russian legislative approaches and currently being developed legislative initiatives in terms of improving the interaction of participants in the procedure through the use of information technologies. The authors come to the conclusion that the implemented approaches and proposed amendments are intended only to modernize the form of administration of justice with new opportunities to carry out the same actions (identification of persons participating in the case, notification, participation in the court session, etc.) without changing the essential characteristics of the proceedings. The second direction, related to electronic (digital) justice, is highlighted from the point of view of the prospects and risks of using artificial intelligence technologies to make legally significant decisions on the merits. At the same time, the authors argue that the digitalization of justice requires the development and implementation of the category of justice in machine-readable law, as well as special security measures of both technological and legal nature.
I’m going to suggest that having a human in the loop slows down the decision process and delays taking action. Does that not increase liability?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600834.2021.1958860
Approaching the human in the loop – legal perspectives on hybrid human/algorithmic decision-making in three contexts
Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-making – where algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.
(Related) You can never fully rely on the machine?
https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/AMBPP.2021.14636abstract
Artificial Intelligence and Business Ethics: Goal Setting and Value Alignment as Management Concerns
Rapid advances in the development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) is having a profound effect both on organizations and society at large. While already used extensively in organizations to promote rational decision making, its emergence is also giving rise to profound ethical concerns. As such, we argue that organizational research has a crucial role to play in promoting beneficial development and use of this technology. Given the rapidly increasing autonomy and impact of AI systems, we draw attention to the fundamental importance goal setting and value alignment in determining the ethical desirability of outcomes from this development. Importantly, we claim that goal setting necessitates ethical considerations that are not amenable to technology. Further, while the pursuit of goals can be partially delegated to AI, challenges relating to the representation of goals and (ethical) constraints imply that human involvement is crucial in preventing unforeseen consequences. Finally, we discuss issues relating to the malicious misuse and heedless overuse of AI, arguing that the importance of human agency and inclusion in decision making in fact increases with adoption of the technology due to an escalating scale and impact of decisions made. Given the profound impact of these decisions on numerous stakeholders, we suggest that organizational research stands to contribute to the relevance, comprehensiveness, and integrity of AI ethics in the face of this revolutionary technology.
Microsoft is being a bad boy? Imagine that!
The Invisible Tech Behemoth
… Microsoft is the company that could truly test the Biden-era commitment to anti-bigness, and, as a lawyer friend of mine put it, define the limiting principle of new Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan’s antitrust theory. Since its own brush with antitrust regulation decades ago, Microsoft has slipped past significant scrutiny. The company is reluctantly guilty of the sin of bigness, yes, but it is benevolent, don’t you see? Reformed, even! No need to cast your pen over here!
No comments:
Post a Comment