A number of the respondents wrote about cross-cutting themes, introduced novel ideas or shared thoughts that were not widely mentioned by others. This section features a selection of that material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Michael G. Dyer,<\/strong> professor emeritus of computer science at UCLA, expert in natural language processing, argued, \u201cThe greatest scientific questions are:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDeveloping technology in each of these areas brings about great progress but also existential threats. Nature of Matter\/Energy: progress in lasers, computers, materials, etc., but hydrogen bombs with missile delivery systems. Nature of Life: progress in genetics, neuroscience, health care, etc., but possibility of man-made deadly artificial viruses. Nature of Mind: intelligence software to perform tasks in many areas but possibility of the creation of a general-AI that could eliminate and replace humankind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe can\u2019t stop our exploration into these three areas, because then others will continue without us. The world is running on open, and the best we can do is to try to establish fair, democratic and noncorrupt governments. Hopefully in the U.S., government corruption, which is currently at the highest levels (with nepotism, narcissism, alternate \u2018facts,\u2019 racism, etc.), will see a new direction in 2021.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Seth Finkelstein,<\/strong> programmer, consultant and EFF Pioneer of the Electronic Frontier Award winner, noted, \u201cJust substitute \u2018the internet\u2019 for \u2018AI\u2019 here \u2013 \u2018Was the internet mostly used in ethical or questionable ways in the last decade?\u2019 It was\/will be used in many ways, and the net result ends up with both good and bad, according to various social forces. I believe technological advances are positive overall, but that shouldn\u2019t be used to ignore and dismiss dealing with associated negative effects. There\u2019s an AI \u2018moral panic\u2019 percolating now, as always happens with new technologies. A little while ago, there was a fear-mongering fad about theoretical \u2018trolley problems<\/a>\u2019 (choosing actions in a car accident scenario). This was largely written about by people who apparently had no interest in the extensive topic of engineering safety trade-offs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Just substitute \u2018the internet\u2019 for \u2018AI\u2019 here \u2013 \u2018Was the internet mostly used in ethical or questionable ways in the last decade?\u2019 It was\/will be used in many ways, and the net result ends up with both good and bad, according to various social forces.”<\/p>seth finkelstein, programmer, consultant and EFF Pioneer of the Electronic Frontier Award winner <\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \u201cSince discussion of, for example, structural racism or sexism pervading society is more a humanities field of study than a technological one, there\u2019s been a somewhat better grasp by many writers that the development of AI isn\u2019t going to take place outside existing social structures there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs always, follow the money. Take the old aphorism \u2018It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.\u2019 We can adapt it to \u2018It is difficult to get an AI to understand something when the developer\u2019s salary depends upon the AI not understanding it.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIs there going to be a fortune in funding AI that can make connections between different academic papers or an AI that can make impulse purchases more likely? Will an AI assistant tell you that you\u2019re spending too much time on social media and you should cut down for your mental health (\u2018log off now, okay?\u2019) or that there\u2019s new controversy brewing and get clicking otherwise you may be missing out (\u2018read this bleat, okay?\u2019)?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jonathan Taplin,<\/strong> author of \u201cMove Fast and Break Things: How Google, Facebook and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy<\/a>,\u201d observed, \u201cEven if most major players in AI will abide by ethical rules, the role of bad actors using AI can have outsized effects on society. The ability to use deepfakes to influence political outcomes will be tested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat worries me the most is that the substitution of AI (and robotics) for human work will accelerate post-COVID-19. The political class, with the notable exception of Andrew Yang, is in total denial about this. And the substitution will affect radiologists just as much as meat cutters. The job losses will cut across classes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Frank Kaufmann,<\/strong> president of the Twelve Gates Foundation, noted, \u201cWill AI mostly be used in ethical or questionable ways in the next decade? And why? This is a complete and utter toss-up. I believe there is no<\/em> way to predict which will be the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is a great relief that, in recent years, there have been scores of convenings and even more papers generated proposing ethical frameworks for the application of artificial intelligence. They cover a host of issues, including transparency, justice and fairness, privacy, freedom and human autonomy, beneficence and nonmaleficence, freedom, trust, sustainability and dignity. But, then again, there have been the Treaty of Versailles, and the literal tons of paper the United Nations has produced talking about peace, the Declaration of Human Rights and so forth.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Will AI mostly be used in ethical or questionable ways in the next decade? And why? This is a complete and utter toss-up. I believe there is no<\/em> way to predict which will be the case.”<\/p>Frank Kaufmann, president of the Twelve Gates Foundation<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n \u201cI am glad people meet sincerely and in earnest to examine vital ethical concerns related to the development of AI. The problem is that intellectual product is insufficient to protect us from dystopic outcomes. The hope and opportunity to enhance, support and grow human freedom, dignity, creativity and compassion through AI systems excite me. The chance to enslave, oppress and exploit human beings through AI systems concerns me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bill Dutton,<\/strong> professor of media and information policy at Michigan State University, said, \u201cAI is not new and has generally been supportive of the public good, such as in supporting online search engines. The fact that many people are discovering AI as some new development during a dystopian period of digital discourse has fostered a narrative about evil corporations challenged by ethical principles. This technologically deterministic good versus evil narrative needs to be challenged by critical research.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Michael Muller,<\/strong> a researcher for a top global technology company focused on human aspects of data science and ethics and values in applications of artificial intelligence, wrote, \u201cI am concerned about what might be called \u2018traveling AI\u2019 \u2013 i.e., AI solutions that cross cultural boundaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMost AI systems are likely to be designed and developed in the individualistic EuroWestern cultures. These systems may be ill-suited \u2013 and in fact harmful \u2013 to collectivist cultures. The risk is particularly severe for indigenous cultures in, e.g., the Americas, Africa and Australia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHow can we design systems that are ethical in the cultural worlds of their users \u2013 whose ethics are based on very different values from the individualistic EuroWestern traditions?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Steven Miller,<\/strong> professor emeritus of information systems at Singapore Management University, responded, \u201cWe have to move beyond the current mindset of AI being this special thing \u2013 an almost mystical thing. I wish we would stop using the term AI (though I use it a lot myself), and just refer to it for what it is \u2013 pattern-recognition systems, statistical analysis systems that learn from data, logical reasoning data, goal-seeking systems. Just look at the table of contents for an AI textbook (such as \u2018Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach<\/a>,\u2019 Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, 4th edition, published 2020). Each item in the table of contents is a subarea of AI, and there are a lot of subareas. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere are ethical issues associated with any<\/em> deployment of any<\/em> engineering and technology system, any automation system, any science effort (especially the application of the science), and\/or any policy analysis effort. So, there is nothing special about the fact that we are going to have ethical issues associated with the use of AI-enabled systems. As soon as we stop thinking of AI as \u2018special,\u2019 and to some extent magical (at least to the layman who does not understand how these things work, as machines and tools), and start looking at each of these applications, and families of applications as deployments of tools and machines \u2013 covering both physical realms of automation and\/or augmentation, and cognitive and decision-making realms of automation and\/or augmentation \u2013 then we can have real discussions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYears back, invariably, there had to have been many questions raised about \u2018the ethics of using computers,\u2019 especially in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, when our civilisation was still experiencing the possibilities of computerising many tasks for the very first time. AI is an extension of this, though taking us into a much wider range of tasks and tasks of increasing cognitive sophistication. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNow, of course, our ability to create machines that can sense, predict, respond and adapt has vastly improved. Even so, most lay people have no idea of just how limited and brittle these capabilities are \u2013 even though they are remarkable and far above human capability in certain specific subdomains, under certain circumstances. What is happening is that most laypeople are jumping to the conclusion that, \u2018Because it is an AI-based system, it must be right, and therefore, I should not question the output of the machine, for I am just a mere human.\u2019 So now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme of layperson assuming AI-enabled algorithms and machines are actually more capable (or more robust and more context-aware) than they actually are. And this will lead to accidents, mistakes and problems. \u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJust like there will be all types of people with all types of motives pursuing their interests in all realms of human activity, the same will be true of people making use of AI-enabled systems for automation, or augmentation or related human support. And some of these people will have noble goals and want to help others. And some of these people will be nefarious and want to gain advantage in ways others might not understand, and there will even be the extreme of some who purposely want to bring harm to others. We saw this with social media. In years, decades and centuries past, we saw this with every technological innovation that appeared, going back to the printing press and even earlier. \u2026 Let\u2019s start getting specific about use cases and situations. One cannot talk in the abstract as to whether an automobile will be used ethically. Or whether a computer will be used ethically. Or biology as an entire field will be used ethically. One has to get much more specific about classes of issues or types of problems that are related to the usage of these big categories of \u2018things.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fernando Barrio,<\/strong> a lecturer in business law at Queen Mary University of London expert in AI and human rights, responded, \u201cIf ethical codes for AI will be in place for the majority of cases for 2030, they will purport to be in the public good (which would seem to imply a \u2018yes\u2019 to the question as it was asked), but they will not result in public good. The problem is that the question assumes that the sole existence and use of ethical codes would be in the public good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAI, not as the singularity<\/a> but as machine learning or even deep learning, has an array of positive potential applications but must not be used to make any decision that has a direct impact on people\u2019s lives. In certain sectors, like the criminal system, it must not be used even in case management, since the inherent and unavoidable bias (either from the data or the algorithmic bias resulting from its own selection or discovery of patterns) leads that individuals and their cases are not judged or managed, taking into account the characteristics that make every human unique but in those characteristics that make that person \u2018computable.\u2019<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThose who propose the use of AI to avoid human bias, such as those that judges and jurors might implement, tend to overlook \u2013 let\u2019s assume naively \u2013 that those biases can be challenged through appeals, and they can be made explicit and transparent. The AI inherent, one cannot be challenged because, between other things, the lack of transparency and, especially, for the insistence of its proponents that the technology can be unbiased.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n An internet pioneer and principal architect at a major technology company<\/strong> said, \u201cAI is a lot like new drug development \u2013 without rigorous studies and regulations, there will always be the potential for unexpected side effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBias is an inherent risk in any AI system that can have major effects on people\u2019s lives. While there is more of an understanding of the challenges of ethical AI, implicit bias is very difficult to avoid because it is hard to detect. For example, you may not discover that a facial-recognition system has excessively high false-recognition rates with some racial or ethnic groups until it has been released \u2013 the data to test all the potential problems may not have been available before the product is released.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe alternative is to move to a drug-development model for AI, where very extensive trials with increasingly large populations are required prior to release, with government agencies monitoring progress at each stage. I don\u2019t see that happening, though, because it will slow innovation, and tech companies will make the campaign contributions necessary to prevent regulation from becoming that intrusive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A<\/strong> professor of urban planning <\/strong>noted, \u201cAlready the general \u2018co-evolution\u2019 of humanity and technology suggests that humans are not nearly as in control as they think they are of technology\u2019s operations, much less its trajectory. While I am not an enthusiast of singularity speculations, there does seem to be a move toward AI stepping in to save the planet, and humans remain useful to that for a while, maybe in bright perpetuity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWith wondrous exceptions of course, humans themselves seem ever less inclined to dwell on the question of what is good, generally, or more specifically, what is good about mindful reflectivity in the face of rampant distraction engineering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhile one could worry that humans will unleash AI problems simply because it would be technically possible, perhaps the greater worry is that AI, and lesser technological projects, too, have already been shifting the nature of thought and discourse toward conditions where cultural deliberations on more timeless and perennial questions of philosophy have no place. Google is already better at answers. Humans had best cultivate their advantage at questions. But if you are just asking about everyday AI assistance, just look how much AI underlies the autocomplete to a simple search query. Or, gosh, watch the speed and agility of the snippets and IntelliSense amid the keyboard experience of coding. Too bad.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anthony Judge,<\/strong> editor of the Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential<\/em>, observed, \u201cThe interesting issue for me is how one could navigate either conclusion to the questions and thereby subvert any intention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe can\u2019t assume that the \u2018bad guys\u2019 will not be developing AI assiduously to their own ends (as could already be argued to be the case), according to their own standards of ethics. AI omerta? Appropriate retribution for failing to remain loyal to the family? Eradicate those who oppose the mainstream consensus? What is to check against these processes? What will the hackers do?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rebecca Theobald,<\/strong> assistant research professor at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs, predicted, \u201cAI will mostly be used in questionable ways in the next decade because people do not trust the motives of others. Articulate people willing to speak up give me the most hope. People who are scared about their and their families\u2019 well-being worry me the most because they feel there is no other choice but to scramble to support themselves and their dependents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWithout some confidence in the climate, economy, health system and societal interaction processes, people will become focused on their own issues and have less time and capital to focus on others. AI applications in health and transportation will make a difference in the lives of most people. Although the world is no longer playing as many geopolitical games over territory, corporations and governments still seek power and influence. AI will play a large role in that. Still, over time, science will win out over ignorance.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n A director with a strategy firm<\/strong> commented, \u201cThe creators of AI and AI in general are most likely to be used by those in power to keep power. Whether to wage war or financial war or manage predicted outcomes, most AIs are there to do complex tasks. Unless there is some mechanism to make them for the public benefit, they will further encourage winner-take-all.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWas the internet mostly used in ethical or questionable ways the past decade?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The future of work is a central issue in this debate<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Intellectual product is insufficient to protect us from dystopic outcomes<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Technological determinism should be \u2018challenged by critical research\u2019<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Is it possible to design cross-cultural ethics systems?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Most people have no idea how limited and brittle these capabilities are<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
AI \u2018must not be used to make any decision that has direct impact on people\u2019s lives\u2019<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Just as with drugs, without rigorous study prior to release, AI side effects can be dangerous<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Has AI has been shifting the nature of thought and discourse and, if so, how?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
Can any type of honor code \u2013 \u2018AI omerta\u2019 \u2013 really keep developers in line?<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
When there is no trust in others, people focus on self-interests to the detriment of others<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
In order to assure it is for public good, perhaps AI could be regulated like a utility<\/h5>\n\n\n\n