Tag Archives: Evil

AI, Evil, and Ethics

Google is launching Bard, its version of Chat GPT, connected to search, and connected live to the internet. Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google and Alphabet, shared yesterday, “An important next step on our AI journey“. In discussing the release of Bard, Sundar said,

“We’ll combine external feedback with our own internal testing to make sure Bard’s responses meet a high bar for quality, safety and groundedness in real-world information.”

Following the link above led me to this next link:

“In addition to producing responses that humans judge as sensible, interesting, and specific to the context, dialog models should adhere to Responsible AI practices, and avoid making factual statements that are not supported by external information sources.”

I am quite intrigued by what principles Google is using to guide the design and use of Artificial Intelligence. You can go to the links for the expanded description, but here are Google’s Responsible AI practices:

“Objectives for AI applications

We will assess AI applications in view of the following objectives. We believe that AI should:

1. Be socially beneficial.

2. Avoid creating or reinforcing unfair bias.

3. Be built and tested for safety.

4. Be accountable to people.

5. Incorporate privacy design principles.

6. Uphold high standards of scientific excellence.

7. Be made available for uses that accord with these principles.”

But these principles aren’t enough, they are the list of ‘good’ directions, and so there are also the ‘Thou Shalt Nots’ added below these principles:

“AI applications we will not pursue

In addition to the above objectives, we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas:

  1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints.

  2. Weapons or other technologies whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people.

  3. Technologies that gather or use information for surveillance violating internationally accepted norms.

  4. Technologies whose purpose contravenes widely accepted principles of international law and human rights.

As our experience in this space deepens, this list may evolve.”

I remember when Google used to share its motto “Don’t be evil”.

These principles remind me of the motto. The interesting vibe I get from the principles and the ‘Thou Shalt Not’ list of things the AI will not pursue is this:

‘How can we say we will try to be ethical without: a) mentioning ethics; and b) admitting this is an imperfect science without admitting that we are guaranteed to make mistakes along the way?’

Here is the most obvious statement that these Google principles and guidelines are all about ethics without using the word ethics:

“…we will not design or deploy AI in the following application areas:

  1. Technologies that cause or are likely to cause overall harm. Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks, and will incorporate appropriate safety constraints.”

You can’t get to, “Where there is a material risk of harm, we will proceed only where we believe that the benefits substantially outweigh the risk“… Without talking aboutethics. Who is the ‘we’ in ‘we believe’? Who is deciding what benefits outweigh what risks? Who determines what is ‘substantial’ in the weighting of benefits versus risks? Going back to Principle 2, how is bias being determined or measured?

The cold hard reality is that the best Google, and Chat GPT, and all AI and predictive text models can do is, ‘Try to do less evil than good’ or maybe just, ‘Make it harder to do evil than good.’

The ethics will always trail the technological capabilities of the tool, and guiding principles are a method to catch wrongdoing, not prevent it. With respect to the list of things AI will not pursue, “As our experience in this space deepens, this list may evolve“… Is a way of saying, ‘We will learn of ways that this tool will be abused and then add to this list.

The best possible goals of designers of these AI technologies will be to do less evil than good… The big question is: How to do this ethically when it seems these companies are scared to talk directly about ethics?

Obligation to fight evil

I re-watched Everything Everywhere All At Once with my parents last night. A quick synopsis is:
A woman who has a bad relationship with her husband, dad, and daughter, and who owns a laundromat that is being audited by the IRS finds out:
• She lives in a multiverse.
• It’s up to her to save it.
• And she’s living the worst of all her possible lives.

It’s a very clever movie with some completely ridiculous (and hilarious) subplots, but ultimately it’s a battle between good and evil.

Afterwards, my dad brought up the point that evil exists and we have an obligation to fight it. A simple example would be the obligation to hide Anne Frank and her family during the German occupation of Amsterdam. It was dangerous, but it was the right thing to do.

We can not be bystanders as evil acts are committed. We have an obligation to act, to resist, and to be part of the solution. Any act against evil is a heroic act. The challenge today seems to be that evil people seem to converge, collaborate, and cooperate far more fervently than those fighting them. Lies, conspiracies, misinformation, and propaganda spread faster than reason and factual information. Social media magnifies the disparity between these.

We have an obligation to recognize and fight evil. Left alone it spreads far too easily.

The Bell Curve of Free Will by David Truss

The Bell Curve of Free Will

Assuming Free Will: There are some interesting and compelling arguments that we do not have free will, and according to Sam Harris, that it is only an illusion. I will address this at another time, because my thoughts on this are not fully formed. I need to read and understand more, but my general thesis on this topic is that the black box of our unconscious mind is only ever opened through bizarre dreams, deep meditation, and psychedelic drug use… all of which suggests metaphorical images and thoughts that seems to transcend logic and linear processing. If that is the case, I highly doubt that our will is somehow ordained by our past experiences in some sequential domino effect. And while our conscious minds might not grasp the true decision-making processes of our unconscious mind, that does not remove the fact that our unconscious mind acts, to some extent, freely… even if our history, our circumstances, and our virtue (among other things) might influence and restrict how much freedom of choice we have.

For now, I want to assume that we all have free will. Given this, I’d like to look at The Bell Curve of Free Will that I constructed to describe my thoughts on this topic.

My Premise:

If we have free will then I believe that how much choice we have will be influenced considerably by our circumstance and by how virtuous we are.

Background on the Graph: I should have created 2 different graphs, one for circumstance and one for virtue, but the dotted line showing how one influences the other is important. Further, I could have created charts about how our choices are increased or limited based on many different factors, like our health, our culture or religion, or our parents. I chose circumstance and virtue because they are easy to connect in my example, and highly influential to our free will, or our lack of ability to make choices.

Here is the image I created:

Circumstance and Free Will: If you are destitute or impoverished, if you are in a situation where you are unsafe or starving, your choices are very limited. You are more likely to go to extreme measures to improve your safety or well-being, at any cost including illegal, unreasonable, or unconscionable means, even if you wouldn’t want to do these things if your circumstances are different. You will act to protect or feed yourself and your family and those reasons overrule reasons you would otherwise have to not do something desperate. However, your circumstances limit you from doing things many other people could easily choose to do.

On the other hand, if you are affluent and have a lot of influence, the choices you get to make are significantly greater than if you are destitute. From living arrangements, to choice of foods, to freedom to travel, to caring for your loved ones, an affluent person can make so many choices and have so much freedom to make those choices compared to those that are only thinking of survival or their next meal. This isn’t a bell curve, this is a direct relationship where affluence and power, or lack of these, directly influence the amount of choice a person has.

Virtue and Free Will: The vast majority of people have a lot of choice and free will, while people on the extremes of the virtue scale do not. If you are a genuinely evil person who gets pleasure out of being hurtful and evil, you are probably limited in your choice and ability to do good deeds and make kind choices. When you are angry, your choices become more limited, your reactions to circumstance are less likely to provide you with more options that if you were more level-headed.

On the other extreme, if you are extremely virtuous and benevolent, you simply could not make choices that are hurtful to others. You have more limited choice because your virtue would compel you to do ‘the right thing’ and not choose other options that are less kind, even if for example, they benefit you. Your choices become limited because you would not have the options that others would in your place. Mother Theresa probably could not choose to walk away from her charity, her virtue would not allow it.

High Virtue and High Affluence: This is shown by the dotted green line on the graph.

Affluence and influence do not necessarily result in endless choice. More virtuous people, who are also affluent, are compelled to be in the service of others and to use their means for good. Their affluence might provide more choice and means for them to do this, but if they are truly virtuous then they would be compelled towards using their affluence and influence in ways that demonstrate their virtuousness, thus reducing their will do to other things.

As a side note: I have seen many instances where people with very little means have gone out of their way to be generous and kind. And, our world is filled with many affluent and influential people who could be more virtuous and choose not to be so… even when it would mean far less sacrifice for them. Bill Gates explained this succinctly:

“My charitable giving is not impressive. What’s impressive is people who give to charities who have to sacrifice something to give it to him. In my family, we don’t even hesitate to buy yet another airplane. But there are people who have to choose, do I go out to dinner? Or do I give this $20 to my church? That’s a very different decision than I make. Those are the people that impress me.” ~ Bill Gates

An inherent flaw in putting these two graphs together is that an unintended extrapolation could be that the impoverished can not be virtuous, With this insight, here is one aspect of the two-in-one graph that is not shown, but should be noted:

High Virtue and Low Affluence: On both ends of these two scales the choice is limited, and so free will would be further diminished. As an example: A devout and benevolent monk or priest who is in the same destitute situation as someone equally as impoverished (but less virtuous) could not choose to harm or steal from someone even if it was to feed his/her own family.

Final Thoughts: I wonder if conscientious people who think about philosophy, and/or are compelled towards the sciences to do ‘good’, and make a difference in the world, are more likely to believe that there is no such thing as free will… since by nature of their virtues, they have less free will than someone that is not as concerned about the well-being of humanity? In a way, I could have titled this graph ‘The Curse of Free Will’ because either you are cursed to be evil, or you are cursed to be kind, since in both cases you are allotted less choice in life, less free will. Is it somehow more blissful and less restrictive to live a somewhat selfish life? Is our propensity towards this unenlightened life the reason religions are born? If free will does not lead us to be more virtuous, what does?

 

3 ways that people are digitally evil

I’m a huge fan of Twitter. I think it is a tool that has a challenging entry point, but with a little help and advice, it can be a powerful place to learn and build a great PLN.

It can also be used for evil.

Now, to be honest, I don’t see this very often because I don’t look for it. I see a whole lot of good in my Twitter feed, but here are 3 ways people use Twitter that are digitally evil, and would probably be less likely to happen in a face-to-face conversation:

1. Ad hominem attacks.

Ad hominem (Latin for “to the person”),[1] short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Examples include making fun of someone’s weight, looks, background, or social position, rather than looking at the actual issues. If you think about this, by attacking the person, rather than their ideas, you actually diminish the points you make against their arguments. Let’s say you hate the ideas someone is sharing, and you call them fat and ugly on Twitter. Would their argument be better if they were skinny and handsome/pretty? Are you suggesting their ideas are dependent on their size and looks? That these things matter? Should you be judged on the merits of these kind of arguments? It is hurtful and derogatory, and insulting not just to the person you are attacking.

2. Sarcastic questioning.

This is a passive-aggressive move. It is the asking of a question that your question already suggests you understand what’s going on, but you ask it anyway.

“Is it just me or… ?”

“Why is it that… ?”

“Why on earth would… ?”

“Can you believe that… ?”

These openings can be fun and lighthearted, or they can be accusatory and underhanded. I used this strategy above by asking, “Should you be judged on the merits of these kind of arguments?” But it wasn’t an intentional attack, it wasn’t comedy at the expense of people.

3. Full on rants.

I will confess to ranting against poor customer service in Twitter. I don’t do it often, but I’m also not guilt free. That said, there seem to be a subset of Twitter users that use it as a venue to regularly rant. This seems unhealthy to me. It is something I try to avoid, but often angry tweets are retweeted, and so I might see them not because I follow the person, but because someone I follow retweets this person.

—

Sometimes I think digital conversations give rise, and permission, for ‘inside voices‘ to be externalized. The medium allows people that may not normally have a voice to be heard, to speak to (or at least at) a CEO, politician, or movie star. A hashtag gives anyone an audience. Someone might only have 5 followers, but #companyname, #election, #event, or #movie will find them readers of their tweets. For those that already have a large audience, there is an even greater responsibility not to be intentionally evil.

I try to be thoughtful. I pause before tweeting a complaint or a rant. I think about the point I want to make… and I’ll still make mistakes. But at least I‘m making an effort not to be mean, and I unfollow people that don’t seem to have this kind of filter. I filter my timeline as best as I can from digitally evil people.

PS. That doesn’t mean I ignore people with different opinions, or shy away from good, challenging questions.

an original sin

I want to talk about something sinful. I say this in the hope that it promotes Good, not anger. Please keep that intent in mind as you read.

I’ve said this elsewhere before:

I think the two most noblest of traits are compassion and forgiveness.
Compassion because it links us to others in a way that we lose ourselves.
Forgiveness because more than any other trait, it can not be faked
and true forgiveness is to see love even in the faults of others.

This post is not directly about compassion and forgiveness but it is about being noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals. It is about being responsive in a way the shows high moral principles in the most religious sense… where all great religions share common beliefs.

This post is about two things, Good and Evil. I believe there is capital ‘G’ Good in this world and also capital ‘E’ Evil in this world. I believe these forces are at battle globally, nationally, locally and personally. We have both good and evil wolves within us all and we chose which one we feed. I question which one is being fed in today?

Osama Bin Ladin is dead.

I do not question if he was Evil. Osama Bin Ladin is dead and the world has been rid of an Evil man.

What I fear now, what scares me, is the response I see to his death. It is vengeful, vindictive. It is spurred by hate. I see the only of the 7 deadly sins not necessarily associated with selfishness or self-interest: wrath.

I’ve seen this before. I’ve seen it around the world. My earliest memory of it was when Ronald Reagan was shot. I sat, shocked, watching my friends television after school, one of the scenes shared, a celebration in the streets of an unremembered country, far from the US in distance, diplomacy and idealism. It felt wrong. I have the same feeling now.

And so I seek to see things from multiple perspectives and to understand things that we may miss because we take things for granted in our own culture and in our own fixed perspective.

President Obama said on the death of Osama Bin Ladin and in discussing the tragedy of 9/11, “… And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace. Nearly 3,000 citizens taken from us, leaving a gaping hole in our hearts.”

I remember watching that on television too. Much of the world gasping for breath as towers crumbled. And once again, scenes shared of celebrations in the streets of other countries, far from the US in distance, diplomacy and idealism. This too felt wrong. I have the same feeling now.

How many have died since the towers fell? How many parent-less children are there? …the victims of a war on Hate. Victims: not gun-wielding Evil men and women… Just people in the wrong place at the wrong time.

“… And yet we know that the worst images are those that were unseen to the world. The empty seat at the dinner table. Children who were forced to grow up without their mother or their father. Parents who would never know the feeling of their child’s embrace.”

Without doing research I would estimate the number of deaths from the war on Hate to be closer to 300,000 than 3,000. But the totals are not shared to be compared, they are both significant numbers that exceed zero, making them painful reminders of Evil. They leave gaping holes in many of our hearts.

It is hard for any of the surviving family members, victims in different countries but with common suffering, to see the Good in this world. But we do have Good in this world. And there is room for more of it. There is always room for compassion and forgiveness. There is always a possible response that is noble: having or showing fine personal qualities or high moral principles and ideals.

An evil man is dead. I see celebrations around the world and this too feels wrong.

Will the killing stop? I read a book about ‘The Spider and the Starfish’. You sever a leg of a spider and it is crippled. You sever the leg of a starfish and it grows a new one. I fear that al Qaeda is more starfish than spider.

How do we let the Good in us reign? Where can we now seek love? Where can we show compassion? To whom can we show forgiveness? How can we bring peace to our world?

An evil man is dead. This is cause for relief, not rejoicing; reconciliation, not retribution; reflection, not wrath.