I keep rereading this because, as I've mentioned in other posts, no one seems to have spent much other time on a legal defintion despite that being a fairly important first step to useful regulation. Everytime I read it, something else pops up in it as interesting. In this case I was looking at the proposed… Continue reading A legal defintion of AI, Part III
On principles.
If we are going to deal with AI regulation, rather than just talking in vagaries about the importance of ethics or the impending doom of inate bias or the imperative for AI education, maybe we should have a list of actionable principles which can form the basis of concrete and useful regulation. (And maybe they… Continue reading On principles.
The G7 on AI; not A1.
This is the G7 Innovation Minister's statement on Artificial Intelligence from the G7 meeting in Charlevoix in May of this year. Once again I'm a little late to the party even though it happened in Canada. Frankly it's a trite and disappointing hodge-podge of low quality ideas with no central theme linked by the liberal use… Continue reading The G7 on AI; not A1.
Qui Regunt?
I think we've all heard the call that everyone needs to be in STEM these days, but here's an article that makes the case for a role in the social sciences in handling AI. See especially part 3. This line made me think for a bit: Ethics and values are social phenomena, something people do (with or without… Continue reading Qui Regunt?
The Toronto Declaration, eh.
Here's something that maybe everyone else was aware of except me. It's called The Toronto Declaration and it was issued at a conference in Toronto in May of this year by a group called accessnow to address principles of equality and non-discrimination in machine learining systems. The structure of the declaration is interesting to me. It… Continue reading The Toronto Declaration, eh.
Viene la tormenta! 