Podcast: Ethics of AI in Context
Episode: Pasquale & Malgieri, The New Turn On AI Accountability From The EU Regulation And Beyond
Pub date: 2021-12-03

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization



In the last years, legal scholars and computer scientists have discussed widely how to reach a good level of AI accountability and fairness. The first attempts focused on the right to an explanation of algorithms, but such an approach has proven often unfeasible and fallacious due to the lack of legal consensus on the existence of that right in different legislations, on the content of a satisfactory explanation and the technical limits of a satisfactory causal-based explanation for deep learning models. In the last years, several scholars have indeed shifted their attention from the legibility of the algorithms to the evaluation of the “impacts” of such autonomous systems on human beings, through “Algorithmic Impact Assessments” (AIA).

This paper, building on the AIA frameworks, advances a policy-making proposal for a test to “justify” (rather than merely explaining) algorithms. In practical terms, this paper proposes a system of “unlawfulness by default” of AI systems, an ex-ante model where the AI developers have the burden of the proof to justify (on the basis of the outcome of their Algorithmic Impact Assessment) that their autonomous system is not discriminatory, not manipulative, not unfair, not inaccurate, not illegitimate in its legal bases and in its purposes, not using unnecessary amount of data, etc.

In the EU, the GDPR and the new proposed AI Regulation already tend to a sustainable environment of desirable AI systems, which is broader than any ambition to have “transparent” AI or “explainable” AI, but it requires also “fair”, “lawful”, “accurate”, “purpose-specific”, data-minimalistic and “accountable” AI.

This might be possible through a practical “justification” process and statement through which the data controller proves in practical terms the legality of an algorithm, i.e., the respect of all data protection principles (that in the GDPR are fairness, lawfulness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimization, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity, accountability). This justificatory approach might also be a solution to many existing problems in the AI explanation debate: e.g., the difficulty to “open” black boxes, the transparency fallacy, the legal difficulties to enforce a right to receive individual explanations.

Under a policy-making approach, this paper proposes a pre-approval model in which the Algorithms developers before launching their systems into the market should perform a preliminary risk assessment of their technology followed by a self-certification. If the risk assessment proves that these systems are at high-risk, an approval request (to a strict regulatory authority, like a Data Protection Agency) should follow. In other terms, we propose a presumption of unlawfulness for high-risk models, while the AI developers should have the burden of proof to justify why the algorithms is not illegitimate (and thus not unfair, not discriminatory, not inaccurate, etc.)

The EU AI Regulation seems to go in this direction. It proposes a model of partial unlawfulness-by-default. However, it is still too lenient: the category of high-risk AI systems is too narrow (it excludes commercial manipulation leading to economic harms, emotion recognitions, general vulnerability exploitation, AI in the healthcare field, etc.) and the sanction in case of non-conformity with the Regulation is a monetary sanction, not a prohibition.

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Ethics of AI Lab, University of Toronto, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: Machines Like Us (LS 42 · TOP 1.5% what is this?)
Episode: How Peter Thiel’s Contrarianism Shaped Silicon Valley — and America
Pub date: 2021-12-02

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel is an enigmatic, controversial and hugely influential power broker in both Silicon Valley and the political arena. He is often seen as a libertarian, who at one point was exploring the idea of building floating stateless cities in international waters. But at the same time Thiel is very much an insider. He is actively involved in American politics, through funding political candidates, and in tech, through co-founding PayPal and Palantir, as well as supporting other venture capital projects, and is even funding an “anti-woke” university. 

In this episode of Big Tech, host Taylor Owen speaks with Max Chafkin, author of The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley’s Pursuit of Power. Chafkin’s study of Thiel seeks to understand how he has built a dual persona as a heroic Ayn Randian libertarian entrepreneurial superhero, on the one hand, and a vampiric supervillain, on the other. What has confused many about Thiel is how he seems to play on both sides of the political divide. When Thiel spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Donald Trump, many on the left couldn’t square the contradiction of how, in Chafkin’s words, “a futurist who happens to be gay, who happens to be an immigrant, who happens to have two Stanford degrees, you know, support this, like, reactionary, anti-tech, you know, crazy guy from New York?” By seeking to understand what one of the most influential men in both tech and politics is about, as well as his beliefs and goals, perhaps we can better understand how our societies are being reshaped. And perhaps that understanding will make us better prepared to counteract those shifts in ways that serve the best interests of society rather than those of the powerful few. 

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The Globe and Mail, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: Tech Won't Save Us (LS 57 · TOP 0.5% what is this?)
Episode: Who Inspired Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos’ Space Visions? w/ Fred Scharmen
Pub date: 2021-12-02

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

Paris Marx is joined by Fred Scharmen to discuss Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos’ visions for space colonization, the inspiration they draw from the work of Wernher von Braun and Gerard O’Neill, and what’s wrong with basing our future on those ideas.

Fred Scharmen is the author of Space Forces: A Critical History of Life in Outer Space. He teaches architecture and urban design at Morgan State University’s School of Architecture and Planning and is the co-founder of the Working Group on Adaptive Systems. Follow Fred on Twitter at @sevensixfive.

🚨 T-shirts are now available!

Tech Won’t Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Follow the podcast (@techwontsaveus) and host Paris Marx (@parismarx) on Twitter, and support the show on Patreon.

Find out more about Harbinger Media Network at harbingermedianetwork.com.

Also mentioned in this episode:

Wernher von Braun was a Nazi before becoming chief architect of NASA’s Saturn V rocket. He appeared in a 1955 Disney program about space flight, but his past was also criticized, including in a song by Tom Lehrer.

Support the show

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Paris Marx, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: Political Economy Forum (LS 31 · TOP 5% what is this?)
Episode: #66 - Tech Platforms and how to govern them - w/ Blayne Haggart
Pub date: 2021-11-29

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

In this episode, Prof. Blayne Haggart of Brock University speaks to Nicolas Wittstock about how to regulate platforms. 

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from University of Washington, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: Tech Life (LS 49 · TOP 0.5% what is this?)
Episode: A volcano-powered Bitcoin city?
Pub date: 2021-11-26

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

El Salvador's president made Bitcoin legal tender, now he wants to build a city. Joe Tidy speaks to Salvodoran-American cryptocurrency enthusiast and investor Gerson Martinez about the Central American country's experience with Bitcoin since its introduction earlier this year. Plus 193 member states of the UN agency Unesco say they want a more ethical approach to the development of artificial intelligence. We hear from Unesco's Gabriella Ramos about the problems with AI use today. And our own Jane Wakefield investigates the community of tweeters and YouTubers helping others find the latest Playstation and XBox consoles amid a global computer chip shortage in the run-up to Christmas.

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from BBC World Service, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: MIT Technology Review Narrated (LS 51 · TOP 0.5% what is this?)
Episode: In Machines We Trust: How pricing algorithms learn to collude
Pub date: 2021-10-27

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

Algorithms now determine how much things cost. It’s called dynamic pricing and it adjusts according to current market conditions in order to increase profits. The rise of ecommerce has propelled pricing algorithms into an everyday occurrence—whether you’re shopping on Amazon, booking a flight, hotel or ordering an Uber. 

We Meet: 

Credits:

This episode was reported by Anthony Green and produced by Jennifer Strong and Emma Cillekens. We’re edited by Mat Honan and our mix engineer is Garret Lang, with sound design and music by Jacob Gorski.

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from MIT Technology Review, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: The Sound of Economics (LS 33 · TOP 5% what is this?)
Episode: Technology: a product of unequal power?
Pub date: 2021-11-24

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization



Is technology change neutral? This question is essential in the discussion under the scope of the future of work. In this episode, Bruegel’s own Giuseppe Porcaro and Mario Mariniello speak to David Spencer about the nature of technology, its impact on the quantity and quality of work, the cost of the technological transition and how to make sure it benefits everyone.

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Bruegel, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: Latino USA (LS 65 · TOP 0.05% what is this?)
Episode: Gig Workers vs. Big Tech
Pub date: 2021-11-19

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

How does technology affect labor? How are tech corporations like Uber and Lyft redefining what it means to be a worker in the United States?

California has been ground zero for cementing the “gig work” business model of these companies into law. A year ago this month, the state passed Proposition 22 to allow app-based firms like Uber and Lyft to classify their drivers as contractors instead of employees.

In this episode of Latino USA we follow a group of drivers who are mobilizing across California – and using their own technology to take on Big Tech. Their fight is not only about their own labor protections as drivers, but a battle to prevent this labor model from spreading to other sectors of the U.S. economy.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from My Cultura, Futuro and iHeartPodcasts, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: Kinsella On Liberty (LS 36 · TOP 2.5% what is this?)
Episode: KOL364 | Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished
Pub date: 2021-11-25

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization



Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 364.

This is my Soho Forum debate held Nov. 15, 2021, in Manhattan, against professor Richard Epstein, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution "all patent and copyright law should be abolished" and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points.

My notes, and a Transcript, are below. Postmortem episode to follow.

Update: See KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin.

Note: Reddit forums discussing the debate.

Youtube:

https://youtu.be/Ep2-ohgFOys

See Gene Epstein's note about Oxford debate rules at Soho Forum and the margin of error:

From Reason:

Abolish Intellectual Property Rights?

Patent lawyer Stephan Kinsella debates Law Professor Richard Epstein

GENE EPSTEIN | 11.24.2021 1:00 PM

Abolish Intellectual Property Rights?

The United States Constitution explicitly calls for copyright and patent laws  to "promote the progress of science and useful arts" by "authors and inventors." But would getting rid of all intellectual property laws actually encourage more creativity and innovation by inventors, writers, and artists?

That was the topic of a November 15 Soho Forum debate held in New York City.

Stephan Kinsella, who's spent 28 years as a practicing patent law attorney, argued in favor of the proposition that "all patent and copyright law should be abolished."

He believes that government-created intellectual property laws empower patent and copyright trolls and powerful corporate interests while limiting the free flow of information, thus reducing the rate of innovation and creativity.

Richard Epstein, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law, says that our current system isn't perfect but sees copyright and patents as a natural extension of private property rights and believes that it should be defended by libertarians accordingly.

The debate took place in New York City in front of a live audience and was moderated by Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Production by Caveat. Photos by Brett Raney.

In 2018, Gene Epstein retired from a 26-year stint as Economics and Books Editor at Barron's, where he wrote the weekly column, "Economic Beat." He's director of the Soho Forum, which he co-founded in 2016, a monthly debate series that receives fiscal sponsorship from the Reason Foundation.

❧

—✦— Kinsella Notes —✦—

Resolved: All patent and copyright law should be abolished.

A Soho Forum Debate

Stephan Kinsella vs. Richard Epstein

Nov. 15, 2021

Caveat, 21 A Clinton St. New York, NY 10002

MAIN PRESENTATION – NOTES

Resolution: All patent and copyright law should be abolished

Why?

because these laws violate property rights, they violate freedom of speech and the press, they distort culture, they impede innovation, they literally kill people, and they impoverish the human race.

There is nothing good about patent and copyright law.

They are total abominations and harm humanity.

They are a mistake.

[No, you don’t have to be an anarchist, anti-legislation, a Rothbardian, Austrian, or even a libertarian to oppose IP law]

(By the way I’ve been practicing patent and IP law for 28 years, representing clients such as Intel, General Electric, and so on.

So I have some rough idea of how the actual system works.)

What are the laws in question?

Copyright protects the right to copy of make “derivative works” of “original works of authorship” for the life of the author plus 70 years = 120–150 years.

This is enforced by injunctions and legal protections, such as statutory damages of $150k per act of infringement

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Stephan Kinsella, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.

Podcast: New Books in Technology
Episode: Gabriella Lukács, "Invisibility by Design: Women and Labor in Japan's Digital Economy" (Duke UP, 2020)
Pub date: 2021-11-18

Get Podcast Transcript →
powered by Listen411 - fast audio-to-text and summarization

In the wake of labor market deregulation during the 2000s, online content sharing and social networking platforms were promoted in Japan as new sites of work that were accessible to anyone. Enticed by the chance to build personally fulfilling careers, many young women entered Japan's digital economy by performing unpaid labor as photographers, net idols, bloggers, online traders, and cell phone novelists. While some women leveraged digital technology to create successful careers, most did not. In Invisibility by Design: Women and Labor in Japan's Digital Economy (Duke UP, 2020), Gabriella Lukács traces how these women's unpaid labor became the engine of Japan's digital economy. Drawing on interviews with young women who strove to sculpt careers in the digital economy, Lukács shows how platform owners tapped unpaid labor to create innovative profit-generating practices without employing workers, thereby rendering women's labor invisible. By drawing out the ways in which labor precarity generates a demand for feminized affective labor, Lukács underscores the fallacy of the digital economy as a more democratic, egalitarian, and inclusive mode of production.

Jingyi Li is a PhD Candidate in Japanese History at the University of Arizona. She researches about early modern Japan, literati, and commercial publishing.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from New Books Network, which is the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Listen Notes, Inc.