F20AEC16- Part 1

Hi. Welcome back to less than 16 now, Part one.

We were talking just before the end of the last

part about the robots in this picture of this movie

with Will Smith.

Have you seen this thing?

This movie I robot?

And if you look, if you haven't seen the movie,

you can go look at it online.

But even in the picture, you can see this line

of robots stretching into the distance and you can see

if you focus in just a little bit on them.

They look kind of serious, You know, their expressions, even

in this, you know, out of focus image here or

low quality resolution image.

You can see that There, there, there they don't have

bright cheeks and and the pictures all kind of, you

know, cold gray.

Look at his expression and he appears to have something

in his hand here on, but he's definitely not in

such a happy mood.

So it compared that just by contrast to the image

that they used in our article about the you know,

with that, that the red cheeks and the kind of

big I'd kind of, you know, happy looking.

You know, or at least friendly enough looking robot.

Very different image there.

So that paints a very different picture.

Um, you have to be careful, though, because sometimes, oftentimes,

the author of the article is not choosing the images

that go with it or the even the title.

Often those air editorial decisions done by the editor.

So you can't always read too much into the author's

intent from the headline, sometimes can be even the headline

could be problematic because someone else chose it for specific

kind of sensational or click bait reason.

Okay, we're gonna talk about that at another point, But

okay, again, I'm going to narrate the story for you.

And I'd like you to pay attention to these, uh,

toe are five general questions.

And also to the to the tone and the emphasis

that I put here when I'm, you know, when I'm

going through the story, because that can really help you,

especially with the attitude question number two, um, to understand

the attitude of the writer, Um, this story, I should

say If I go back over to hear this story,

uh, I'd like you to, as I read to to

talk about these.

You know, the plus five questions here on the on

the discussion page while we're doing it.

Okay, All right.

This article begins with the again.

The title is It's make or break time for artificial

intelligence. Here's how we can make it work.

Um, artificial intelligence is the next technological frontier, and it

has the potential to make or break the world order.

The A I revolution could pull the bottom billion out

of poverty and transform dysfunctional institutions.

Or it could entrench injustice and increase inequality.

The outcome will depend on how we manage the coming

changes. Unfortunately, when it comes to managing technological revolutions, humanity

has a rather poor track record.

Consider the Internet, which has had an enormous impact on

societies worldwide, changing how we communicate, work and occupy ourselves.

And it has disturbed some economic sectors, forced changes to

long established business models and created a few entirely new

industries. But the Internet has not brought the kind of

comprehensive transformation that many anticipated.

It certainly didn't resolve the big problems, such as eradicating

poverty or enabling us to reach Mars.

As PayPal co founder Peter Thiel once noted, we wanted

flying cars instead we got 140 characters.

In fact, in some ways, Thean Turn ET has exacerbated

our problems.

While it has created opportunities for ordinary people, it has

created even mawr opportunities for the wealthiest and most powerful.

A recent study by researchers at the LSC reveals that

that the Internet has increased inequality, with educated high income

people deriving the greatest benefits online and multiple, multiple sorry

and multiple and multinational corporations able to grow massively while

evading accountability.

Perhaps, though the A I revolution can deliver the change

we need already a I, which focuses on advancing the

cognitive functions of machine so that they can learn on

their own, is reshaping our lives.

It has delivered self driving, though not but though still

not flying cars as well as virtual personal assistants and

even autonomous weapons.

But this barely scratches the surface of a eyes potential,

which is likely to produce societal, economic and political transformations

that we cannot yet fully comprehend.

A. I will not become a new industry.

It will penetrate and permanently alter every industry in existence.

Hey, I will not change human life.

It will change the boundaries and meaning of being human

how and when the trend this transformation will happen and

how to manage its far reaching effects are questions that

keep scholars and policymakers up a night.

Expectations for the A I era range from visions of

paradise, in which all of humanity's problems have been solved

to fears of dystopia in which our creation becomes an

exist inal threat.

Making predictions about scientific breakthroughs is notoriously difficult.

On September 11th, 1933 the famed nuclear physicist Lord Rutherford

told a large audience, Anyone who looks for a source

of power in the transformation of the atoms is talking

moonshine. The next morning, Leo Szilard hypothesized the idea of

a neutron induced nuclear chain reaction.

Soon thereafter, he patented the nuclear reactor.

The problem for some is Theus Sumption that new technology,

new technological breakthroughs are incompatible to those In the past,

many scholars, pundits and practitioners would agree with Alphabet Executive

Chairman Eric Schmidt that technological phenomena have their own intrinsic

properties, which humans don't understand and should not mess with.

Others may be making the opposite mistake, placing too much

stock in historical analogies.

The technology writer and researcher Virginie more rose off, among

others, expect some degree of path dependence with current discourse

is shaping our thinking about the future of technology, thereby

influencing technologies development.

Future technologies could subsequently impact our narratives, creating a sort

of self reinforcing loop To think about a technological breakthrough

like a I, we must find a balance between these

approaches. We must adopt an interdisciplinary perspective, underpinned by an

agreed vocabulary and a common conceptual framework.

We also need policies that address the interconnections among technology,

governance and ethics.

Recent initiatives, such as Partnership on Ai Ai or Ethics

and governance of A I Fund, are a step in

the right direction but lack the necessary government involvement.

These steps are necessary to answer some fundamental questions.

What makes humans human?

Is it the pursuit of hyper efficiency, the Silicon Valley

mindset? Or is it irrationality, imperfection and doubt traits beyond

the reach of any non biological entity?

Onley. By answering such questions, can we determine which values

we must protect and preserve in the coming A.

I age, as we re think, the basic concepts in

terms of our social contracts, including the national and international

institutions that have allowed inequality and any insecurity to proliferate

in a context of far reaching transformation brought about by

the rise of a I, we may be able to

reshape the status quo so that it ensures greater security

and fairness.

One of the keys to creating um or Egal egalitarian

future relates to data progress in A.

I relies on the availability and analysis of large sets

of data on human activity online and offline to distinguish

patterns of behavior that could be used to guide machine

behavior and cognition, empowering all people in the age of

A I will require each individual, not major companies, to

own the data they create.

With the right approach, we could ensure that a I

empowers people on an unprecedented scale.

Though abundant historical evidence cast doubt on such an outcome,

Perhaps doubt is the key.

As the late sociologists Zaid Damonte Baumann put it, questioning

the ostensibly unquestionable premises of our way of life is

arguably the most urgent of service is we owe our

fellow humans and ourselves okay, very interesting article on dhe.

I think you might notice some stylistic things just really

briefly here that are interesting.

You might notice that this author ah, from the public

policy. Hey, says he's a public policy scholar at the

University of Oxford.

So he's an academic, Um, you might notice.

Stylistically, this author likes to present things in threes.

You might go through the article and look at that.

How the Arctic.

The writer likes to say it could be this this

or this or it adds to or it increases.

This this and this.

That three part kind of answer or three part kind

of evidence or support is a very academic thing to

Dio. When you give three examples that that is kind

of considered the minimum when you're trying to make something

seem credible, you give three examples, and that shows that

there is enough to prove what you're you're saying.

But it doesn't give too many that that kind of

implies that you're listing all there is, which seems to

you know, which would have the opposite effect.

It seems like there's not much evidence if you list

456 things anyway, this author does that a lot.

You probably also noticed that PayPal is listed here with,

with Peter Thiel as the co founder, and I think

I mentioned that earlier in our warm up activity that

that Peter Thiel was the co founder, along with Elon

Musk, who started PayPal.

That's why I mentioned that because of the reference here,

and that's a better pronunciation of his name.

Here at the end is a is a very famous

source that you, you might wanna look more up might

wanna look up mawr if you're interested in the topic

of the idea of how humans interact with each other

and and in the future with technology.

So there's some very interesting things that we're going to

talk about that the quotations use.

And again, the let me back up a little bit

more. We're gonna talk about the quotations use and the

particularly the use of dichotomies and framing.

Okay. But I hope you have from my reading I

hope that I've helped you a little bit.

Thio, you know, T to pinpoint what the authors main

points are, and to either verify or, you know, Thio

confirm the guesses that you've made or that or the

inferences that you believe are true based on some of

the evidence in the title or in the picture.

So I so now you you you should question your

own purpose at this point.

You know the purpose that you wrote last week At

the end of last week before really studying this article,

you should start to be questioning that now to see

if you got the answer, right.

Do you think the purpose is correct?

Okay, I'm going to leave that for you, especially as

we get into the questions.

But let's focus on our second, uh, second main area

of of of skills for this article.

Dichotomies and framing.

Um, a dichotomy.

As you see here, a dichotomy is when there are

two sides.

That's why again, the word the prefects die at the

beginning there refers to to a dichotomy is when there

are two sides are options that are opposite or significantly

different. Okay, so there's we say, their separation.

If you conceptual 82 things, they're different enough that you

can put them into two different categories rather than just,

you know, a different kind of the same thing.

When you could do that, then we say that you

have done you've made a dichotomy.

You've said these two things are significantly different enough and

often we're gonna put a word in the middle t

separate those two.

And of course, you can put and you can put

But But what's a common one in terms of dichotomies

is to use the word war again to point out

that these two are different and we need to consider

both of them separately because they are uniquely different enough,

F20AEC16- Part 1

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated