A problem w telling people "just trust the medical experts" is that they still need enough time & scientific literacy to discern whether to trust "experts" promoting mass infection of kids, droplet transmission, & claims LongCovid is psychogenic, OR experts who say opposite 1/
(to be clear, do NOT trust the 1st group)
There seem to be ZERO professional consequences for repeatedly being wrong for last 22 months. Some folks in 1st group have prestigious credentials & platforms in major media outlets. General public may not know their track records 2/
So general public needs to invest a fair amount of time (which many do not have) just to know who to trust, what is true, & how to stay safe. At the same time, will be condescended to & criticized for disagreeing w/ "experts" 3/
For much of this, it was clear at the time that so-called experts were drawing bad conclusions & giving harmful advice. This isn't just in hindsight.
There has been more focus on whether the public trusts institutions (governments, medicine, public health orgs) than on how those institutions could better earn our trust. 1/
Western leaders have expressed confidence even when they were completely wrong, and have been unwilling to express uncertainty, even when it would have been more honest 2/
We've seen politicians upgrade parliament to have excellent air ventilation, as school children & essential workers are forced into poorly ventilated buildings with insufficient mitigations #COVIDisAirborne 3/
On *reviewability* of automated decision making (ADM), rather than *explainability*
Reviewability does not necessarily involve explanations. It is about exposing the decision-making process, including human processes, structures, & systems around a model
Explanations focused on how a model has arrived at an output may miss much of what is important. A more holistic view could include information on testing & auditing procedures, training data, effects of decisions on protected characteristics, & more. 2/ @jennifercobbe
Judicial review of public sector decision-making does not simply assess the decision itself, but the decision-making process as a whole
An understanding of human decision-making as a process that begins before the decision and that has consequences that resonate afterwards 3/
Flaws of countering disinfo w/ appeal to authority:
"Worrying about whether we trust institutions without asking if these institutions deserve trust... A program of infantalization – trust that the adults know what is right – will provoke equally infantile resistance." @Aelkus
Failure of legacy institutions to respond appropriately to the pandemic, from March 2020 @aelkus, h/t @RSButner
A society that cares more about declining trust in institutions than what institutions have done to deserve trust – and which devotes far more effort towards managing the behavioral psychology of risk than actually reducing risk – is engaged in narrative-making above all else.
Compared to ethics principles in medicine, AI ethics principles lack: 1. common aims & fiduciary duties 2. professional history & norms 3. proven methods to translate principles into practice 4. robust legal & professional accountability mechanisms
"The truly difficult part of ethics—actually translating theories, concepts & values into good practices AI practitioners can adopt—is kicked down the road like the proverbial can." @b_mittelstadt 2/
"Ethics has a cost. AI is often developed behind closed doors without public representation... It cannot be assumed that value-conscious frameworks will be meaningfully implemented in commercial processes that value efficiency, speed and profit." 3/
Australia's competition regulator found:
- Google engages in anti-competitive behavior in digital advertising, which harms consumers & businesses accc.gov.au/media-release/…