Also a very accessible book! The book first introduces the basics of computing and AI/ML in plain English, before explaining the realities and limits of AI through real-life examples. mitpress.mit.edu/books/artifici…
I get that it’s hard to find sources on deadline, and often you end up with multiple outlets scrambling to book the same few voices. And sometimes you try your best, and you still end up with a #manel on gender. Plus, this is work that’s often unappreciated and uncompensated.
I'm seeing a lot of ambivalence about $GME from internet researchers and advocates. It's fun to watch a bunch of Redditors take on predatory hedge funds by manipulating stock prices. But these are the same tactics used for harassment campaigns, disinfo influence ops, etc.
Personally, I find it hilarious. In a battle between Big Finance vs. The Internet, I know who I'm rooting for, always. Money is imaginary, the stock market is a simulation, the system is a simulacrum, etc.
But I'm also mindful that @wphillips49 and others have repeatedly found that internet users "doing it for the lulz" and ironic trolling can often lead to terrible real-world harms. That's the crux of the uncertainty you'll see from many internet researchers when asked about $GME.
For "Intro to Data Privacy" this year, I wanted to show students a brief glimpse of the breadth of privacy perspectives in law. I offered a selection of readings and asked students to choose just one to read/skim and share insights with the class.
This week’s @yaleisp talks by @t_streinz@AndBurt@hartzog are inspiring me to reconsider the connection b/t modern data privacy & traditional intellectual property. Certainly, not all privacy problems are IP problems, but the common threads are still theoretically important.
A few thoughts, in brief: @t_streinz talked trade agreements, where we often negotiate both privacy & IP rights. @AndBurt & Dan Geer mentioned a conceptual link b/t data protection & DRM. @hartzog discussed "public" exceptions to (c) & patent protections.
Have been mulling this over for a while. You know a common (often tongue-in-cheek) refrain at IP conferences is that privacy doesn't really belong. I don't think that's true, but the question is: why does it matter if privacy is an intellectual property issue?
This 1962 report from the (now defunct) Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions includes many very familiar themes: automated workforce, AI, IoT, networked communications, supply chain dynamics, decline of the middle class, etc. stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:rr2…
“Cybernated systems perform with a precision and a rapidity unmatched in humans.” (By the way, should we bring back the term “cybernated” - Y/N?)
Everything Sundar Pinchai says here is disappointing. It’s sad to see a formerly mission-driven company lose its moral compass. Goodbye freedom of information, hello censored search engines. wired.com/story/wired-25… via @WIRED
Pinchai uses a very weak excuse to defend Project Drafonfly: “We are compelled by our mission [to] provide information to everyone, and [China is] 20 percent of the world's population.”
Here’s why we shouldn’t accept this from Google:
First, many orgs have to balance cultural values w/int’l markets. This isn’t a new problem & certainly not a new problem for Google. “Balancing cultural values” doesn’t obligate compliance w/every restrictive regime. Google knows this, and it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Sharing a few highlights from my talk at Yale’s @TsaiCITY Blockchain Bootcamp.
Here’s what you need to know about blockchain law & policy in 2018:
Blockchain is not going to be a laissez-faire Wild West much longer. Regulation is coming. In some cases, it’s already here, esp. in the finance sector. If you’re a blockchain dev, ignoring legal trends is a risk.
Blockchain has an image problem. It’s not just Bitcoin & cryptocurrencies. And it’s not (all) just smoke & mirrors. As long as those misconceptions exist, policymakers will not create effective laws.
Space Force is a bad idea. Outer space is the only realm where we were able to create international laws before any nation had a real stronghold over territory. The space laws that exist emphasize cooperation and scientific exploration, not war. Fund NASA instead.
Space law thread incoming in 3 … 2 … 1 …
There isn’t much space law, which is a good thing! Space is a relatively new frontier for international law. We do not have to regard the “territory” of space in the same way as we have historically dealt with land and sea. We can do better.
Uber/Lyft/etc. are not perfect. But the industry grew so rapidly bc the companies filled a huge market need & did it well. Yellow cabs were unreliable, inconsistent, & inconvenient. You couldn’t get a cab to take you outside Manhattan. Some people couldn’t get cabs at all. 😒
Rideshare apps quickly took over. For drivers who had invested tens of thousands into buying medallions, this was devastating. The solution, though, is for the still-powerful taxi industry to (1) innovate to compete in the new market; and (2) take care of their own drivers.
Some things I’ve learned from speaking at & participating in dozens of events on “the fake news problem” (disinformation, media manipulation, online speech & tech platform problems generally):
1) Everyone agrees that media literacy must be part of the solution. Very few have concrete ideas on how to implement and fund this in public education (or other venues). Rarely are educators involved in these discussions.
2) Many, esp. from traditionally trusted institutions, mourn the loss of faith in institutions - gov’t, media, etc. Few address the legitimate reasons why this change may have happened and what responsibilities institutions themselves have in earning back trust from the public.
New study: "Humans Show Racial Bias Towards Robots of Different Colors"
I found this study illuminating, both on its merits & as a reflection of the scholarly discourse surrounding controversial tech topics like racial bias & robots/AI. spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robo…
1) Most robots are designed w/racially-coded White or Asian features. If this continues, ppl will never see robots "racialized" to appear like other races. This has big implications, as robots become prevalent. (Different but related: All AI voice assistants have female voices.)
2) When presented w/robots of different "skin colors," study participants appeared to display similar racial biases as people tend to have re: humans. On one hand, disappointing. On the other hand, perhaps this opens new opportunities for using robots to help decrease biases.