#algorithm society

[futuramb]

In the beginning was the word. Language is the operating system of human culture. From language emerges myth and law, gods and money, art and science, friendships and nations and computer code. A.I.’s new mastery of language means it can now hack and manipulate the operating system of civilization. By gaining mastery of language, A.I. is seizing the master key to civilization, from bank vaults to holy sepulchers.

This is a really important point that Harari, Harris and Raskin makes! But I wonder if the image they paint might lead the discussion astray so people miss the important point?

Is it really wise to stick to the controversial and historically burdoned word A.I.? I fear it will lead the discussion away from the key problem. Instead of discussing the threats to society it leads to a misguided discussion about intelligence or certain strands of technologies.

Another doubt I have is about implying that A.I. is a "being" that do things: "It" has a mastery of language and "it" is seizing the master key to civilization... This might also lead the discussion in the wrong direction since it implies that A.I. have some underlying direction or purpose.

It think we need to think more broadly about which metaphors we need in order to have this discussion about how these algorithmic contraptions affect the society.

An alternative metaphor could e g be to compare emerging algorithmic contraptions like Twitter, ChatGPT et al to the different parts in building a smart and learning virus that infect our society's cultural metabolism and creates havoc by learning the language and use that knowledge to reprogram and reconnect the cells in ways that tears the cultural entity we call civilization apart.

Do you have other suggestions?

[futuramb]

Machines can do most of a psychologist's job. The industry must prepare for disruption

Psychological assessment and treatment is based on well-defined rules, which makes it ripe for a robot takeover.

[...] we believe the impacts of this technology may arrive even sooner than we thought. Three things in particular may drive this acceleration.

The first is the rapid progress in automated systems that can replicate (and sometimes exceed) human decision-making capacities [...]

The second factor is an emerging “tsunami” of AI impacts warned of by economists [...]

The third factor is the COVID-19 pandemic. Demand for mental health services increased dramatically [...]

This piece is written by people working in the field, which I think is important to notice in order to value what they write. In my lectures I sometimes try to make a similar points arguing that many jobs we feel needs to be performed by humans in reality consists of a number of a set of tasks of which many belongs to areas where the accelerated algorithmic development leave human capabilites in the dust.

It is interesting to not that most people protesting to this are not themselves e g psychologists and therefore don't see the full spectrum of what a psychologist do.

In this article the authors base their analysis on that

[...] the typical psychologist’s job has four primary components: assessment, formulation, intervention, and evaluation of outcome

Each component can already be automated to some extent.

Assessment of a client’s strengths and difficulties is largely carried out by computer-driven presentations of psychological tests, interpretation of results and the writing of interpretative reports.

The rules for diagnosis of conditions are far advanced, to the extent that decision trees are extensively used by practitioners.

Interventions are designed along formulaic lines, providing explicit rules for the presentation of guidance and problem solving, with exercises and reflections at specific points in the therapy.

Evaluation is largely a replay of the initial assessment.

Much of the work of the helping professional does not require empathy or intuition. Psychology has essentially laid the groundwork for the replication of human practice by a machine.

What makes this noteworthy is that even a psychologist's job, in similarity with many others, is already organized in a way that is already prepared for machine intervention. And here lies the real threat of machine intelligence to many of the tasks we do.

[futuramb]

The Misinformation Campaign Was Distinctly One-Sided

In 2020, false propaganda about voting came almost exclusively from the right, putting tech companies in a bind.

Misinformation has entered its industrial era. It has always existed, but now it is girded by structures, moves via clear pathways, and can be redirected at new targets. It is no longer the province of conspiracist novitiates and social-media amateurs. Yesterday’s “election fraud” is today’s “dangerous vaccines.” The dynamic is predictable, but seemingly unpreventable.

An interesting but uncontrollable tool here is the possibility of C-DoS responces in the form of platform interventions Amy Webb is talking about. C-DoS means Company Denial-of-service and was what happened when e g Twitter removed Donald Trump from their platform or when RobinHood stopped the trade with Game Stop stocks.

That companies and not democratic institutions do this is of course a problem. But it also says something about how slow democratic institutions are to react to things occuring at an accelerating Internet-speed. Which in turn opens up the field to - or even requires of - the platform comnpanies to act on behalf on society.

Listen to Amy Webb talk about this in this conversation.

[futuramb]

Robots aren’t taking our jobs — they’re becoming our bosses

How hard will the robots make us work?

Or are they already our bosses to a certain extent? Many of us are already measured by systems and assigned work according to algorithm based planning...

Yes, most of us still have a human manager, but behind him or her we usually find a complex set of policies, regulations and plans. In many cases our human managers are not so human when it comes to changing the parameters around your work situation.

[futuramb]

Worrying about AI turning evil is a little bit like worrying about overpopulation on Mars.

How to know if artificial intelligence is about to destroy civilization - MIT Technology Review

Yes, but we seems to be very good at being worried about many things these days.

I think we have to remember the S-curves again. We are exaggerating the effects in the short run, but underestimate the effects in the longer run. But in the longer run the effects are usually very different from when we worried about them in the beginning.

When it comes to AI we are in the very early phase. But when it comes to global connectivity and social media we are living in an era when we are being surprised almost every day...

[futuramb]

30% Of Workers Would Replace Their Boss With A Robot

30 percent of US workers would replace their current boss with an android if given the chance.

I think these kinds of lists are important to understand a bit more about the complexity in why we may prefer or reject work situations managed by algorithms.

But e g why did the author chose the word "robot"? It conceils all the situations that we are already being managed or supported by algorithms already today.

And what as meant by the word "work" or "manage".

There are so many questions around surveys like this...

The reasons why people preferred to keep their human boss included:

They like their boss (e.g., “I don't think I'd be able to BS with a robot like I do my boss, I like my boss.”)

They doubt the capabilities of robots (e.g., “Robots can't be as smart as humans”)

They doubt the people skills and empathy of robots (e.g., “My boss has EI where a robot has none.”)

They fear robots (e.g., “I've seen the Terminator and it doesn't end well.”)

They don’t want to put humans out of work (e.g., “I don't want a person to lose their job to a machine”)

The reasons why people would prefer a robot boss included:

They don’t like their boss (e.g., “Current boss is an a—hole”)

They believe their boss is biased (e.g., “With a robot no favoritism would be possible.”)

They believe their boss lacks competence (e.g., “Robots would be more helpful. My boss is disorganized, inconsistent, and can’t help me.”)

Their boss lacks people skills and empathy (e.g., “My boss has no people skills so that would be fine”)

[futuramb]

What People Hate About Being Managed by Algorithms, According to a Study of Uber Drivers

It’s like having a micromanaging boss who’s always watching you.

In a study of Uber drivers in London and New York researchers find that the top things that drivers complain about are:

The constant surveillance and immediate corrections

Little transparency cause feelings of injustice

Dehumanization - constant feeling of being played

But is this negative relations to algorithmic managers necessary?

The researchers continue by recommending four possible ways of changing this:

Make the algorithms more transparent by explaining the underlying goal parameters

Invite feedback and use it to develop the algorithms

Build in human contact

Build in trust by adding social commitments

[futuramb]

We are living in the world’s most advanced surveillance system. This system wasn’t created deliberately. It was built through the interplay of technological advance and the profit motive. It was built to make money. The greatest trick technology companies ever played was persuading society to surveil itself.