Machine intelligence makes human morals more important | Zeynep Tufekci 

Wasn't sure where she was going at first, but she landed it nicely - well done - and an important point for sure!

Well worth the standing ovation, I'd say!

wow...15:45 really got me with the "lethal autonomous weapon" at the end...heres the people that make the programs telling us its not perfect and can never be perfect

I wonder who downvoted this... this is both true and important

A great talk, for once! I thought this was going to be one of those philosophical talks with minimal objectivity and high subjectivity, but instead I was pleasantly surprised by the examples and evidence for her argument she provided. This was truly eye-opening and interesting. Thank you, ms. Tufekci!

One of the most important and best talks I have ever seen. Highlights some grave mistakes in our all powerful , all great system.

How bizarre, I was watching Fox News live on you tube earlier today noticing the racist and hate comments in the chat thread scroll up, I left one comment saying "Google have an algorithm that identifies hate comments and logs the users." Several of the "keyboard warriors" instantly cleaned up their act.

Tip: Don't watch too many of these videos. Machine learning algorithms might judge you dangerous for their survival, or worse, they might try and sell you philosophical books on moral decisions.

and this is why all software must respect user freedom.

I sometimes doubt that Humans have any morals left..

Incredibly insightful and meaningful -- a discussion that doesn't accompany traditional conversations of machine intelligence.

Unchecked algorithms are ruining the world. This is a profound talk

great talk, great topic. Tebrikler Zeynep Tüfekçi!

Great talk Zeynep! Thank you

this was an incredible video. impressive perspective and she was 100% right. what she is talking about will without a doubt be the future we will all belong to, and ...(gulp) be controlled by. so we better realize that the software we write today will be used against or for us in the future. we must insure that our ethics programed into machine learning must be suitable for all people to live by comfortably and fairly. reasonably and kindly.

great presentation and a beautiful personality.

Thought provoking ! ... and a well presented treatise of scrutiny ... opens some interesting lines of reasoning out what form the scrutinizers may take

Outstanding! I have no other adequate words.

J'attends la vostfr avec impatience ☺

has anyone done any work on a 'neural net' model? I heard this term mentioned in a book on neuroscience as a ways forward, I guess as it currently stands as theoretical neuroscience. I love the idea of machine learning and ethical algorithms. There is an example of this in early education settings. Using a set of questions as Zeynep describes running through 3 or 4 topics, personal response and consequences, parents response and consequences, legal response and consequences, and then with that score, deciding on the best course of action. Say if the situation were ambiguous like a child turning up at a costume party dressed in military uniform. What would the other parents think. Let's weigh the score for each element. total score. decision. What Zeynep is looking for I guess is the difference between context dependant decisions such as choosing between a rotten apple or a rotten pair (both probably full of extra antioxidants btw), and context independent decisions, that is ones based on that black box she mentions. And the auditing of such is her main impetus. The clear definition of the differences between the two modes of decisions is what she requires. And thus the auditing of said black boxes, or rather, unbalanced taxonomies, as the studies and data entered into the machine are of one aspect of a whole, rather than a full gamut. Wow, actually, so I guess what she has identified here is an engram model for extracting information from a black box. If one asks the right questions, to the black box, one can expose the limitations of said black boxes data, and hence be able to conduct further research, or perform it oneself (the research). Brilliant talk Zeyneb. It has further inspired me to continue my journey in computation and was very entertaining and insightful. You are a brave woman!

6:10 when it comes to the data that the machine might use to hire someone, that data was input by a human. its accuracy is itself subjective but the computer doesn't know that. as humans we can recognize where the machine would have deficiencies like that and not use it for things like that until we have fed it objective information (security cameras are a thing ;P).

I totally agree, computing machines, as any other tool humanity has created, it's just an extension of our capabilities, not a replacement.

Code a "show your work" output. What do we do when someone comes to a conclusion we don't understand? We ask them how they arrived at it; and often get an answer even if it's messy and doesn't make sense. I understand everything is easier said than done, but if we can program a computer to learn, why not program a computer to explain its logic. If this, if this, if this, if this all at once, then that ad, that application, that identifier.

Very important topic to talk about!

5:11, It's just something we'll have to figure out together.

an excellent talk by a beautiful person

So right on point, so good!

Incredible!

So we need an algorithm that checks to see if other algorithms are biased. :p

I believe that the point of this talk extends beyond computer algorithms. Many people do not sufficiently appreciate the power they have over the lives of others. The executive who turned her back on the expert here, likely because her questions and doubts were uncomfortable, likely behaves like this routinely. I like to say, contra the Godfather, that nothing truly is business and everything is personal.

I had no idea this was a thing! Is it just in America or everywhere in the world? Do employers not interview people anymore?

the title explains the entire show

1:16, Just faces, I assumed vocal analysis would be a part of it too Maybe the networks could broadcast that info during the next presidential debates

it is inportant what you talk about

does that means it is dangerous to put my thoughts online?

7:12, That's what I'm hoping for.

Person of Interest...

If you've given it non-bias data then it's objective. You've just made an argument for prejudice

we should build programs that could decrypt and explain to us how these algorithms are working

But why don't we just let AI do its thing then check for the results, and if we don't like them we can impose certain pre-programmed rules on the AI. For example, if we find the AI is weeding out people with potential for depression (to use her example), we can impose a pre-programmed rule on the AI to not weed out people who could potentially get depressed in the coming 3 years or whatever. My point is that we should not stop progress just because we fear the potential consequences. In fact, history has shown that science will progress anyway regardless of our fears. Instead, I say we go ahead with progress in an iterative trial and error manner like I explained in the example above.

Good the hear Turks on TED. Tebrikler :)

She is 69 years old, but still deliver it powerfully.

Super cool. I really worried when Google's AI defeated the GO Champion.

exactly, she is 100℅ right

4:57, that's probably how it thinks of us.

9:53 Eddi von RBTV?!

At the end we are going to have to give over control as the digital systems are so much better than the human brain at collecting data and make correct decisions. We are just seeing the beginning of this trend and it's no surprise the systems are pretty unsophisticated and does beginner mistakes at this point. As time pass by it's going to be obvious not handing over control is foolish, just like it's going to look foolish driving yourself and not let your self driving system make all the decisions which make you statistically 1000% more safe on the road. I can can def see a future were the world is coordinated and controlled by a single super AI. We can just hope such a thing find value in human life in the end as it evolve far beyond human intelligence.

Computers are just tools. You wont ask if a hammer has feelings, so as you wont ask a computer what is it thinking about human issues.

Following her argument, one can draw similar conclusions about our own human brain, our brain is a black box too and we are just starting to understand its functioning, does it mean that humans can't make any subjective decisions? (well, we probably can't but the question is, should we not?) Nevertheless, an interesting talk. Raises incredibly valid points but takes the anecdotal evidences to an exaggerated level and makes a huge leap towards the end in drawing conclusions. We have to remember, machine intelligence is still at its very infancy and making predictions about what role it can / cannot play in our lives is rather a terrible idea.

The speaker cites an anecdotal example of how the algorithm screwed over a black woman with no priors and favored a white man with priors. Unless there is evidence that there is a systemic bias in the algorithm to do this over and over, have the people who found this problem forgotten that these algorithms are probabilistic? Meaning that there will be a certain amount of false positives as in the anecdote? Whoever thinks that you can design a system without reflecting the subjective judgements and values of its creators, needs a remedial lesson in philosophy.

Thank goodness this was a reasonable argument on artificial intelligence and not "The robots are taking over!" again... 😧

Notice the reaction of her co-worker. The reality of the problems in her efforts was too much to bear so she immediately "ran away" as fast as she could. Not just insulting, but you know the potential of the damage it could produce also disturbed her. Doubtful that any "perfect" machine could have explained what she said in this presentation as great as she did. Unless of course an "imperfect" HUMAN programmed it to say it...

I think there's no problem really. We can make these algorithms 'more moral', by changing the weights of so-called neurons, but the question is 'Is it worth it?'. I mean if a program shows that pregnant woman is more likely to be depressive then it is true. It's just statistics, we can't argue with that. And usually programmer need this true information, not that with moral etc. But if it's necessary it can be changed to the way we want it to work, it can take into account everything we call moral

Find me two people that agree on every subject of morality and you may just have a salient point.

sorry but nowadays, many many many people from abroad thinks Buenos Aires is the Federal Capital of Brazil. No trouble actually Watson says Toronto is a US city....

agreed :)

OK for open ended question we may program a computer to answer in different angles and knowing to teach procedure of thinking by splitting in parts and in can interconnect and split thinking so now they can make machines procedures that's logical like humans okay for example "what is ten plus nine plus tweenty?" the system can connect and split and by hundred hours of computational translation system to 10+9+20 there's a little misspelled but real AI should be able to do that now with calculation system and these are memorized and they can create or destroy system 10+9+20=39 then it translate back now by hours of speaking with human it detected that the program isn't supposed to show it's translation system so it comes to calculation and here's a thing it may search how to calculate if asker doesn't know but if asker know this then let's change what's 5748963121547*783146952 so this question is hard for human to calculate so instead it'd say "this question is too hard for calculation by human" or whatever if against another machine it can transfer the calculation procedure to name the procedure it might takes dictionary and experience of using it for people here I think it's right to hire or pick out it's just important to insert unbiased values or just make them ourselves google has algorithm that must be connected to show ads on proper age gender or whatever and the failure is everyone's because everyone also have different way of thinking so connection might solve all this

7:20 9:28 9:55

Again, people complaining about other people bias because... they are not their own bias. Which are ,off course, perfectly moral and don't need to be question. What some call bias is someone else moral and vice versa.

Some notes: AI decision making --> we can not outsource ethical responsibilities to intelligent machines (at the end of the video)

Maybe the people with higher risk of depression have that risk because there are such machine learning "algorithms" that deny them jobs?

If ur in Demets class then good job

AI MUST learn there are humans who are not violent immoral people who seek the destruction of others. Not all humans hate other humans and want to do harm for greed, power etc.... AI must be able to determine the difference, especially the AI that is being developed for military activities. What happens when AI does not distinguish between aggressive violence and a population that is not aggressively violent?

should design a computer to compute philosophy before we create ones for war etc and see what it finds

#Human #morals, the subjective decisions. But of the complex control of life's viewing of intelligent, of self machine. as explain in the body. If only 2 be left to it's own cosmic outsources of responsibilities. AI it understands self physics. the Q is, but those it still dream. for the end of life's black hole is the sleeping of the eyes that close. : ] sorry I con-put with worlds.

I think the goals is to shut out depressing people from the market. Why would you want that?

The moment when you realize, Ted Kaczynski was right all along! lol

42...

Can we replace lawyers and judges with a computer? It will be much cheaper.

It's not hard to create a system which can explain its own decision process and then improve the algorithm. Let's not put PC vs AI.

shouldn't machines be programmed to understand that some issues, espesially human morality and mortality are too complex. Some human issues need human resolution, in these cases, it would be best for machines to alert the proper individuals, multiple people, for accountability. ultimately, machines make sense; they are logical and constant, but binary may be the 1 thing humans are not.

Bro everyone wants to complain about the ethics but nobody wants to put in the work. As if it were easy to build algos . Corps are hiring people to build fancy stuff as fast as possible and putting ethics to the side because obviously money. You need to either appeal to the money side of these people or go build better programs.

1:53 nice laughing

please turkish language

Computers gonna rule da worldddddddddd

I for one welcome your machine overlords and hope they are merciful.

"Oh my God!" Change!" - fearmongering talk. All machines fail, that's why we keep building better ones... Live with it.

AS BAYRAKLARI AS AS AS

facial expressions :)

牛逼

Westworld brought me here.

third

I think she's super cute! :-)

26 855th view 1001st like 162nd comment

Not to disrespect, but didn't enjoy her presentation style...

I'm first

She is treating computers as self-learning creatures that can change our moral values. And, although this can be true, machines are controlled by us! So, if controlled correctly, artificial intelligence could be used for unbiased decisions! I get her point, although i dont understand why she is creating an idea that we are not "under control" of those systems.

stop it,we'll die.

dem thighs

Its an interesting talk, as most TEDs are. But cherry picking examples like those two criminals, is pretty weak. A sample of two people is bad science. It may or may not be accurate. But the method is bad.

wait they took her out to lunch because they didnt want her there or something? that sounds like a benefit.

Steven universe's dog copter

This "unchecked follow" means nothing.

Nonsense. There are ML algorithms which are not "black boxes". There are clustering ML algorithms which does not need a learning data, so being biased is not an issue. She brings up examples of poor ML algorithms, with obvious flaws - it does not mean there are no good ones. It is ridiculous how her speech is biased, if you consider its theme. More over, if human ethics is not solvable, then there is no point in using it in the first place, if it is solvable then its not a problem for ML algorithms to use it, its just a matter of time.

I came in to ask who's morality she's talking about...but in reality, this isn't about morality at all.

Machines will displace workers at a much faster rate. Time do take up homesteading!

Moist

Morals....are for the weak. Morals are a structure, made by Society to work more effective. The Problem is: Our morals are old. Not relevant anymore. We dont Need morals anymore.

If computers can tell if we're lying we would have no more politicians we would have no more marriages nobody could talk to anybody on RU-vid wouldn't life be boring

This topic isn’t that meaningful, and it has nothing to do with computer or machine learning. You are suggesting how to make a bias-free decision when human ourselves are coded to be biased. Every single human that lives and lived are biased, so is everything we invented, and so is your presentation. Understanding that bias are unavoidable and not necessarily bad, we only need to learn how to live with bias instead of saying “bias are bad and we need to invent machine to make unbiased decision”. Thinking machine makes better decisions than human is just dumb, if a company hire people by machine, it will not be very far from bankruptcy, Trust me.