She basically said that most social media and technology are not ethical and that it should become more ethical, but if ethics is the compass that allows us to align our actions with our values, then you have to change the values of the people who are creating all of this technology. Maybe, all this people (according to their values)they are being ethical, but just happens that most people in society have different values.
Do you want to measure and gather everything that you can? If you do, you’ll get insight in increasingly more. That means something for yourself, for your organization. You get more responsibility, even for things that are out of your span of knowledge and therefore your span of control. The knowledge and the data gathered brings with it an increased responsibility. The thing with the big tech companies is that they don’t take, accept the additional responsibility. They wave it off as if it’s not theirs… not their intent, not their fault, not their responsibility. What is claimed here is that this conduct is unethical.
There's also another deeper crucial aspect that she didn't mention. Ethics not only aligns with our actions and values, but also evolves from our interactions within a community and is influenced by biological and cultural evolution. This is a crucial aspect that we need to also pay attention to when thinking about ethics and our technology.
This topic is arguable but she has a point. As human being, we really forgot the purpose of innovation. But I think that if human beings have values, why does it get worse?
She captured the core issue in the creation of another tool that can do immense good or bad. A nice summary on the need to understand the next arms race playing out. In this case, not enough people can see how unbridled tech/info can push the train off the tracks to the highest bidder with little regard.
@14:49 "To be human means to be an innately moral creature...." I'm not sure I agree with this. It's a fascinating talk and has ideas I've not considered, but this penultimate line just doesn't ring true. I feel that many (if not most) humans have a 'dark side' and in some, this manifests itself in greed, in being a user, an abuser, a controller, or deceiver. Yes some of these people will know these behaviours are 'morally wrong' but some won't, and will have a set of ethics and morals which allow them to do these things and think it's OK. However I've not thought this through and other opinions are valid, and I welcome thoughts on the subject.
I agree with you on this. Humans definitely have both sides. They are not innately moral. There has been researching done to see if there is any genetics that plays a role in these characteristics of a human being. According to an online article, “Morality can be understood as a natural characteristic emerging from traits that are based on instinct and emotion and shaped by reason, evolving in an intensely social context. Humans certainly also have natural tendencies toward violence, cruelty, and selfishness, but prosocial, cooperative traits have held the overall advantage over antisocial, violent tendencies, in both biological and cultural evolutionary adaptation. Cooperation and compassion have taken an especially strong lead over violence and cruelty in modern educated secular democratic societies when contrasted with most of human history. Reason and rigorous critical thinking are our best tools in this ongoing process of societal improvement.” These human characteristics are learned traits and no genetics plays a role in identifying human nature. However, the main idea of the talk I believe is creating technology that is moral and just. The way technology can be used is up to the people who are using it. As a coin have two sides, there are good and bad in the way something can be used and the same goes for anything built technology related. I believe with Olivia that ethics should be kept in mind while making a ‘good” technology but how the humankind will be affected by that particular invention all depends on the way people use it. What we can hope is that the idea of non-maleficence is kept in mind while making these technological inventions to make sure that there are no intentions of causing harm with any of these things.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of her words. To be a "moral creature" doesnt mean you are always good or that we dont have a "dark side". It means that acting on a set of values, living in relation to virtues and vices, right and wrong, is inescapable, it is part of our human condition. You actually agree with her when you said that even the people that have "morally wrong" beahaviours "will have a set of ethics and morals" (to quote your words).
I really like this lecture, We should not be rewarding these people in our society, because rewarding personalities and behavior like that only leads to it becoming more common, and the effects only worsening. We need to rethink how we reward certain values and behaviors from individuals so that we can build a more ethical and harmonious society that is not controlled as much by these kinds of individuals. Individuals who exploit our desires and psychology for their own benefit. As if we were nothing but cattle or slaves.
I really like this lecture. I think while everyone might have varying differences in values i believe there is still a majority owned shared universal code of ethics that the majority of humanity has. It's just that certain minorities who can become malignant in society end up becoming the most influential, and their values are much more self invested then most people's are. Which is why many overlook ethics for the sake of self investment because they consider that value more important then maintaining ethics. Sure they might pretend like they care but they only do that because faking it makes their self investment greater because they know what people want to hear. We should not be rewarding these people in our society, because rewarding personalities and behavior like that only leads to it becoming more common, and the effects only worsening. We need to rethink how we reward certain values and behaviors from individuals so that we can build a more ethical and harmonious society that is not controlled as much by these kinds of individuals. Individuals who exploit our desires and psychology for their own benefit. As if we were nothing but cattle or slaves.
Do you want to measure and gather everything that you can? If you do, you’ll get insight in increasingly more. That means something for yourself, for your organization. You get more responsibility, even for things that are out of your span of knowledge, and therefore your span of control. The knowledge and the data gathered brings with it an increased responsibility. The thing with the big tech companies is that they don’t take, or accept the additional responsibility. They wave it off as if it’s not theirs… not their intent, not their fault, not their responsibility. What is claimed here is that this conduct is unethical.
Simply put she implies that human ethics aligned with their purpose "Here I stand" drives certain amount of more fitted decisions and results. And that should be included in the robotic program based on their purpose as well in some sort of solution l, algorithm? Or such for THE BEST resulting outcomes. Not the most accurate ones.
God loves you and takes care of you. The biggest loss that a person loses in this life is to live and die while he does not know God or His Messenger, Muhammad, the last of the prophets and the Islamic religion, the last of the heavenly religions, from intelligence. Before you believe in something or not, study it and try to understand it well, and then you have the choice. By reading the Noble Qur’an with translation and trying to understand it before time runs out
She basically said that most social media and technology are not ethical and that it should become more ethical, but if ethics is the compass that allows us to align our actions with our values, then you have to change the values of the people who are creating all of this technology. Maybe, all this people (according to their values)they are being ethical, but just happens that most people in society have different values.
Ethical is this context, means form the public good. There’s enough evidence to argue that most tech companies do not operate that way.
Do you want to measure and gather everything that you can? If you do, you’ll get insight in increasingly more. That means something for yourself, for your organization. You get more responsibility, even for things that are out of your span of knowledge and therefore your span of control. The knowledge and the data gathered brings with it an increased responsibility.
The thing with the big tech companies is that they don’t take, accept the additional responsibility. They wave it off as if it’s not theirs… not their intent, not their fault, not their responsibility. What is claimed here is that this conduct is unethical.
There's also another deeper crucial aspect that she didn't mention. Ethics not only aligns with our actions and values, but also evolves from our interactions within a community and is influenced by biological and cultural evolution. This is a crucial aspect that we need to also pay attention to when thinking about ethics and our technology.
You’re amazing Olivia
This topic is arguable but she has a point. As human being, we really forgot the purpose of innovation. But I think that if human beings have values, why does it get worse?
She captured the core issue in the creation of another tool that can do immense good or bad. A nice summary on the need to understand the next arms race playing out. In this case, not enough people can see how unbridled tech/info can push the train off the tracks to the highest bidder with little regard.
@14:49 "To be human means to be an innately moral creature...." I'm not sure I agree with this. It's a fascinating talk and has ideas I've not considered, but this penultimate line just doesn't ring true. I feel that many (if not most) humans have a 'dark side' and in some, this manifests itself in greed, in being a user, an abuser, a controller, or deceiver. Yes some of these people will know these behaviours are 'morally wrong' but some won't, and will have a set of ethics and morals which allow them to do these things and think it's OK. However I've not thought this through and other opinions are valid, and I welcome thoughts on the subject.
I agree with you on this. Humans definitely have both sides. They are not innately moral. There has been researching done to see if there is any genetics that plays a role in these characteristics of a human being. According to an online article, “Morality can be understood as a natural characteristic emerging from traits that are based on instinct and emotion and shaped by reason, evolving in an intensely social context. Humans certainly also have natural tendencies toward violence, cruelty, and selfishness, but prosocial, cooperative traits have held the overall advantage over antisocial, violent tendencies, in both biological and cultural evolutionary adaptation. Cooperation and compassion have taken an especially strong lead over violence and cruelty in modern educated secular democratic societies when contrasted with most of human history. Reason and rigorous critical thinking are our best tools in this ongoing process of societal improvement.” These human characteristics are learned traits and no genetics plays a role in identifying human nature. However, the main idea of the talk I believe is creating technology that is moral and just. The way technology can be used is up to the people who are using it. As a coin have two sides, there are good and bad in the way something can be used and the same goes for anything built technology related. I believe with Olivia that ethics should be kept in mind while making a ‘good” technology but how the humankind will be affected by that particular invention all depends on the way people use it. What we can hope is that the idea of non-maleficence is kept in mind while making these technological inventions to make sure that there are no intentions of causing harm with any of these things.
I think you misunderstood the meaning of her words. To be a "moral creature" doesnt mean you are always good or that we dont have a "dark side". It means that acting on a set of values, living in relation to virtues and vices, right and wrong, is inescapable, it is part of our human condition. You actually agree with her when you said that even the people that have "morally wrong" beahaviours "will have a set of ethics and morals" (to quote your words).
Technology and AI without ethics is disastrous and self-serving. We need to watch out how technology and AI are used for the good of humanity.
I really like this lecture, We should not be rewarding these people in our society, because rewarding personalities and behavior like that only leads to it becoming more common, and the effects only worsening. We need to rethink how we reward certain values and behaviors from individuals so that we can build a more ethical and harmonious society that is not controlled as much by these kinds of individuals. Individuals who exploit our desires and psychology for their own benefit. As if we were nothing but cattle or slaves.
I really like this lecture. I think while everyone might have varying differences in values i believe there is still a majority owned shared universal code of ethics that the majority of humanity has. It's just that certain minorities who can become malignant in society end up becoming the most influential, and their values are much more self invested then most people's are. Which is why many overlook ethics for the sake of self investment because they consider that value more important then maintaining ethics. Sure they might pretend like they care but they only do that because faking it makes their self investment greater because they know what people want to hear. We should not be rewarding these people in our society, because rewarding personalities and behavior like that only leads to it becoming more common, and the effects only worsening. We need to rethink how we reward certain values and behaviors from individuals so that we can build a more ethical and harmonious society that is not controlled as much by these kinds of individuals. Individuals who exploit our desires and psychology for their own benefit. As if we were nothing but cattle or slaves.
I like this notion - majority owned, shared, universal code of ethics!
I totally agree.
Beautiful
great speech, pity about the audio
Great ideas 👏👏👏👏
Good talk
Do you want to measure and gather everything that you can? If you do, you’ll get insight in increasingly more. That means something for yourself, for your organization. You get more responsibility, even for things that are out of your span of knowledge, and therefore your span of control. The knowledge and the data gathered brings with it an increased responsibility.
The thing with the big tech companies is that they don’t take, or accept the additional responsibility. They wave it off as if it’s not theirs… not their intent, not their fault, not their responsibility. What is claimed here is that this conduct is unethical.
Simply put she implies that human ethics aligned with their purpose "Here I stand" drives certain amount of more fitted decisions and results. And that should be included in the robotic program based on their purpose as well in some sort of solution l, algorithm? Or such for THE BEST resulting outcomes. Not the most accurate ones.
she a baddie tho, aarav agarwal likes her
God loves you and takes care of you. The biggest loss that a person loses in this life is to live and die while he does not know God or His Messenger, Muhammad, the last of the prophets and the Islamic religion, the last of the heavenly religions, from intelligence. Before you believe in something or not, study it and try to understand it well, and then you have the choice. By reading the Noble Qur’an with translation and trying to understand it before time runs out
Muhammed was a warlord that married a 9 year old and God allowed him to be his messenger?
Technology is not technology.
And reality is not real.
Ethics? That's laughable in these times.
is it ethical to have 2 wifes? solve this first!
She look like a half a college got her tho