Pondering AI

Eryk Salvaggio articulates myths animating AI design, illustrates the nature of creativity and generated media, and artfully reframes the discourse on GenAI and art.

Eryk joined Kimberly to discuss myths and metaphors in GenAI design; the illusion of control; if AI saves time and what for; not relying on futuristic AI to solve problems; the fallacy of scale; the dehumanizing narrative of human equivalence; positive biases toward AI; why asking ‘is the machine creative’ misses the mark; creative expression and meaning making; what AI generated art represents; distinguishing archives from datasets; curation as an act of care; representation and context in generated media; the Orwellian view of mass surveillance as anonymity; complicity and critique of GenAI tools; abstraction and noise; and what we aren’t doing when we use GenAI.

Eryk Salvaggio is a new media artist, Visiting Professor in Humanities, Computing and Design at the Rochester Institute of Technology, and an Emerging Technology Research Advisor at the Siegel Family Endowment. Eryk is also a researcher on the AI Pedagogies Project at Harvard University’s metaLab and lecturer on Responsible AI at Elisava Barcelona School of Design and Engineering.

Addition Resources:

Cybernetic Forests: mail.cyberneticforests.com

The Age of Noise: https://mail.cyberneticforests.com/the-age-of-noise/

Challenging the Myths of Generative AI: https://www.techpolicy.press/challenging-the-myths-of-generative-ai/

A transcript of this episode is here.

John Danaher assesses how AI may reshape ethical and social norms, minds the anticipatory gap in regulation, and applies the MVPP to decide against digitizing himself.

John parlayed an interest in science fiction into researching legal philosophy, emerging technology, and society. Flipping the script on ethical assessment, John identifies six (6) mechanisms by which technology may reshape ethical principles and social norms. John further illustrates the impact AI can have on decision sets and relationships. We then discuss the dilemma articulated by the aptly named anticipatory gap. In which the effort required to regulate nascent tech is proportional to our understanding of its ultimate effects.

Finally, we turn our attention to the rapid rise of digital duplicates. John provides examples and proposes a Minimally Viable Permissibility Principle (MVPP) for evaluating the use of digital duplicates. Emphasizing the difficulty of mitigating the risks posed after a digital duplicate is let loose in the wide, John declines the opportunity to digitally duplicate himself.

John Danaher is a Sr. Lecturer in Ethics at the NUI Galway School of Law. A prolific scholar, he is the author of Automation and Utopia: Human Flourishing in a World Without Work (Harvard University Press, 2019). Papers referenced in this episode include The Ethics of Personalized Digital Duplicates: A Minimal Viability Principle and How Technology Alters Morality and Why It Matters.

A transcript of this episode is here.

Steven Kelts engages engineers in ethical choice, enlivens training with role-playing, exposes organizational hazards and separates moral qualms from a duty to care.

Steven and Kimberly discuss Ashley Casovan’s inspiring query; the affirmation allusion; students as stochastic parrots; when ethical sophistication backfires; limits of ethics review boards; engineers and developers as core to ethical design; assuming people are good; 4 steps of ethical decision making; inadvertent hotdog theft; organizational disincentives; simulation and role-playing in ethical training; avoiding cognitive overload; reorienting ethical responsibility; guns, ethical qualms and care; and empowering engineers to make ethical choices.

Steven Kelts is a lecturer in Princeton’s University Center for Human Values (UCHV) and affiliated faculty in the Center for Information Technology Policy (CITP). Steve is also an ethics advisor to the Responsible AI Institute and Director of All Tech is Human’s Responsible University Network.

Additional Resources:

• Princeton Agile Ethics Program: https://agile-ethics.princeton.edu
• CITP Talk 11/19/24: Agile Ethics Theory and Evidence
• Oktar, Lomborozo et al: Changing Moral Judgements
• 4-Stage Theory of Ethical Decision Making: An Introduction
• Enabling Engineers through “Moral Imagination” (Google)

A transcript of this episode is here.

Ben Bland expressively explores emotive AI’s shaky scientific underpinnings, the gap between reality and perception, popular applications, and critical apprehensions.

Ben exposes the scientific contention surrounding human emotion. He talks terms (emotive? empathic? not telepathic!) and outlines a spectrum of emotive applications. We discuss the powerful, often subtle, and sometimes insidious ways emotion can be leveraged. Ben explains the negative effects of perpetual positivity and why drawing clear red lines around the tech is difficult.

He also addresses the qualitative sea change brought about by large language models (LLMs), implicit vs explicit design and commercial objectives. Noting that the social and psychological impacts of emotive AI systems have been poorly explored, he muses about the potential to actively evolve your machine’s emotional capability.

Ben confronts the challenges of defining standards when the language is tricky, the science is shaky, and applications are proliferating. Lastly, Ben jazzes up empathy as a human superpower. While optimistic about empathic AI’s potential, he counsels proceeding with caution.

Ben Bland is an independent consultant in ethical innovation. An active community contributor, Ben is the Chair of the IEEE P7014 Standard for Ethical Considerations in Emulated Empathy in Autonomous and Intelligent Systems and Vice-Chair of IEEE P7014.1 Recommended Practice for Ethical Considerations of Emulated Empathy in Partner-based General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence Systems.

A transcript of this episode is here.

Kate O’Neill is an executive strategist, the Founder and CEO of KO Insights, and author dedicated to improving the human experience at scale.

In this paradigm-shifting discussion, Kate traces her roots from a childhood thinking heady thoughts about language and meaning to her current mission as ‘The Tech Humanist’. Following this thread, Kate illustrates why meaning is the core of what makes us human. She urges us to champion meaningful innovation and reject the notion that we are victims of a predetermined future.

Challenging simplistic analysis, Kate advocates for applying multiple lenses to every situation: the individual and the collective, uses and abuses, insight and foresight, wild success and abject failure. Kimberly and Kate acknowledge but emphatically disavow current norms that reject nuanced discourse or conflate it with ‘both-side-ism’. Emphasizing that everything is connected, Kate shows how to close the gap between human-centricity and business goals. She provides a concrete example of how innovation and impact depend on identifying what is going to matter, not just what matters now. Ending on a strategically optimistic note, Kate urges us to anchor on human values and relationships, habituate to change and actively architect our best human experience – now and in the future.

A transcript of this episode can be found here.

Thank you for joining us for Season 2 of Pondering AI. Join us next season as we ponder the ways in which AI continues to elevate and challenge our humanity. Subscribe to Pondering AI now so you don’t miss it.