Let’s explore the countless tactics in which the words “wash” and “wash” can be stretched and used for a variety of pearls of wisdom.
We know, for example, that other people infrequently warn that they are opposed to washing dirty laundry in public. I do not forget that, when I was a child, adults occasionally warned that an evil could lead to washing their mouths with soap. it was said that everything turns out to end up falling by the wayside.
If he was worried about something he didn’t need to be related to, the idea advised was to see if he could wash his hands. or washing. Washing the egg from your face is an old adage that still appears in conversations.
It is also relatively well known to use colors to constitute washing diversifications. The perception of discoloration is said to date back to at least the year 1500. Considerations are expressed regarding red, purple, etc. washing. I would venture to say that greenwashing is perhaps one of the most widely used slogans today, ostensibly referring to an act of unemployment when it extols sustainability and yet does not support assertive discourse with any fundamental substance.
You may not be familiar with one of the most recent versions of washing, which is ai ethics washing.
Some prefer to shorten the wording to Ethics Washing, this would possibly generate some confusion since this obvious choice formulation can also refer to almost any type of moral washing. The specific form of moral laundering that I am going to communicate here is ethical AI driven by ethics and all similar moral considerations. For the sake of clarity, I would like to recommend that the Washing of Ethics cover a wide variety of moral launderings that might have little or nothing to do with AI according to ethics. And that AI ethics washing is a specific type of ethical washing that in specific targets the AI box.
You may be wondering what precisely ethics washing is all about.
My general definition is that washing ai ethics can be as follows:
For my ongoing and extensive AI ethics and moral AI policy, see the link here and the link here, to name a few.
A quick example of how to wash away AI ethics may be illustrative for you.
Let’s say a company builds an AI formula to let the world know how wonderful its AI will be. The company makes the decision that one way to bring a lot of positive press and social media attention to AI would be to let other people know that it is designed to be completely fair and balanced in how AI works. AI is absolutely reliable. The company has strictly adhered to the principles of creating a so-called guilty AI, see my canopy at the link here. The claim is that all current AI ethics principles were fully integrated into the AI formula.
Super!
Just a small problem.
It turns out that the company did none of this.
They did not respect the moral precepts of AI. They said yes, but they didn’t. The company’s executives and marketing team claimed that claiming they had scrupulously observed the moral considerations of AI would likely be smart for business. make the hard jobs of dealing with those pesky AI ethics guidelines, and just say you did.
That’s it, they can immediately announce their AI by jumping on the AI ethics bandwagon.
Very easy.
But it is a risky path and one that, in fact, will potentially lead to big problems.
Companies and executives who falsely invoke AI ethics when they haven’t done much to comply with moral AI potentially expose themselves to many consequences. they lied about the fact that they were involved in ai ethics. In addition, being caught up in the act of lying, regardless of having to deal with AI ethics, also puts them in the extra hot water. This is a double lie.
Second, many legal ramifications can affect them and their businesses. The first is that they didn’t do what they said they did and can potentially be held legally guilty for their false statements. Another is that your AI will likely end up breaking the legislation. related to socially sensitive spaces, such as being unduly biased and acting in a discriminatory manner. The list of legal issues is long and can end up forcing the company into costly legal battles and sinking the entire ship, so to speak.
Why on earth would a company and its leaders use AI ethics washing?
Well, it can be a bit expensive to incorporate ai moral practices, although the counterargument is that the cost, in the end, will be easily offset through the benefits of having an original, higher-caliber AI by adhering to the moral approaches of AI. However, some corporations would prefer to launch their AI as soon as possible, and then worry about the consequences of not contemplating moral AI in the process of progression.
It turns out that the old rule applies, which is to pay me now or pay me later. Some executives and corporations think it’s worth throwing the bucket away and hoping they may not have to incur the value of the next payment when they decide to avoid the aspects of on-time payment. I would say there’s no loose food when it comes to AI ethics. Either you do your part or you assume the consequences.
That’s not to say there’s a lot of wiggle room in all of this.
Companies can dive into the ethics of AI and then try to exaggerate everything they’ve done. Their possible speculation is that they will have enough defense to counter any accusation that they didn’t incorporate AI ethics at all. report a form of half-hearted AI ethics activities that can also get them out of trouble. So, the debate shifts from the fact that they haven’t made any effort when it comes to AI ethics and instead becomes whether they’ve done enough or not.
This is an argument that can almost pass and leave a lot of room for an AI ethics laundering provider.
Part of the loose facets is that there are still no universal and definitively applicable criteria related to AI ethics. Without a coherent and comprehensive set of measures, any discussion of whether AI ethics were met correctly will be tenuous and confusing. The corporate will insists that it has done enough. A stranger or other person who claims that the company has not done enough will have an uphill war to highlight such a breach. Ambiguity can reign.
Before we get into a little more meat and potatoes about the wild and bizarre considerations that underlie the washing of AI ethics, let’s identify some additional basic principles on deeply comprehensive topics. We want to dive into the ethics of AI and, in particular, the advent of device learning (ML) and deep learning (DL).
You will possibly vaguely know that one of the loudest voices in those days in the AI box and even outdoors, the AI box is asking for a greater appearance of moral AI. Let’s see what it means to refer to the ethics of AI and moral AI. The most sensible thing about that, let’s explore what I mean when I communicate about device learning and deep learning.
One particular segment or component of AI ethics that has attracted media attention is AI, which has unfortunate biases and inequalities. You probably know that when the last era of AI began, there was great enthusiasm for what some now call AI For Bien. Unfortunately, in the wake of this effusive emotion, we started attending AI For Bad. For example, AI-based facial popularity systems have been revealed to involve racial and gender bias, which I discussed in the link here.
Efforts to fight AI For Bad are actively underway. In addition to noisy lawsuits aimed at reducing wrongdoing, there is also a really extensive push to adopt AI ethics to fix AI evil. The concept is that we want to adopt and endorse the key principles of morality. AI for AI progression and implementation, in order to undermine AI For Bad and advertise ai preferable to Good.
In the same vein, I advocate seeking the use of AI as a component of the solution to AI problems, fighting the chimney with the chimney of this way of thinking. of AI does things and therefore potentially stumbles upon any real-time discriminatory endeavor, see my discussion at the link here. We may also have a separate AI formula that acts as a type of AI ethics monitor. The AI formula serves as a monitor to track and stumble when AI enters the immoral abyss (see my research of those functions in the link here).
In a moment, I will share with you some basic principles that underpin the ethics of AI. There are a lot of those types of lists floating here and there. It can be said that there is still no single list of universal calls and competitions. This is the bad news. The good news is that there are at least some AI ethics lists available and they tend to be similar. At the end of the day, this suggests that through some sort of reasoned convergence, we locate our path to a general web of what AI ethics is all about.
First, let’s briefly review some of the general precepts of moral AI to illustrate what deserves important attention for anyone developing, commissioning, or AI.
For example, as the Vatican stated in Rome’s Call for AI Ethics and as I covered it in depth in the link here, those are its six main moral principles of AI:
As directed through the U. S. Department of Defense. In the U. S. Department of Homeland Security (DoD) on its moral principles for the use of synthetic intelligence and as I covered in detail in the link here, here are its six main moral principles when it comes to AI:
I also discussed collective analyses of AI moral principles, and added a set designed by researchers who tested and condensed the essence of many domestic and foreign principles of AI ethics into an article titled “The Global Overview of AI Ethics Guidelines” (published in Nature), and which my canopy explores in the link here, which led to this key list:
As you can directly guess, seeking to identify the specific details underlying those principles can be incredibly complicated to do. More than that, the effort to turn those general principles into something tangible and detailed enough to be used when designing AI systems is also complicated. challenge to solve. Overall, it’s easy to wave your hand about what AI ethics precepts are and how they’re sometimes observed, while this is a much more confusing scenario in AI coding that has to be the genuine rubber that’s along the way.
The moral principles of AI will need to be used through AI developers, as well as through those who manage AI progression efforts, and even those who finish setting up and maintaining AI systems. All stakeholders in the progression and use of AI The life cycle is considered as a component of meeting the criteria that are set for moral AI. This is a vital point of attention, as the same old assumption is that “only coders” or those who program AI are subject to adherence to notions of AI. ethics. As stated above, it takes a people to design and enforce AI, and for which all people will have to know and adhere to the moral precepts of AI.
Let’s also make us on the same page when it comes to the nature of ai today.
Today there is no AI that is delicate. We don’t have that. We don’t know if touch AI will be possible. No one can, as it should be, expect if we will succeed in sensitive AI or if conscious AI will miraculously rise spontaneously in some form of computational cognitive supernova (usually called a singularity, see my canopy in the link here).
The kind of AI I’m focusing on is the non-delicate AI we have today. If we were to seek to speculate wildly about delicate AI, this discussion could go in a radically different direction. A delicate AI would be meant to be human-degree. You want to keep in mind that delicate AI is the cognitive equivalent of a human. What’s more, since some think we might have superintelligent AI, it’s that such AI may end up being smarter than humans (from my exploration of superintelligent AI as a possibility, see the canopy here).
Let’s keep things more realistic and the non-responsive computational AI of today.
Keep in mind that AI is not able to “think” in any way at the height of human thinking. When interacting with Alexa or Siri, conversational talents may resemble human talents, but the truth is that they are computational and lack humans. cognition. The newer era of AI has made extensive use of device learning (ML) and deep learning (DL), which have the merit of matching computational models. This has led to AI systems that have the appearance of human inclinations. Meanwhile, there is no AI that has an appearance of non-unusual sense and the cognitive wonder of physically powerful human thought.
ML/DL is a form of PC style matching. The same ancient technique is to gather knowledge into a decision-making task. Enter knowledge into PC ML/DL styles. These styles seek to locate mathematical styles. After locating such patterns, if any, the AI formula will use those styles when it finds new insights. When presenting new knowledge, styles based on “old” or old knowledge are implemented to make an existing decision.
I think you can guess where it’s headed. If humans who have made model-based decisions have incorporated unfortunate biases, there is an intelligent possibility that knowledge reflects this in sophisticated but meaningful ways. try to mathematically imitate knowledge accordingly. There is no appearance of non-unusual sense or other delicate facets of AI-designed modeling consistent with se.
Also, AI developers may not realize what’s going on either. The hard-to-understand mathematics of ML/DL can make it difficult to notice the now-hidden biases. this is more complicated than it seems. There is a clever possibility that even with relatively extensive verification, biases will still be incorporated into ML/DL style matching styles.
You can use the annotated or annotated garbage adage adage internally and externally. The fact is, this is more like biases that are insidiously infused as overridden biases in AI. AI’s algorithmic decision-making (ADM) fits axiomatically loaded with inequalities.
Not good.
Now back to the topic of washing away the ethics of AI.
There are 4 main diversifications of ai ethics washing that I regularly see fall (I’ll mention them in a moment):
1) Ai Ethics Cleaners Who Don’t Know They Are: AI Ethics Disappears or Illiteracy Over AI and/or AI Ethics
2) AI ethics discs fall into it: AI ethics fades through involuntary and conscious behavior about AI and AI ethics
3) Slightly stretched AI ethics discs: AI ethics trickles down through planned intent, but only a little and almost excusable (or not)
4) AI ethics launderers who know and sell it blatantly: AI ethics washes very well and through insidious and outrageous design.
Sometimes I would recommend that the 4 variants range from the blameless maximum to the guilty maximum, in terms of awareness of what it is to wash the ethics of AI. Let’s go through each of the 4, starting with the first one and heading to the embarrassing 4th. .
First, there are those who washed themselves in the sense that they don’t know what AI ethics is, they don’t know what AI ethics washing is, and they probably don’t know much about AI either. You can simply say that they are ignorant or illiterate on those issues. For them, they’re probably doing an AI ethics wash and not blindly and thankfully knowing that they’re doing it.
It’s sad.
It can also be especially serious if the cleansing of AI ethics is done through a large news company or a high-level social media influencer. They may have only been fed a bed of lies and did not determine the lies. Meanwhile, they are your success and influence to perpetuate the claims of washing away AI ethics. Sad and worse, it does society no favors. Shame on those who allow themselves to be deceived. They want to be informed. Remember that being deceived and catching fools are close cousins.
Then comes the washing of AI ethics, which is a mistake. Imagine that a company is very successful in adhering to the moral precepts of AI. We can congratulate them on that. Unfortunately, suppose at some point they make an announcement about their AI that is not well supported from an AI ethics standpoint. If it’s a relatively risk-free or unintentional mistake, we can give them some freedom. Of course, if the point they brazenly raised crosses the line, the slip is not so easily overlooked. There is a remarkable line that takes a long time to build a reputation and that only takes a brief moment to demolish it completely.
Then we enter the last two of the 4 categories.
These are the culprits who are fully aware of the washing away of AI ethics and consciously with the stated goal of using it, perhaps as a component of a business strategy or through other divine means. The main difference between the latter two is that washing away AI ethics can be minor in nature, or it can be vital in nature and very vital. There are some who decide to stretch things and go a little beyond the line. There are others who are willing to take the washing of AI ethics to the extreme.
You would possibly think that any excessive washing of AI ethics would be evident and that the extremist would be left with his hand stuck in the cookie box. Everyone would see that the emperor is naked. Unfortunately, given the general confusion about AI and AI ethics in the global today, there is enough darkness that even excessive washing of AI ethics can go unnoticed.
This can be annoying for those who are serious and sober about AI ethics. They see someone else throwing away all kinds of garbage that is incredibly blatant in washing away AI ethics. The extremist attracts media attention. They have their proverbial 15 minutes of glory. Those who are doing the real and right work when it comes to AI ethics will rightly be exasperated and disappointed when the washing of AI ethics takes place without others in the market making fun of it.
This can be almost compared to the juice and doping that take a stand in sport. An athlete who has put all his center and soul into naturally adapting to a more sensible athlete can be completely discouraged if someone else manages to compete at their same point and doesn’t. therefore, performance-enhancing drugs are prohibited. Maybe you deserve to decide calmly to also take those drugs, fighting fireposition with fireposition?It’s an enigma. For my discussion of how juice or doping occurs in the AI box, see the link here.
Now that we cover a bit about washing ai ethics, we can present a bunch of other similar slogans that are also in the same field.
These are some of them that we can summarize:
Let’s take a brief look at each of those slogans. Not all with what each of the sentences accurately denotes, so I will share with you my general impressions.
AI Ethics Theatre
The theater of AI ethics could be something akin to washing ai ethics in that the concept is to make a vital demonstration of having adhered to the precepts of AI ethics in a thoughtful and ceremonial way. If the company running the circus or the AI ethical theater actually adhered to the ethical practices of AI, you can argue that it deserves to be able to do so legitimately. In fact, you can also further argue that it will motivate others to respect AI ethics as well.
On the other hand, it would seem that the theater of AI ethics tends to go too far. The circus act of having all those ponies and elephants can have a tendency to exaggerate what has been undertaken. This, in turn, is beginning to fall into the second, third, or fourth category of the aforementioned AI ethics washing basins. It remains to be noted whether theatre is smarter than bad (as a source of inspiration) or worse than smart (perhaps by stimulating the washing of AI ethics through others).
Ethical ai acquisition
Imagine that a company is going to build an AI formula and realizes that it deserves to include the moral facets of AI in the AI progression cycle. Which of the many rules of AI ethics deserves to use?
Choosing several at once can be confusing and make your AI efforts too bulky. Chances are, the progression effort is more likely to adhere to ethical AI practices if there is a single set followed internally that everyone can refer to and understand seamlessly.
Okay, so one of the tactics to come up with a set of ETHICAL AI principles would be to choose just one of the many available. Another would be to take several sets and try to merge them. The challenge with merging may simply be that you spend a lot of power and valuable time debating what is the most productive way to merge the sets into a complete whole. This kind of attention will probably distract you from continuing the progression process, and it can disappoint the AI team just because of the bitter debates. that could have taken a stand in the fusion activity of AI ethics.
In general, you can also consult to draw your attention to a set of AI ethics rules that you think will be the simplest to adopt. Why make life more complicated than it probably already is?At the same time, assuming you have a set of AI ethics that is diluted. Your goal is to do the least you can do. You must remain firm that you have adhered to the moral precepts of AI, while secretly opting for the minimalist or perhaps even less of the group.
Some would call this moral purchases of AI.
Compare prices to locate the moral principles of AI that will give you the simplest clue to claim that you respect AI ethics. This makes sense because it does more than necessary. However, this can be distorted by locating a veiled set of AI ethics and clinging to it as if it were physically powerful and in an intelligent religion when in fact it is scarce and marginal.
Denigration of AI ethics
The perception of denigrating AI ethics is simple.
You denigrate or denigrate the nature and use of AI ethics precepts. A common form of denigration would be to insist that AI ethics rules are worthless and not to value the paper on which they are printed. Another popular hit is that AI ethics is training that has nothing to do with the real world. There is even the exhortation that AI ethics are bad, because it provides a false ceiling for those who want to give the impression that they are improving AI. In this way, AI ethics is a canopy ploy.
You would possibly not live on the phenomena of denigration of AI ethics and I recommend that you look at my policy of why those moves are false or at least incorrect, see the link here.
Ethical coverage of AI
The shielding of AI ethics sometimes refers to the concept that AI ethics is some kind of deceptive shield that can hide or mask bad actors and bad ethical efforts of AI. I have alluded to this several times in this discussion.
There is a permanent scruple that some will proudly prove that they are an ethic and the underlying truth is that they do almost nothing of the sort. For those who say you have to take off your shield altogether, I have a tendency. replicate that it is like throwing the baby with the bath water.
Ethics of AI Fairwashing
Equity is important.
You probably don’t forget that when I was talking about the principles of AI ethics, one of the most well-known AI ethics rules seeks to ensure that the AI is fair or presents a semblance of fairness. This has given rise to a “wash clean” slogan that is continually used to refer to the option of saying or claiming that an AI formula is fair when it might not be or there is little evidence to show that it is correct. It’s kind of a conflation of AI ethics with conceptual attention to AI fairness, so the shortest way to explain this is to say that potential facelift can occur. The researchers describe the factor as follows: “In particular, given the growing importance of fairness concepts in device learning, a company might be tempted to practice facelift, which we describe as selling the false belief that the learning models used throughout the company are fair when they might not be” (via Ulrich Aiıvodji, Hiromi Arai, Olivier Fortineau, Sébastien Gambs, Satoshi Hara, and Alain Tapp in “Fairwashing: The Risk Of Rationalization ”).
There’s some other twist on washing ai ethics that you consider.
On a macroscopic scale, there is a fear that the rise of AI ethics will be a shield or a canopy for something even greater. You may know that many efforts are being made to identify legislation on AI governance. This is declining around the world. Strident efforts are being made in the EU, which I have spoken about in my columns, as well as in the United States, and they are positioning themselves in many countries.
Some recommend that embracing AI ethics may just be a way to avoid enacting that legislation. Companies can convincingly argue that the new legislation is not mandatory because the use of AI ethics addresses all AI issues. AI ethics is sometimes classified as a form of “non-binding law” and is sometimes voluntary (all other things being equal). AI legislation is classified as “hard legislation” and does not have a voluntary structure (generally).
It is often said that corporations would largely prefer comfortable legislation to tough legislation, which would give them more freedom and room to maneuver. Not everyone agrees with this sentiment. Some say comfortable legislation allows corporations to get away with unusual efforts and that the only way to crack them down is to enact tough legislation. Others point out that corporations would prefer tough legislation, which could offer clearer rules of the game. Strict Legislation can potentially force all players to comply with the same regulations. Flexible legislation allows for one type of selection and selection, creating confusion and disrupting the field of gambling.
Here’s how the studios paint the ethics of AI amidst this broader view of what might be going on: “On the one hand, the term has been used in business as an appropriate front justifying deregulation, self-regulation, or market-driven governance, and is increasingly known with the self-serving adoption of guises of ethical behavior by tech corporations. We call this developing instrumentalization of ethical language through tech corporations “washing ethics” Beyond the ethical orientation of AI, ethics laundering includes other attempts to simplify the pricing of ethical paints, which are a component of a corporate communications strategy: Hiring internal ethical philosophers who have little leverage to give shapes internal corporate policies Emphasis on human design, eg urging users to decrease time spent on programs , instead of addressing the dangers inherent in the lifestyles of the products themselves; investment paintings in “fair” device learning systems that definitely obfuscate deeper questions about the broader effects of those systems on society” (via Elettra Bietti, “From Ethics Washing to Ethics Bashing: A View on Tech Ethics from Within Moral Philosophy”, Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency).
At this point in this vital discussion, I bet you’re willing to have illustrative examples that could provide this topic. There are a number of special and indeed popular examples that are close to my heart. You see, as an AI expert, in addition to the moral and legal ramifications, I am asked to identify realistic examples that provide the dilemmas of AI ethics so that the somewhat theoretical nature of the topic can be more easily understood. the evocative maximum spaces that vividly provide this moral dilemma of AI. This will serve as a practical use case or example for an in-depth discussion on the topic.
So here’s remarkable value considering: Does the advent of true AI-powered autonomous cars shed light on the washing away ethics of AI and, if so, what does it mean?
Let me dissect the topic.
First of all, keep in mind that there is no human driving force involved in a true autonomous car. Keep in mind that genuine autonomous cars are driven through an AI driving system. There is no need for a human driving force behind the wheel, nor is there a willingness for a human to drive the vehicle. To see my extensive, non-stop policy for autonomous cars (AVs) and specific autonomous cars, see the link here.
I would like to explain what we mean when we talk about authentic autonomous cars.
Understanding autonomous cars
To clarify, genuine autonomous cars are those in which artificial intelligence drives the car completely by itself and there is no human assistance in the driving task.
These cars without motive force are considered Level Four and Level Five (see my explanation in this link here), while a car that requires a human motive force to share the driving effort is considered point 2 or point 3. Cars that share the task of driving are described as semi-autonomous and commonly involve a variety of automated add-ons called Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS).
There is still no genuine autonomous car at level five, and we don’t yet know if it will be possible to achieve it or how long it will take to get there.
Meanwhile, level four efforts gradually seek to achieve some traction through very narrow and selective testing on public roads, there is controversy as to whether such testing deserves to be allowed in itself (we are all life-and-death guinea pigs in an experiment taking a stand on our roads and paths, some dispute it, see my canopy in this link here).
Since semi-autonomous cars require a human driver, the adoption of such cars would not be much different from driving traditional vehicles, so there are not many novelties related to the subject (although, as we will see in a moment, the following problems are sometimes applicable).
For semi-autonomous cars, it is vital that the public is warned of a disturbing facet that has emerged lately, and that is that despite the human forces that continue to publish videos of themselves falling asleep at the wheel of a point 2 or point 3 car, we all want to avoid being fooled into thinking that the driving force can divert their attention from the task of driving while driving. a semi-autonomous car.
You are to blame for the driving movements of the vehicle, regardless of the degree of automation that may be initiated at a point 2 or point 3.
Autonomous cars and AI moral washing
For true Level Four and Level Five autonomous vehicles, there will be no human driving force involved in the driving task.
All occupants will be passengers.
AI is in charge of driving.
One aspect to talk about without delay is the fact that the AI involved in today’s AI driving systems is not sensitive. Human
Why this additional emphasis on the fact that AI is sensitive?
Because I must emphasize that in discussing the role of the AI driving system, I am not attributing human qualities to AI. Keep in mind that there is an ongoing and harmful trend of anthropomorphizing AI. Essentially, other people exhibit a human appearance. sensitivity to current AI, despite the undeniable and undeniable fact that no such AI yet exists.
With this clarification, you may believe that the AI driving formula will not natively “know” the aspects of driving. Driving and all that it entails will have to be programmed as a component of the autonomous car hardware and software.
Let’s dive into the myriad facets that come into play in this issue.
First of all, it’s vital to realize that not all AI autonomous cars are created equal. All automakers and self-generating companies use their technique to design autonomous cars. As such, it’s hard to make radical claims about what AI is. driving systems will or will not.
Also, whenever it is claimed that an AI handling formula does nothing special, it can be surpassed later by developers who program the computer to do just that. Step by step, AI management formulas are gradually advancing and expanding. A limitation existing today would possibly no longer exist in a long-term iteration or editing of the formula.
I hope this provides enough litany of warnings to what I am about to tell.
You’ve almost certainly noticed the headlines proclaiming the ambitious claim that self-driving cars are here and that self-driving cars are already being perfected. The implication is that the facets of autonomy are resolved. We have derived an AI that is as intelligent as human drivers, perhaps even greater than humans.
Just to burst that bubble and set the record straight, that’s not the case yet.
We know that human drivers in the United States are involved in about 2. 5 million consistent car injuries year-over-year, resulting in over 40,000 deaths annually, see my stats at the link here. able to drive as safely or more safely than human drivers. In addition, the hope is that we will delight in mobility for all, allowing those who are now forced to move to have AI-powered cars that offer simple access for convenient and affordable transportation.
Some experts surprisingly go the “extra mile” and embarrassingly claim that self-driving cars will be unbreakable. This is absolutely crazy and absolutely false. Worse, it creates greater expectations that cannot be met. If you can convince the public that self-driving cars are unbreakable, they will scream and bellow as soon as a case of a turn of fate similar to that of an autonomous car occurs. For my detailed explanation of why the unwavering claim is crazy and a detriment to society, see my canopy at the link here.
It can only be said that all those kinds of exaggerations or other lies are covered by the ethical precepts of AI in the sense that if it complies with the moral principles of AI, it does not make those kinds of far-fetched and unfounded claims. So, those false statements and falsehoods fall smoothly under the rubric of washing away the ethics of AI.
Unfortunately, washing away the ETHICS of AI related to autonomous cars and driverless cars is largely and very abundant. A casual, impromptu web search will show you millions of far-fetched and unsubstantiated claims about self-driving cars. This is not limited to other people who are on their own blogs. The big news agencies get involved. Big companies are getting involved. Startups get involved. Venture capital firms find their way. Shareholders get involved. Etc.
I would say with wonderful dark confidence that washing the ethics of AI in this particular is endemic.
A specialized variant of the AI ethics laundering slogan that reaches into autonomy and autonomous formulas is the perception of self-laundering. Here’s writer Liza Dixon describing this: “Adapted to automation, automated laundering is explained as the practice of making unverified or misleading claims that misrepresent the proper point of human oversight required through a product, service, or technology partially or semi-autonomous. Automatic flushing can also be extended to fully autonomous formulations, in instances where formula functions extend beyond what can be reliably molded, under all conditions. Automatic flushing makes everything appear more autonomous The goal of automated laundering is to differentiate and/or provide merit to an entity, through the use of superficial verbiage intended to convey a point of reliability of the formula that is not aligned with the technical functions of the formula. Automatic flushing can also occur inadvertently, when misinformation about u functions An automated formula repeats itself unknowingly for autonowashing is a form of deformation, and it is, in a sense, viral” (Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspective, “Autonowashing: The Greenwashing of Vehicle Automation”, 2020).
As a reminder of my above indication, there are 4 main VARIANTS of AI ethics wash that I see going down and are also easily found in the autonomous vehicle box:
In addition, you can easily see examples of other diseases related to washing away the ethics of ai in the domain of autonomy, including:
Conclusion
Washing away the ethics of AI surrounds us everywhere. We bathed in it.
I hope that by drawing your attention to this serious and probably endless problem, you will be able to discern when you are moving away from the ethics of AI. This can be difficult to understand. Those who hide the ethics of AI can be incredibly smart and cunning.
A practical trick is to combine in the washing a small fact that is combined with lies or exaggerations. Because you can stumble smoothly and settle for the real component, it is possible that the other false or misleading component is also true. and nasty form of deception.
Let’s be rubbish.
Can we wash the mouths of those who openly practice washing the ethics of AI?
I regret to point out that this is not as simple to do as one might wish. That said, just because catching and calling AI ethics washing can be arduous and look like Sisyphus pushing a big rock on a hill, we have to give it a try.
In case you didn’t know, Zeus had told him to make this rock develop for eternity and that the huge rock would recede once the effort had reached the top. I think we face the same situation trapped 22 when it comes to washing ai. ethics.
There will be more washing of AI ethics that will want to be washed away. It is an infallible guarantee without anything suspicious about it.