Group items tagged

"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is already having a major impact on society. As a result, many organizations have launched a wide range of initiatives to establish ethical principles for the adoption of socially beneficial AI. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of proposed principles threatens to overwhelm and confuse. How might this problem of 'principle proliferation' be solved? In this paper, we report the results of a fine-grained analysis of several of the highest-profile sets of ethical principles for AI. We assess whether these principles converge upon a set of agreed-upon principles, or diverge, with significant disagreement over what constitutes 'ethical AI.' Our analysis finds a high degree of overlap among the sets of principles we analyze. We then identify an overarching framework consisting of five core principles for ethical AI. Four of them are core principles commonly used in bioethics: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. On the basis of our comparative analysis, we argue that a new principle is needed in addition: explicability, understood as incorporating both the epistemological sense of intelligibility (as an answer to the question 'how does it work?') and in the ethical sense of accountability (as an answer to the question: 'who is responsible for the way it works?'). In the ensuing discussion, we note the limitations and assess the implications of this ethical framework for future efforts to create laws, rules, technical standards, and best practices for ethical AI in a wide range of contexts."

Après une décision intéressante rendue la semaine dernière en matière de parodie, la Cour de Justice de l'Union Européenne s'est prononcée hier sur un cas impliquant la numérisation d'un ouvrage en bibliothèque, effectuée sur le fondement de ce que l'on appelle en France l'"exception conservation". Cette dernière permet aux bibliothèques de reproduire des oeuvres protégées de leurs collections et de les diffuser sur place, à partir de terminaux dédiés.

Law enforcement agencies across the country have failed to provide us with even basic information about the lives they have taken. And while the recently signed Death in Custody Reporting Act mandates this data be reported, its unclear whether police departments will actually comply with this mandate and, even if they do decide to report this information, it could be several years before the data is fully collected, compiled and made public. We cannot wait to know the true scale of police violence against our communities. And in a country where at least three people are killed by police every day, we cannot wait for police departments to provide us with these answers. The maps and charts on this site aim to provide us with the answers we need. They include information on 1,131 known police killings - including 1,067 arrest-related deaths (according to Bureau of Justice Statistics definitions) as well as 64 unintentional, off-duty and/or in-custody deaths - that occurred in 2014. They also include information on 1,080 police killings in 2013, 1,131 in 2015, 1,129 police killings in 2016 and 1,147 killings in 2017. 93 percent of the killings in our database occurred while a police officer was acting in a law enforcement capacity. Importantly, these data do not include killings by vigilantes or security guards who are not off-duty police officers.