Skip to main content

Home/ TOK Friends/ Group items tagged feasibility

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
proudsa

We Asked an Expert if the World Needs to Worry About North Korea's H-Bomb Claims | VICE... - 0 views

www.vice.com/...out-north-koreas-h-bomb-claims

shared by proudsa on 07 Jan 16 - No Cached
  • World Needs to Worry About North Korea's H-Bomb Claims
    • proudsa
      proudsa on 07 Jan 16
       
      TOK related --> lesson on statistics and probability and how we should react to those facts
  • any truth
  • claimed to have successfully tested a hydrogen bomb
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • said it was capable of miniaturizing its nuclear weapons and attaching them to rockets, meaning it would feasibly be able to blast them at all its imperialist pig-dog enemies in the USA—but obviously, these claims haven't yet been verified.
sissij

New Prospects for Growing Human Replacement Organs in Animals - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...chimera-stemcells-organs.html

new york times science research

shared by sissij on 28 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • For the first time, biologists have succeeded in growing human stem cells in pig embryos, shifting from science fiction to the realm of the possible the idea of developing human organs in animals for later transplant.
  • Since the organ would be made of a patient’s own cells, there would be little risk of immune rejection.
  • They would be generated by implanting human stem cells into an early pig embryo, resulting in an animal composed of mixed pig and human cells.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • The two reports together establish the feasibility of trying to grow replacement human organs in animals, though such a goal is still far off.
  • Creating chimeras, especially those with human cells, may prove controversial, given the possibility that test animals could be humanized in undesirable ways. One would be if human cells should be incorporated into a pig’s brain, endowing it with human qualities. Almost no one wants a talking pig.
  • The ban is still in place, and it’s unclear whether the Trump administration would continue to consider lifting the moratorium or whether new objections would be raised to using public funds for this line of research.
  • But no one knows exactly what sequence of chemicals is required for the generation of each different tissue or organ. This may be why glassware experiments with stem cells have not yet lived up to their full promise.
  • Concern about human cells’ incorporation into a lower animal’s brain is not without basis. Dr. Steven Goldman of the University of Rochester Medical Center found in 2013 that mice injected with a special type of human brain cell had enhanced learning abilities.
  • sissij on 28 Jan 17
     
    The ethics in biology is always a controversial issue in the research. In biology, we want to get as close to the truth as we possibly can, but that sometimes means that we have to research on things that are considered to be inhumane. This article talks about a new possibility that we can grow human stem cells in animals. That would lead to a potential problem of animals gaining intelligence. If animals start to have human properties, how would we treat them? Will they be a threat to our identity? And also, through the experiment described in the article, we can see that the scientific method in biology is dealing with probabilism and population. It is always gathering data. They are always ready for exceptions. --Sissi (1/28/2017)
Duncan H

Not Such a Stretch to Reach for the Stars - 1 views

www.nytimes.com/...18starship.html

Science Space Travel NASA

shared by Duncan H on 18 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • Duncan H on 18 Oct 11
     
    It seems intriguing, but how feasible is it really?
aqconces

What it will take for a head transplant to work - The Washington Post - 0 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...-for-a-head-transplant-to-work

shared by aqconces on 08 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Sergio Canavero, an Italian neurosurgeon at the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group who has claimed that advances in medical science now make it possible to carry out head transplants that would allow patients to not only survive, but function normally
  • “I think we are now at a point when the technical aspects are all feasible,” Canavero told New Scientist.
  • While expert opinions on Canavero’s claims vary, the possibility isn’t as far fetched as it sounds. James Harrop, director of Adult Reconstructive Spine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia and co-editor of Congress of Neurological Surgeons, says that the kind of complications the surgeons faced back in 1970 could easily be fixed using today’s methods.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • “Technically it’s not any harder than a liver and heart transplant,” he says
Emilio Ergueta

No Consolation For Kalashnikov | Issue 59 | Philosophy Now - 0 views

philosophynow.org/...No_Consolation_For_Kalashnikov

philosophy war research technology bias

shared by Emilio Ergueta on 27 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • The legendary AK 47 assault rifle was invented in 1946 by Mikhail Kalashnikov. It was issued to the armies of the old Warsaw Pact countries and has been used in many conflicts, eg by the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan, and even this year by Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq.
  • Whatever interpretation one puts on those two conflicts, almost no-one sane would condone the use of the AK 47 in killing civilians, for instance Shiites in Iraq.
  • Mikhail Kalashnikov has come to have some doubts about his invention. He told The Times in June 2006, “I don’t worry when my guns are used for national liberation or defence. But when I see how peaceful people are killed and wounded by these weapons, I get very distressed and upset. I calm down by telling myself that I invented this gun 60 years ago to protect the interests of my country.”
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Weapons research produces in the first place not guns, bombs, bullets and planes and the various command, control and communications hardware and software needed to use these things, but plans, blueprints and designs – knowledge and know-how. Unless these useful plans are lost or destroyed, they can be implemented or instantiated many times over, and thus project unforeseen into the future.
  • If any one person invented the atomic bomb, it was Leo Szilard. It seems he had the idea, and he made great efforts from 1935 until 1942, when the Manhattan Project was set up, to get the research done that would show whether an atomic bomb was possible; how to make one; and if need be, to provide the basis for actually making one.
  • This perception was greatly strengthened when Hahn and Strassmann discovered nuclear fission in Berlin in 1938. So Szilard, worried about the Nazis getting an atomic bomb, thought that the Allies should do the research to see if and how one could be made, in order to deter or otherwise prevent the Nazis from using one.
  • As far as Szilard and a good number of other atomic scientists were concerned there was no longer a rationale for the bomb project. Szilard, Philip Franck and others wrote The Franck Report in June 1945, which among other things advocated a demonstration of the power of the atomic bomb by dropping one on an uninhabited island. The Franck Report was ignored.The project was not abandoned, of course, and two of its products were used on Japanese cities, to kill mostly Japanese civilians.
  • The point of this example is to show how scientists lose control of their work when they take part in weapons research – they lose control of it in other settings besides, but this case is the most problematic.
  • One way out of the dilemma is to refuse to do war research under any circumstances. I’d like to endorse this option, especially as it does not imply that we should judge Kalashnikov, Szilard, Watson-Watt and other well-intentioned researchers harshly, since we can argue that the dilemma has only become evident recently.
  • Another possibility is to deny that weapons research must take place within history, as a good Marxist might put it. That is, as I would put it: Perhaps weapons research is not an activity that must take account of historical contingencies.
  • We must acknowledge that there is no such thing as an inherently defensive weapon, something that can only be used for the morally acceptable purpose of responding against an aggressor. Doing weapons research for defensive systems is therefore not morally acceptable, as any weapons might feasibly be used as part of an unjust war of aggression.
  • Kalashnikov’s preferred description of what he did when he designed the AK 47 is something like “providing the means for liberation,” or “defending my country,” not “providing the means to kill innocents.” However, he acknowledges that the latter description applies to his situation equally well. Nevertheless, J might try to portray her actions as something like “provide the means for deterrence,” the idea being that what she is helping to create is intended to deter, and hence prevent harm rather than cause it.
  • You might say that this is utopian, and it would never work, but then it might console Kalashnikov, who, after all, was a Marxist, and perhaps also a utopian.
Javier E

The Joy of Psyching Myself Out­ - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...oy-of-psyching-myself-out.html

science psychology language writing objectivity

shared by Javier E on 14 Jan 16 - No Cached
  • that neat separation is not just unwarranted; it’s destructive
  • Although it’s often presented as a dichotomy (the apparent subjectivity of the writer versus the seeming objectivity of the psychologist), it need not be.
  • IS it possible to think scientifically and creatively at once? Can you be both a psychologist and a writer?
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • “A writer must be as objective as a chemist,” Anton Chekhov wrote in 1887. “He must abandon the subjective line; he must know that dung heaps play a very reasonable part in a landscape.”
  • At the turn of the century, psychology was a field quite unlike what it is now. The theoretical musings of William James were the norm (a wry commenter once noted that William James was the writer, and his brother Henry, the psychologist)
  • Freud was a breed of psychologist that hardly exists anymore: someone who saw the world as both writer and psychologist, and for whom there was no conflict between the two. That boundary melding allowed him to posit the existence of cognitive mechanisms that wouldn’t be empirically proved for decades,
  • Freud got it brilliantly right and brilliantly wrong. The rightness is as good a justification as any of the benefits, the necessity even, of knowing how to look through the eyes of a writer. The wrongness is part of the reason that the distinction between writing and experimental psychology has grown far more rigid than it was a century ago.
  • the signs people associate with liars often have little empirical evidence to support them. Therein lies the psychologist’s distinct role and her necessity. As a writer, you look in order to describe, but you remain free to use that description however you see fit. As a psychologist, you look to describe, yes, but also to verify.
  • Without verification, we can’t always trust what we see — or rather, what we think we see.
  • The desire for the world to be what it ought to be and not what it is permeates experimental psychology as much as writing, though. There’s experimental bias and the problem known in the field as “demand characteristics” — when researchers end up finding what they want to find by cuing participants to act a certain way.
  • IN 1932, when he was in his 70s, Freud gave a series of lectures on psychoanalysis. In his final talk, “A Philosophy of Life,” he focused on clarifying an important caveat to his research: His followers should not be confused by the seemingly internal, and thus possibly subjective, nature of his work. “There is no other source of knowledge of the universe but the intellectual manipulation of carefully verified observations,” he said.
  • That is what both the psychologist and the writer should strive for: a self-knowledge that allows you to look in order to discover, without agenda, without preconception, without knowing or caring if what you’re seeing is wrong or right in your scheme of the world. It’s harder than it sounds. For one thing, you have to possess the self-knowledge that will allow you to admit when you’re wrong.
  • Even with the best intentions, objectivity can prove a difficult companion. I left psychology behind because I found its structural demands overly hampering. I couldn’t just pursue interesting lines of inquiry; I had to devise a set of experiments, see how feasible they were, both technically and financially, consider how they would reflect on my career. That meant that most new inquiries never happened — in a sense, it meant that objectivity was more an ideal than a reality. Each study was selected for a reason other than intrinsic interest.
Javier E

The meaning of life in a world without work | Technology | The Guardian - 0 views

www.theguardian.com/...y-religion-robots-sapiens-book

meaning life technology culture crisis work leisure automation psychology fiction religion virtual reality

shared by Javier E on 08 May 17 - No Cached
  • As artificial intelligence outperforms humans in more and more tasks, it will replace humans in more and more jobs.
  • Many new professions are likely to appear: virtual-world designers, for example. But such professions will probably require more creativity and flexibility, and it is unclear whether 40-year-old unemployed taxi drivers or insurance agents will be able to reinvent themselves as virtual-world designers
  • The crucial problem isn’t creating new jobs. The crucial problem is creating new jobs that humans perform better than algorithms. Consequently, by 2050 a new class of people might emerge – the useless class. People who are not just unemployed, but unemployable.
  • ...15 more annotations...
  • The same technology that renders humans useless might also make it feasible to feed and support the unemployable masses through some scheme of universal basic income.
  • The real problem will then be to keep the masses occupied and content. People must engage in purposeful activities, or they go crazy. So what will the useless class do all day?
  • One answer might be computer games. Economically redundant people might spend increasing amounts of time within 3D virtual reality worlds, which would provide them with far more excitement and emotional engagement than the “real world” outside.
  • This, in fact, is a very old solution. For thousands of years, billions of people have found meaning in playing virtual reality games. In the past, we have called these virtual reality games “religions”.
  • Muslims and Christians go through life trying to gain points in their favorite virtual reality game. If you pray every day, you get points. If you forget to pray, you lose points. If by the end of your life you gain enough points, then after you die you go to the next level of the game (aka heaven).
  • As religions show us, the virtual reality need not be encased inside an isolated box. Rather, it can be superimposed on the physical reality. In the past this was done with the human imagination and with sacred books, and in the 21st century it can be done with smartphones.
  • we saw two others kids on the street who were hunting the same Pokémon, and we almost got into a fight with them. It struck me how similar the situation was to the conflict between Jews and Muslims about the holy city of Jerusalem. When you look at the objective reality of Jerusalem, all you see are stones and buildings. There is no holiness anywhere. But when you look through the medium of smartbooks (such as the Bible and the Qur’an), you see holy places and angels everywhere.
  • Consumerism too is a virtual reality game. You gain points by acquiring new cars, buying expensive brands and taking vacations abroad, and if you have more points than everybody else, you tell yourself you won the game.
  • In the end, the real action always takes place inside the human brain. Does it matter whether the neurons are stimulated by observing pixels on a computer screen, by looking outside the windows of a Caribbean resort, or by seeing heaven in our mind’s eyes?
  • Indeed, one particularly interesting section of Israeli society provides a unique laboratory for how to live a contented life in a post-work world. In Israel, a significant percentage of ultra-orthodox Jewish men never work. They spend their entire lives studying holy scriptures and performing religion rituals. They and their families don’t starve to death partly because the wives often work, and partly because the government provides them with generous subsidies. Though they usually live in poverty, government support means that they never lack for the basic necessities of life.
  • That’s universal basic income in action. Though they are poor and never work, in survey after survey these ultra-orthodox Jewish men report higher levels of life-satisfaction than any other section of Israeli society.
  • Hence virtual realities are likely to be key to providing meaning to the useless class of the post-work world. Maybe these virtual realities will be generated inside computers. Maybe they will be generated outside computers, in the shape of new religions and ideologies. Maybe it will be a combination of the two. The possibilities are endless
  • In any case, the end of work will not necessarily mean the end of meaning, because meaning is generated by imagining rather than by working.
  • People in 2050 will probably be able to play deeper games and to construct more complex virtual worlds than in any previous time in history.
  • But what about truth? What about reality? Do we really want to live in a world in which billions of people are immersed in fantasies, pursuing make-believe goals and obeying imaginary laws? Well, like it or not, that’s the world we have been living in for thousands of years already.
ilanaprincilus06

U.S. Refugee Program Faces Challenges To Rebuild : NPR - 0 views

www.npr.org/...-support-facing-big-challenges

Delaware refugees

shared by ilanaprincilus06 on 27 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • Among the more daunting challenges President Biden faces in the coming year will be to make good on his goal of admitting 10 times as many refugees — 125,000 — as former President Donald Trump allowed to enter the United States last year.
  • "One hundred and twenty-five thousand refugees being resettled this [next] year is unrealistic," says Krish O'Mara Vignarajah,
  • "Our refugee resettlement has been on life support for the past few years," Vignarajah says. Seventeen of her agency's 48 resettlement sites have closed due to budgetary cutbacks in the U.S. government's refugee program.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • "It involves reopening offices that were closed, rehiring staff we lost, and regaining crucial institutional knowledge," Vignarajah says. The staff members who were let go, she says, represented decades of experience.
  • "No back home again," Pathy says. "From the hospital, we leave and run away." At that point, they had no idea whether their daughters were alive or dead.
  • With other refugees, the Mulemas made their way to Ghana. The refugee camp there was administered by the United Nations. They spent five years living in miserable conditions, with little or no shelter.
  • In a sign of the interfaith character of refugee resettlement work, Jewish Family Services of Delaware partnered with a local Christian church, Calvary Baptist, to accommodate the Mulema family. Over the next three years, about a dozen volunteers from the church helped the Mulemas deal with the new challenges they faced.
  • Given how much work is necessary to resettle a single refugee family, however, the prospect of vastly and suddenly increased refugee admissions is barely feasible, in large part because the refugee resettlement infrastructure has been eroded over the past four years.
  • Trump allowed fewer than 12,000 refugees to enter the country last year, the lowest number in the history of the U.S. refugee program.
  • Across the United States, about one out of three resettlement sites have closed. Jewish Family Services of Delaware was informed it would not be assigned any more refugee families.
  • "The Trump Administration really did some serious damage to the infrastructure of the refugee program," Hetfield says. "Also, obviously, the pandemic put some really serious restrictions on."
  • A renewed government commitment to refugee admissions is not enough on its own to bring the program back to full strength.
  • The United States was founded as a nation of ideals, with almost a religious obligation to welcome the tired and homeless. The country has met the commitment before. It's now challenged to do so again, hard though it may be.
aprossi

(2) Fauci says 100 million vaccine doses in Biden's first 100 days is doable - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...b946d337c0818f4044408fa62d7540

biden Covid-19 Fauci Vaccine research knowledge

shared by aprossi on 15 Jan 21 - No Cached
  • The latest on the coronavirus pandemic and vaccines
  • Fauci says 100 million vaccine doses in Biden's first 100 days is doable
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci said on Friday morning that "it's quite feasible" the United States can achieve President-elect Joe Biden's goal to distribute 100 million doses of Covid-19 vaccine in his first 100 days of office. Fauci is set to serve as Biden's chief medical adviser.
  • ...4 more annotations...
  • Right now, even now, we've gone from half a million a day to 750,000 a day.
  • "If we get about 70% to 85% of the people in the country vaccinated, we likely will get to that umbrella of herd immunity,
  • His remarks come a day after he outlined a $1.9 trillion emergency legislative package to fund a nationwide vaccination effort and provide direct economic relief to Americans amid the coronavirus pandemic, telling Americans that "the health of our nation is at stake."
  • 100 million vaccine shots in his initial 100 days in office.
Javier E

Book Review: 'The Maniac,' by Benjamín Labatut - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...njamin-labatut-the-maniac.html

science knowledge psychology bias rationality scientists

shared by Javier E on 02 Oct 23 - No Cached
  • it quickly becomes clear that what “The Maniac” is really trying to get a lock on is our current age of digital-informational mastery and subjection
  • When von Neumann proclaims that, thanks to his computational advances, “all processes that are stable we shall predict” and “all processes that are unstable we shall control,” we’re being prompted to reflect on today’s ubiquitous predictive-slash-determinative algorithms.
  • When he publishes a paper about the feasibility of a self-reproducing machine — “you need to have a mechanism, not only of copying a being, but of copying the instructions that specify that being” — few contemporary readers will fail to home straight in on the fraught subject of A.I.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • Haunting von Neumann’s thought experiment is the specter of a construct that, in its very internal perfection, lacks the element that would account for itself as a construct. “If someone succeeded in creating a formal system of axioms that was free of all internal paradoxes and contradictions,” another of von Neumann’s interlocutors, the logician Kurt Gödel, explains, “it would always be incomplete, because it would contain truths and statements that — while being undeniably true — could never be proven within the laws of that system.”
  • its deeper (and, for me, more compelling) theme: the relation between reason and madness.
  • Almost all the scientists populating the book are mad, their desire “to understand, to grasp the core of things” invariably wedded to “an uncontrollable mania”; even their scrupulously observed reason, their mode of logic elevated to religion, is framed as a form of madness. Von Neumann’s response to the detonation of the Trinity bomb, the world’s first nuclear explosion, is “so utterly rational that it bordered on the psychopathic,” his second wife, Klara Dan, muses
  • fanaticism, in the 1930s, “was the norm … even among us mathematicians.”
  • Pondering Gödel’s own descent into mania, the physicist Eugene Wigner claims that “paranoia is logic run amok.” If you’ve convinced yourself that there’s a reason for everything, “it’s a small step to begin to see hidden machinations and agents operating to manipulate the most common, everyday occurrences.”
  • the game theory-derived system of mutually assured destruction he devises in its wake is “perfectly rational insanity,” according to its co-founder Oskar Morgenstern.
  • Labatut has Morgenstern end his MAD deliberations by pointing out that humans are not perfect poker players. They are irrational, a fact that, while instigating “the ungovernable chaos that we see all around us,” is also the “mercy” that saves us, “a strange angel that protects us from the mad dreams of reason.”
  • But does von Neumann really deserve the title “Father of Computers,” granted him here by his first wife, Mariette Kovesi? Doesn’t Ada Lovelace have a prior claim as their mother? Feynman’s description of the Trinity bomb as “a little Frankenstein monster” should remind us that it was Mary Shelley, not von Neumann and his coterie, who first grasped the monumental stakes of modeling the total code of life, its own instructions for self-replication, and that it was Rosalind Franklin — working alongside, not under, Maurice Wilkins — who first carried out this modeling.
  • he at least grants his women broader, more incisive wisdom. Ehrenfest’s lover Nelly Posthumus Meyjes delivers a persuasive lecture on the Pythagorean myth of the irrational, suggesting that while scientists would never accept the fact that “nature cannot be cognized as a whole,” artists, by contrast, “had already fully embraced it.”
Javier E

On the Controllability of Artificial Intelligence: An Analysis of Limitations | Journal... - 0 views

journals.riverpublishers.com/...16219

ai security control feasibility research technology evaluation expert

shared by Javier E on 27 Feb 23 - No Cached
  • In order to reap the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of such a powerful technology it is important to be able to control it. However, the possibility of controlling artificial general intelligence and its more advanced version, superintelligence, has not been formally established
  • In this paper, we present arguments as well as supporting evidence from multiple domains indicating that advanced AI cannot be fully controlled
Javier E

Opinion | Chatbots Are a Danger to Democracy - The New York Times - 0 views

www.nytimes.com/...-ai-democracy-free-speech.html

danger democracy chatbot AI technology

shared by Javier E on 27 Feb 23 - No Cached
  • longer-term threats to democracy that are waiting around the corner. Perhaps the most serious is political artificial intelligence in the form of automated “chatbots,” which masquerade as humans and try to hijack the political process
  • Increasingly, they take the form of machine learning systems that are not painstakingly “taught” vocabulary, grammar and syntax but rather “learn” to respond appropriately using probabilistic inference from large data sets, together with some human guidance.
  • In the buildup to the midterms, for instance, an estimated 60 percent of the online chatter relating to “the caravan” of Central American migrants was initiated by chatbots.
  • ...21 more annotations...
  • In the days following the disappearance of the columnist Jamal Khashoggi, Arabic-language social media erupted in support for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who was widely rumored to have ordered his murder. On a single day in October, the phrase “we all have trust in Mohammed bin Salman” featured in 250,000 tweets. “We have to stand by our leader” was posted more than 60,000 times, along with 100,000 messages imploring Saudis to “Unfollow enemies of the nation.” In all likelihood, the majority of these messages were generated by chatbots.
  • around a fifth of all tweets discussing the 2016 presidential election are believed to have been the work of chatbots.
  • a third of all traffic on Twitter before the 2016 referendum on Britain’s membership in the European Union was said to come from chatbots, principally in support of the Leave side.
  • It’s irrelevant that current bots are not “smart” like we are, or that they have not achieved the consciousness and creativity hoped for by A.I. purists. What matters is their impact
  • In the past, despite our differences, we could at least take for granted that all participants in the political process were human beings. This no longer true
  • Increasingly we share the online debate chamber with nonhuman entities that are rapidly growing more advanced
  • a bot developed by the British firm Babylon reportedly achieved a score of 81 percent in the clinical examination for admission to the Royal College of General Practitioners. The average score for human doctors? 72 percent.
  • If chatbots are approaching the stage where they can answer diagnostic questions as well or better than human doctors, then it’s possible they might eventually reach or surpass our levels of political sophistication
  • chatbots could seriously endanger our democracy, and not just when they go haywire.
  • They’ll likely have faces and voices, names and personalities — all engineered for maximum persuasion. So-called “deep fake” videos can already convincingly synthesize the speech and appearance of real politicians.
  • The most obvious risk is that we are crowded out of our own deliberative processes by systems that are too fast and too ubiquitous for us to keep up with.
  • A related risk is that wealthy people will be able to afford the best chatbots.
  • in a world where, increasingly, the only feasible way of engaging in debate with chatbots is through the deployment of other chatbots also possessed of the same speed and facility, the worry is that in the long run we’ll become effectively excluded from our own party.
  • the wholesale automation of deliberation would be an unfortunate development in democratic history.
  • A blunt approach — call it disqualification — would be an all-out prohibition of bots on forums where important political speech takes place, and punishment for the humans responsible
  • The Bot Disclosure and Accountability Bil
  • would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit candidates and political parties from using any bots intended to impersonate or replicate human activity for public communication. It would also stop PACs, corporations and labor organizations from using bots to disseminate messages advocating candidates, which would be considered “electioneering communications.”
  • A subtler method would involve mandatory identification: requiring all chatbots to be publicly registered and to state at all times the fact that they are chatbots, and the identity of their human owners and controllers.
  • We should also be exploring more imaginative forms of regulation. Why not introduce a rule, coded into platforms themselves, that bots may make only up to a specific number of online contributions per day, or a specific number of responses to a particular human?
  • We need not treat the speech of chatbots with the same reverence that we treat human speech. Moreover, bots are too fast and tricky to be subject to ordinary rules of debate
  • the methods we use to regulate bots must be more robust than those we apply to people. There can be no half-measures when democracy is at stake.
1 - 12 of 12
Showing 20▼ items per page