4 years, 11 months ago-
sorry for “second part”, yesterday I wrote three comments for the forum.
thanks @peppuz for the advice on DuckDuckGo.
@marcopastore according to me the speech that you do on Trenitalia is completely true, I think you could adopt the same technique used in Milan Metro with the contactless payment, in fact you do not need the ticket but you have to put the card on the validator and pass. The same you do at the exit, otherwise you have problems then with the bank and ATM. Maybe before going to AI.Before going to consider AI as a train cleaner, doing a cleaning service governed by artificial intelligence could be a viable solution and in this robotics can help us.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ghCLJGXrOo
As far as my friends tell me, it is not very efficient, so thinking about improving the transport network would be a prerequisite. 😉
@serenavineis what you write on Trenord and Trenitalia is true. The bad situation of not paying the ticket is found throughout Italy (in this case Rome) service of Striscia la Notizia:https://www.striscialanotizia.mediaset.it/video/stazione-arco-di-travertino-roma_31364.shtml
@francescatomasello Once I got the M5, even though I live in Milan and it was a great experience: without a driver, clean and safe (protections).
@danielafiorellino when you write about your experience at the airport and think about recognition system comes to mind what the minister wants to do by the public lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, unfortunately because of the “furbetti del cartellino”, you want to introduce fingerprints. I am an honest citizen and a good employee, I think this is also a violation of my privacy.Sorry I do not want to give a political connotation, but unfortunately I risk paying for many dishonest people.https: //www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2018/09/14/public- administration-bongiorno-via-al-decreto-concretezza- fingerprint-digital-versus-crafty-the-card / 4625276 /
@francescatomasello I read the article “US airport opens first fully biometric terminal” when we say: “Passengers who do not feel comfortable using their passports.” I would ask: “how can one be analog in a digital system?”Another interesting aspect of the article is when it says: “Experts and authorities believe in an era when aviation is targeted by criminals and terrorists.” This is negative view of a world governed by terrorism, yet another question to ask would be: “in case something serious and illicit happen, what excuses would the government bring?”
Tell me your thought. I’m curious.
Cheers.
Valentina Suffia
Good afternoon everybody,
@francescatomasello and @danielafiorellino I agree with you on facial recognition in airports. The competent government agencies, like CBS for the US, already have you name associated with a clear, high quality picture of yours through your passport. That happens any time you visit a foreign country, or leave our beloved Italy. Implementing FR wouldn’t change much the situation. What really should happen is that the technology, by law, should be restricted to very specific and recognizable points and mustn’t be allowed to expand to Closed Circuit Cameras systems, with whom a complete real time tracking of the traveller would be possible. I also hope to see in development a complete legislation on FR, stating clearly where it can be used and where it can’t, and tech-savvy lawyers like @valentina could really help here. (It looks like that law is one of the old sector that, luckily, won’t know crises in the next decades..).
@serenavineis I also pray that an emotion-reading FR algorithm like the one you shared with us will be banned by the law, in any sector. Marketing has been more and more influenced by psychology in the latest years, giving the possibility to an advertising algorithm to know your emotions and adapt the ads in real time would have, in my opinion, too much power and leverage over an individual. In other contexts, if a company knows exactly the feelings of its clients when they use their products, it becomes easier to engineer things to be addictive (as for example has been done with fb and instagram).I know that such a technology is fundamental in, for example, robots that can interact in a human way with us, but I see to much potential for misuse here. A company that doesn’t put people first in its priority list could program such robots to really manipulate emotionally weaker people (e.g. with robots for elder’s care). Am I being too pessimistic? Could we allow for Emotion FR and punish misuse with proper laws? Is it really possible to define misuse?
I’m posing this problem because as far as I know, after the news that fb and instagram were thought specifically to be addictive, no official lawsuit began. How can we accept such manipulating behaviors to exist?
About “I Furbetti del Cartellino”
@valentina, although I understand you concerns about privacy, I really think that the problem we all have with the inefficiency, unproductively and bad employees behavior in our public administration is much greater than privacy issue, and we should be anxious to see it implemented throughout Italy. Sorry to say that I’m unable to access your link at ilfattoquotidiano (removing the spaces, obviously), maybe it is broken?Have an awesome weekend,
Davide TonioloHi guys!
@serenavineis very interesting articles about facial recognition! This is an example of AI used for medicine (epilessy, specifically). But as we all agree, it’s better it won’t be developed for political, economic purposes! As @davidetoniolo, I agree on the fact that FR in this sectors can be misused. But it seems that emotions and AI will be one of the hot topics in 10 years, as Gartner with the Hype Cycle has set (remember the article and the graph that I’ve posted before). My hope is that as AI develops, even law and regulation evolve and so their proficiency will be better. We NEED this!
Regarding self-driving cars and the issue of who saving during an hypotetical car crash, it’s a moral problem. As the research shows, algorithms which are based cars on, are decided and created by humans and in this way, there is an agreement between companies (producers of self-driving cars) and governments or supranational organizations. I found out that in Germany there’s one of the first ethical commission that works to produce a code to legislate on these themes (yes, of course, BMW and Volkswagen). SO, what is the final choice? How to decide, in a same situation, to save a pedestrian woman or man? Or between two people, who is on the left or in the right? This problem is not so easy to resolve, because this technology is based on logical algorithms that assign different weights to different variables or constants. And at the moment, ethics and AI are not “speaking” the same language. There’s a lot to do.
@valentina here’s Umberto Eco’s article about Privacy, sorry if it did not work!
I found really interesting the article talking about the new language of the two robots! But as the researchers pointed out, it was an inefficiency of the program. But guess what, the company involved in this new was FACEBOOK. I think that it was a further way to shed light on the company.
Your question “how one can be analog in a digital system?” it’s an actual theme because as Eurostat has inspected (2017), old dependency ratio in Italy is 34,8, the highest level of EU. By saying that I want to highlight the consistency of over 65, people who are not born with computers and so on. Here you can find lots of data from ISTAT that analyze the use of new technologies by old people. The conclusion is that there’s a sort of digital primitivism among old people. For example, my grandparents: they would be more comfortable using their passports instead of facial recognition. But besides that, it’s evident that every big invention has always brought irreversible changes in people’s lives: 1st, 2nd, 3rd industrial revolutions are the precursors of the 4th industrial revolution (we are livin’ it!). Technology and AI are undeniable!
Have a great weekend!
Francesca Tomasello
Good sunday evening everyone.
I read really interesting and cute edge type of argumentations, picking so many different kinds of points of view. It’s lovely to be here.
Tranitalia and face-recon wow, @marcopastore blow my mind there, for real. Just that would solve all the evasion problem for the transportation system at a nation wide scale. It’s so cool, I think we, as Italians, need more of this kind of non-intrusive technologies, to educate people to not evade, like in our public transportations case and fine more unlawful passengers, directly sending (fines) at home too.
@davidetoniolo, I understand negativeness regarding Trenitalia Group’s future, I agree train delivery can also be solved by AI, and I humbly feel that they are not doing it yet.
I fear that their problem may be an hardware problem, maybe limited number of railways on certain routes, maybe cause multiple trains are manually (humanly) managed on route by train traffic controllers. But I say this, in the Air Transport Systems billions have already been spent on upgrading technologies on every aspect, the ecosystem is so thick of different stack of technologies like meteorogical, communication, navigation, surveillance and other systems, that everything has to be STABLE and RELIABLE to able a single plane to flight from point to point.
On rail-ways, an other kind of tech comes in, but, I just don’t understand how Trenitalia is so slow at making small progresses, even with millions in hands. Hoping italians and turists will pay that ticket and boost the company interests and spread positiveness among Italians with helpful fixes.Great point on metros @francescatomasello! Milan city has M5, but be careful not confusing Artificial Intelligence with Automation, the difference is really thin and I can understand the misconception.
Lilla Metro works with a grade 4 of automation. Think about this, the metro works on a controlled and unmutable envoironment, nothing changes everyday internally, so logically make sense to say that there is no decision making regarding making the train operations. It’s just about making it stop and go, opening doors, and handling emergencies. A computer can take full controll of these, and just iterate the processes through the route. When a computer do the same things overtime it’s litterally automation. Really big but unpercettible difference between the two kind of systems. Another example of automation i did yeasterday night: tired of deleting and posting back objects on “Subito.it”, so that the post can stay up in evidence ’cause it is a “new” one, i just coded few lines to automate the process through the week, but i didn’t used any statistical model to accomplish my goal, I haven’t trained an algorithm to make the computer think what is (for example) the best time (or some other variable) to post.
Thank you for those links on the face recon in airports, loved them. As we may all noticed, face recognition technology is solving up the problem of queueing and automating security, is not that bad nor dangerous :3 I saw that @davidetoniolo had a moralmachine.link inside, what’s your guys score? I hated it sometimes ahah, too many tough decisions to take.What I think about fb unsupervised ML algorithms? In few words, I would say that it’s like putting two separate machines talking like Siri and the other one like Alexa with this single difference: they learn from each other while speaking. So basically not every time things appear to converge where sense is still interpretable for humans, but neater those machine were! We are not so far from coding robots that can communicate between their self with the capability to interpret and answer back, we just need data to make them learn from. I think too it just try to lowers shadows on Facebook. Nothing to be scared is happening. AI is really far away from self-thoughting and self-planning for survivor instincts intelligent characterized systems, related to Frame Problem and the Simbol Grounding Problem shared above, there is also involved the Polanyi Paradox, about tacit knowledge that cannot be verbalized, check it out!
Hello everyone;
today I’m writing to give you an update to a news I posted about a week ago. It is about the open letters wrote by an aggregation of activist associations to major tech companies to ask them not to sell their FR algorithms to governments. It appears that Microsoft, or at least a part of it, disagrees on the balance between advantages and disadvantages of it, placing the company in a middle ground between Google and Amazon’s positions.I remain skeptic, but you can’t deny that Smith has a point here. What do you think?
@peppuz, loved the Subito.it part. Apparently studying computer science has many practical advantages 😆. I’d like to know a little about the technical details (if possible), how did you manage to do it? Also your clarification on the difference between automation and AI is fundamental and I’m starting to doubt whatever the autonomous flying system for the drones developed by ZIpline is a valid example of AI. I really didn’t catch the moralmachine.link part of your post, through.Have a good week,
Davide TonioloHi everyone,
I guess this is what @davidetoniolo might be talking about; I find what Smith claims to be very fair, it’s quite the point I was trying to make in my last post. The letters mentioned in the article deal with the way those companies are approaching the new technology: they call it the “break-then-fix” way, regarding the fact that most of the facial recognition technologies that are being used can’t really vouch for their accuracy at their first applications. The people who protested against the selling of FR systems mostly worried about how the next generations might feel as if they were tracked while going, for example, to their place of worship. Now I’d like to focus on the concept of “confidence threshold”: I haven’t really thought about it before reading the article I linked before, but I think we might be missing an important point. We’ve been discussing the usefulness and the harms of FR technologies looking for black-and-white certainties; when we claim that facial recognition technologies recognize, identify, scan people’s features, we assume that those processes lead to 100% unequivocal results. But what if we were given, let’s say, a 70% confidence threshold? The number of false positives and mistakes would wane significantly.
I am not, in any way, stating that considering a lower confidence threshold would make FR safer, especially when referring to a public-security related usage of the technology; for sure we would be more aware of what facial recognition can do and to what extent we should consider it trustable. I think that a widespread application of FR still needs to be heavily regulated privacy-wise, but if we all stopped considering its results as biblical truth we could re-evaluate the positive side of it and maybe integrate FR systems in advanced stages of individual’s recognition processes (meaning that facial recognition would come after many human-driven steps of identifying people). What do you think about this?
Going back to @marcopastore point on trains, I’d like to share my researches about two FR-related innovations, one I support and another I completely disagree with: the former deals with FR technologies being used to replace train tickets (both the BBC and the Daily Mail wrote about it) while the latter is again another system to prevent terrorism on public transport. Now, I reckon that Trenord’s databases (as well as those of any other public transport administration system) already contain most of our private data but they’re completely missing out on occasional users, without any kind of subscription. This FR system would be a great way to prevent people from getting on the train without a valid ticket; clearly databases would be enriched with FR-related data and unsubscribed users would need to be registered as well, but I think we could give away a little more data (which is what we already do with social media, in my opinion) in order to get a better public service. The other innovation is called FaceFirst and is a member of the US National Safe Skies Alliance; I was kind of shocked when I realized you can even book a demo yourself if you want to check this system out. We might be worried about big companies installing their softwares for facial recognition while private smaller companies are already on the market. What I found to be interesting, though, is their “Privacy” section which clarifies the matter of privacy as for their software.
I appreciated what @danielafiorellino said about the annoying queues at airports. On my side, I immediately thought of concerts; I am the one who loves the queueing experience before concerts, but it’s clearly annoying and debilitating for many people. Anyway that’s not what I want to talk about; I bet you all know what happens with the so-called “bagarini” when tickets go on sale and the situation is escalating quickly, with ticket prices rising and more people complaining about how bad ticket sellers act. The Verge wrote about Ticketmaster (the guys who create a virtual queue of customers that literally wait in line to get to buy their tickets) and Live Nation investing in a technology called BlinkIdentity to replace the ticket with facial recognition-driven access to live events. Sure the companies would need to develop a database of all their concertgoers’ faces, and there would come the privacy issue, but it would aid in preventing secondary-ticketing which is impacting on the live music industry.
Last point for today: I am a CES (Consumer Electronics Show) enthusiast, meaning that I tend to easily charmed by all of the innovations that are presented at the convention in Las Vegas. In this year’s edition the company FaceMe presented a system of facial recognition that could recognize the emotional response to a product and customize the advertisement according to a user’s degree of appreciation to other products. Wonderful marketing move, still this video, which shows how the system works, expresses some concerns as for the recurrent privacy issue. Do you think it would be cool to receive customized advertising according to what we (or at least, our bodies) seem to like?
Have a nice day,
JessicaHi guys,
thanks @davidetoniolo for your point of view, I hope that with my profession I will be able to combine both the technological and the legal aspects.
Montemagno speaks several times in his “digital legal” conferences. I hope to succeed!
@davidetoniolo in my opinion you are not too pessimistic in your assessment of robots related to the management of emotions, this situation if poorly managed, could become a boomerang.
@davidetoniolo regarding the “furbetti del cartellino” and therefore the future request for “fingerprints”, I understand that in the public opinion is a bad feeling due to the lack of productivity, but I can tell you that there are many excellences in Italy, also in the public employment.I send you another link that says the same thing. http://www.la7.it/otto-e-mezzo/video/giulia-bongiorno-ritengo-la-misura-che-introduce-le-impronte-digitali-nella-pubblica-amministrazione-09-01-2019- 259865
@francescatomasello thanks for sharing Umberto Eco’s article, very interesting. In my first forum posts, I I was also talking about Orwell, ahahahah!Umberto Eco adds the point of view of Bauman to explain the bulimia, of real or presumed, information circulating on social networks. In this case the user balances privacy and visibility, and chooses the latter.
Andy Wharol’s prophecy is coming true:
“In the future everyone will be famous for 15 minutes.”
It is interesting that Cardozo has defined Facebook as “disturbing”, adding that its “business model depends on our collective confusion and apathy for privacy.” The article is January 30th and is very interesting. Facebook is ostensibly trying to right the ship.
https://www.wired.com/story/facebook-hires-privacy-critics/
@peppuz thanks for the clarifications on automation and AI 😉Bye bye everybody!
Valentina
Good afternoon guys!
@davidetoniolo I completly agree with you, you’re not too pessimistic; to make real an IT technology I think we need to think more negative to find solutions to problems in this way it could be implemented in a better way. As you said this technology could put in danger people and it allows to create a very dangerous “market of emotions”, furthermore when Emotion FR will work very well with at east of 90% emotions recognized it will be very dangerous if not used in a properly way. I mean with Emotion FR it could be used as a psychologist or as a teacher or in many other traditional professions. It’s necessary to find the correct integration between IT and Humanity, to not lose our feelings but at the same time be helped to build a better lifestyle.
@francescatomasello I am glad that the Ethical issue about driverless car is being considerated and are taking care of to find out a solution. This topic is hot right now, behind every innovation there will be always an ethic problem who needs to be resolved.
@jessinthebox96 Really interesting your point about the application of FR in the live concerts industry. It would be a very big step and it allows concerts to be safer and make the queue flow faster; in the other hand people who works in the concert box offices, like me for example, will lose the job (I’ve already know that is a kind of job who can’t be eternal) and I think and I hope they can find a solution to permit people to resell they ticket (I am not talking about “bagarinaggio”) in case they couldn’t attend the show.Like I said at the beginning and in my previous post, even if Emotion FR is charming I won’t feel comfortable receive personalized advetising. In my opinion FR it could be useful only if used for improving the national welfare (e.g. healthcare and fight against the crime issues). Regarding to the update article of @danieletoniolo I agree with Smith about the partnership between Microsoft (and maybe Google, Amazon, Apple etc) and Governments using FR. The problem is the law is not already aware of this revolutionary wave, so we need to improve together FR and legal system (national and international) and ban the FR for marketing/economic purposed. But right now how many governments could be eligible to use this type of innovation? China? Russia? Usa? Venezuela? Until the entire world won’t focus on respect and dignity of the person there will be always someone who will benefit in an unpleasant way. I think we are not ready right now.
@valentina @francescatomasello I really enjoyed the Umberto Eco article. It’s impressive think how people, coming from different eras where technology didn’t exist/was at the beginning, predict our present. Everyone wants to have 15 minutes of popularity, that’s true, but I think we’re living in a bubble. In my opinion, speaking about social media, they won’t existing anymore in a far future or better they will change way of usage. I found an article where Andrea Pezzi, entrepreneur of technology, thinks that one day we will have a microchip under our skin that sums up our digital identity. I really hope it is just an hypothesis otherwise it would be very frightening. It looks like Black mirror will be our reality.As you posted @valentina Facebook is trying to get its trust back and give users confidence again. It won’t be easy and it takes a lot of time..It needs to communicate very well what type of direction it wants to take for the future to be able to re-launch at its best.
Hope to reading your thoughts soon!
Serena
Good afternoon everyone!
Thank you @peppuz for your explanation! You’re right to clarify all the specifical concepts that seem to us very similar even if they’re different! We need an IT specialist in this forum 🙂
In the Moral Machine’s test (here you can do your own test) I got these results:
– most saved character: dog;
– most killed character: old lady;
I can explain you these strange results: I gave priority to laws and regulations. In this way I gave “the chance to live” to all people or animals who were crossing the road when the traffic light was green. When it wasn’t, and people/animals were crossing, I chose to “punish” them. It’s obviously an extreme result, and I retain that if I am in that situation I will surely save people instead of animals, even if they’re crossing the road with the red traffic light. A question came into my mind: do the cars recognize (before the accident) if the traffic light is green or red? And do they recognize if there’s a young person or an old one? I mean that it’s really difficult to do this actions few seconds before the crash… What do you think about it?
@davidetoniolo thanks for your update on this issue! Smith says: “I do not understand an argument that companies should avoid all licensing to any government agency for any purpose whatsoever” and “There are certain uses of facial recognition that should cause concern and should cause everyone to proceed slowly and with caution. That’s certainly what we’re doing and we’re very worried about situations where facial recognition technology could be used in a manner that would cause bias or discrimination”. So, he is in favour of FR but under a clear and defined regulation specifically talking about people’s privacy, discrimination, democratic freedom and human rights. I agree with him, and I think that if I were him I will state the same position. But nowadays, as @jessinthebox96 rightly wrote, facial recognition is not a process that produces 100% correct results, but there’s a confidence threshold.
The main problem is, in my opinion, this confidence threshold: we could use FR after other ways of individual recognition, but in order to double check one person’s identity. Using FR without other methods, could be very dangerous. Gave a look at this article: SARI, police’s FR software (used in UK and in Italy too), is not so precise and the dimostration of this was registered during a match between Juventus and Real Madrid in 2017. The number of errors was 92%. So only 8% of criminals were identified. The algorithm can make two errors:
- False positive (innocent incriminated);
- False negative (criminal not recognized).
The false negatives are surely a problem, since a real criminal is not identified and can act undisturberly. But also the number of false positives which increases as the number of people to identify is bigger and bigger is a BIG problem. Innocent people are detained by the authorities (this is not so happy) and then their face go into a database. I think that I would be very annoyed if an agent detained me and my face went into a database…. What about you? In conclusion, we should use FR as a second/third/fourth… method to analyze one’s identity, not the FIRST.
@jessinthebox96 you’ve shared two sides of the same coin. I mean that I agree partly with you because the first situation is positive since you give away your data in order to have a better train service (everyone pays so there will be more money to invest in innovation and maintenance of trains and so on…). On the contrary with “FaceFirst”, I agree with you that it’s strage that even a private can use a demo version of this software, but there’s the same issue at the bottom: you always give away your face, your personal data! I’m willing to give away my face for better train service, but who can assure me that my data won’t be used for other purposes? There’s a lack of regulation, and I hope in the next future it will be implemented. I have the same idea for tickets at concerts.
Last but not least: FaceMe is an innovation in marketing! But we are already receiving customized adverts based on our researches on Google, for example, since cookies exist. We can disable them but not at all. Obviously they’re not so precise in tracking our preferences (because they do not know if we search something just to know about it or because we might like it) and in this way, FaceMe would help better companies to understand what a consumer likes or dislikes, seeing his/her face expressions! I retain that is a little overstated, because we loose our curiosity to look for new things. If everything (or almost everything) we might appreciate come to us without any effort, we are lazier and less interested in search for different models of things, news, ecc.
@valentina Andy Wharol’s prophecy is really true, but not everyone is acting this way (thanks God!). I think exactly as @serenavineis about Facebook’s article. It will take a lot of time to relaunch its position.
@serenavineis your thoughts about the future of Social Network is something that I believe in too. Surely in the future there will be a change in their use, as TV an Radio have changed their way to communicate (think about advertising), they will also transform! Here you can find some theories about their near future, especially in terms of marketing and advertising!
Have a good day!
Francesca Tomasello
Good evening everybody!
I am sorry for double posting but I am trying to be more active as soon as I have a little of free time.
I missed the part of the machine learning test! How fascinating it is!! It’s really good to have a test to getting envolved and simulate such as these complex ethical decisions.
@francescatomasello I think the driverless car is connecting with the traffic light system so before the accident it knows what kind of color is on. Unfortuntaly I don’t think it could know what kind of people and how many of them are crossing the road..for now. If in a future will be implemented a good FR system connected with driverless cars IT system it could be possible know the type of pedestrians; for sure the time is very little and engeneers need to work hard on this variable because is a crucial one.Regarding to social media, this article is doing a great analysis! In the near future I guess will be the hot years of the bubble I was speaking before; more than ever social media will have an e-commerce role than a posting one. But if this fact is going to be happen..what could be the next step? A return to the old usage or we’ll finally getting out of social media? Or they will be integrated with a future FR system and we all have a unique digital identity? Well a beginning of digital identity is already done by SPID, a public service that can permit to collect, for example, healthcare and tax info in only one account connected with the public service web sites.
Cheers,
Serena
Hi guys!
As we were talking about some some some posts above, there are yet many problems to make a robot thinking and act without any human help.
So, I want to share with you this article of 30.01 of Columbia University NY: ” A Step Closer to Self-Aware Machines” because it’s really linked to it.
Columbia University’s researchers have created a robot that learns what it is, from scratch, with zero prior knowledge of physics, geometry, or motor dynamics. After some days of attempts and within a day of computing, this robot creates a self-simulation. In this way it adapts to different situations. This is a first step towards an indipendent robot, that could think itself (in the future..) as they wrote.
But its creators, Lipson and Kwiatkowski are aware of the ethical implications. “Self-awareness will lead to more resilient and adaptive systems, but also implies some loss of control,” they warn. “It’s a powerful technology, but it should be handled with care.” So, we need to stay aware too, even if the new robot is a disruptive progress!
Have a good day.
Francesca Tomasello
Hi guys!
So many interesting comments, thank you!
I got curious and I took the moral machine’s test too @francescatomasello : I think it is a little weird and yes, @peppuz I hated it too sometimes! My results are :
-most saved character: young lady
-most killed character: old man
-preference in saving more lives and upholding the law
I approached it as a little game because I think it is not that simple for people to make choices like that, there are so many other aspect to consider, how can we expect it to be easy and immediate for machines? I’m a little skeptical because I think there is no good answer and so there is no perfect decision.
@valentina your Andy Warhol’s quote “in the future everyone will be famous for 15 minute” really got into my mind: we live in an era where being famous even only for few minutes Is so important and I don’t really understand why. This is the reason why lots of people do useless, stupid and most of the times dangerous things, just to become famous on the internet: did you guys watched “Bird Box” on Netflix? Basically the main character uses blindfolded the entire movie and people in real life started to use it too doing “normal” things just to post a video on the internet. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/01/02/bird-box-challenge-netflix-urges-fans-stop-internet-craze/2466908002/ all this just to try to go viral and be famous. People behave like that, how can we have faith in the fact that humans can make wise decision? (Talking about comments we made before about humans who have moral and the last voice in machine’s operations) I know not all people are the same, but it was the link in my head between our topic and Andy Warhol’s quote.“In my opinion FR it could be useful only if used for improving the national welfare” I totally agree with you @serenavineis (i quoted you ahah) and talking about marketing I found this interesting and quite scary article that basically explain what we are saying here about facial recognition and companies: https://digiday.com/marketing/5-campaigns-used-facial-recognition-technology/
The coffee one is quite genius, I would get free coffee for life because I always yawn! I also like this part of which I really agree:
“We think the future of facial recognition is more in the realm of providing greater entertainment and engagement, rather than personalization,” said Mother NY’s Clark. “Nobody wants a world where retinal scanning bombards people with uniquely tailored ads the second they sit down in front of a screen. And with consumers demanding greater control over their own data, it would be unwise to appear invasive or manipulative.”
Do you agree?
Have a nice day,
Daniela Fiorellino.
@valentinatomasello thank you for the link! Now I understand what @peppuz meant with “Moral Machine”. What you linked is a really interesting test, and as you all already said it’s important that car producers are aware of the issue.If autonomous cars will ever reach the levels of safety we dream today it will irrelevant in practice, as the overall number of deaths would decrease significantly, but morally it is of fundamental importance. I imagine that it is important for the legal aspects as well: it is customary to search for a guilty part to blame when tragedies occur, it’s human nature, and in such cases a car company really would want to prove that there are unavoidable fatal situations and that they are handled has best as possible.
I took the test and here’s my score:
The most striking result is the Upholding the Law one: I didn’t feel like rules were so important to me, only in equally weighted situation were red crossing was the only factor, I favored the passengers. Also, it may be politically incorrect, but if it was the only uneven factor I purposely favored social value: it isn’t fair, particularly because one own’s job, social position, altruism, etc…, are deeply influenced by his or her past history, but with the info given that’s the best choice I can make.
@francescatomasello and @serenavineis, you were puzzled by how could the hypothetical self driving car recognize a green traffic light, tell a young girl from an old man, and so on. That’s a major technological challenge and, as far as I know, currently cars are able to recognize a traffic lights, if they are directed towards them. Anything else is science fiction. But this doesn’t matter in the moral problem: they detached the technology from the moral: just assume that the car can, and tell us what it should do.
@danielafiorellino, the ads you link are exactly what @serenavineis and I are scared of. I assume you are too, as you call the article “scary”. The coffee one is ingenious and funny, but also potentially creepy. What if next time, instead of giving it for free, the machine would offer to sell it?Aside from the privacy issues, I see another overlooked point: the invasiveness that such ads would have: we already have an urban environment that’s oversaturated with ads, adding FR would increase the bombardment. I just realized that this is one of the may reasons why small towns are more relaxing: you’re free to walk, minding your own business, without having a screen forcing you to think about a product you don’t really need.
@francescatomasello the self aware robot is really nuts! Love it! Hadn’t heard of it, thank you for sharing it. What I like most of it, and of the whole AI thing, is that while teaching computers how to think, we learn more about ourselves, we discover that our mind is more complex than we though, like in the post @peppuz wrote that said how unconscious actions are often incredibly convoluted, and still we perform without perceivable effort.Have a good day,
DavideHi everyone,
we make the point, @serenavineis you’re right in talking about the ethical problem, let’s focus on this problem in a structured way.What are the problems?
privacy, jobs that will be lost in favor of new professional skills, lack of schools that teach new technology and new jobs, lack of effective legislation, children and youth not ready for this technological development.
@serenavineis I remember that about two years ago some fakenews spread about underskin microchip. ahahahah!
@serenavineis I propose to work with FB at least we find a communication strategy suitable for increase new credibility
@francescatomasello I took the test and I came up with this:http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-1664868150
@francescatomasello I also know that Andy Wharol’s phrase is not 100% true, but people alien to this process are people with a higher cultural and social level.Strictly between us, I don’t think people use FB only to publish kittens or puppies, or uses it just to criticize other people.
@serenavineis I know the Spid System out of my work, it can be useful to approach progress 😉
@francescatomasello I hope that soon there will be cheaper robots that clean the whole house. Maybe I become the new Joy?!? Did anyone see Joy yesterday in U7 classroom 4? IMovie.@ danielafiorellino I read the article on “Birdbox” and is disturbing, yesterday morning I read this:
I believe that beyond the laws we must look for professionals of the evolutionary age who are educated enough to new technologies
@davidetoniolo you’re right when you write about small cities, actually they are less stressful!I share with you this link published by the German IT Security Association, to understand the state-of-the-art on security measures provided by the German IT Security Act and especially by GDPR:
https://www.enisa.europa.eu/news/enisa-news/what-is-state-of-the-art-in-it-security
Hope to read your thoughts soon!
Cheers,
ValentinaGood afternoon guys! Sorry for my absence but I was pretty busy in these days. Hope everyone is doing very well.
Going ahead with the topic, thank you @francescatomasello for the article. It is really fascinating see this type of innovation created by human beings, it makes me think how much is wonderful our mind. It’s really amazing the self-awareness of this machine and impressive how can it learn something new in few time. I agree with the developers, the self-innovation could be very dangerous and once implemented, I think will be very hard to stop it or modify. More than anything else I think if one of the machines would be sold to do some operations but suddenly they start to do something completly different thanks to the self-awareness, It could be drammatic, especially in certain fields like healthcare. Obviously this type of innovation it’s only at the beginning but it has already proved how powerful it is.
@danielafiorellino wow, how crazy are these people? I remember the campaign where people jumped off the car during the Drake song, I admit it was funny see those videos but actually very dangerous; this is a negative effect of social media, more you are crazy and do dangerous thing more the web will acclaim you. I guess this is a reasult of a deep problem of our society, I mean if people want to see that type of videos and want to do that type of thing only for having 15 minutes of popularity, it means that in real life, the life itself is not stimulating and rewarding “normal”activites. It’s necessary to be educated about the use of the social networks and be aware of the consequences. Like everything there are pros and cons.
@danielafiorellino Thanks to have quoted me ahah, I appreciate you agree with my words. I really loved the article you posted. So FR is already used in our lifes; I agree with @davidetoniolo but I even think that in the future, if FR would have an increasing use and positive feedback we will be oversaturated even in small cities..well it will take time, for now we are “safe”.
Even if I am still scared about the usages of these tecnologies, I was thinking a new way of application of AI in advertising. If will be created a robot complete by emotions recognition and AI/self-awareness, could be the possibility that robot will be used like an advertising tester in the future? What I want to say, usually people are tester to create new types of communication and advertise but if the robot acts like a human, recognizes emotions and has self-awareness maybe communication agencies can use the robot as a tester for forecast the result of a communication campaign. This could lead to reduce use of these innovations on people and companies can save part of costs on market research and avoid invading privacy. Of course the robot must be really perfect, which at the moment (and fortunately) it is not. I’m probably fantasizing too much with my mind but I’m trying to see the positive side the application of this technologies.
@valentina Well, I am happy that is a “bufala” I was quite scared, but that doesn’t mean that in a far future it couldn’t happen!
@valentina regarding The state of the art in IT, it is really useful create a network who permits to clarify many aspects of IT legal system. Actually right now it is very hard to understand wich laws firms need to comply.Hope to hearing you soon, have a nice weekend!
Serena
- The topic ‘Bicocca Silicon Valley 2019’ is closed to new replies.