RE: World AI Governance Body

Hi Adam, spectacular questions. Here are my answers

  1.  Why would or should scientists choose to defer to the voting results of an intranational or international supermajority of participants?
You’re correct. I believe that after the voting is completed, scientists can serve as a “control” as to whether or not the implementation is feasible, or even conducive to mission objectives. If the control fails, then the voting result could be deprioritized or eliminated.

  1.  Instead of voting-based systems, what about argumentation-based systems and other group reasoning and group decision-making systems (see: [1], [2])?
While I don’t have the ability to access [2], [1] makes a good point. I think that argumentation-based systems could be actually be a tool to supplement this voting system. Instead of leaders placing their “opportunities” in this voting tool, perhaps the opportunities could come from data itself, using argumentation-based systems.

  1.  What do you think about democratizing and/or crowdsourcing content for portions of artificial intelligence textbooks and courses, e.g. portions discussing comparative ethical standards pertaining to artificial intelligence (see: [3])?
I think this is a necessity if we are going to use argumentation based systems. In fact, I bet that using tools like linked data in collaboration with argumentation-based systems (i.e. crowdsourcing) could eventually enable society to converge on ethical standards pertaining to AI.
Thanks for continuing the discussion, and apologies for the late response.
Prachant Bradwell
http://linkedin.com/in/prachant


From: David McDonell [mailto:david@iconicloud.com]
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 6:02 AM
To: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com>
Cc: Bradwell (US), Prachant <prachant.bradwell@boeing.com>; semantic-web@w3.org
Subject: Re: World AI Governance Body

Here’s an organization that might be receptive/helpful:

https://www.turing.ac.uk/about-us


Peer entities could then form the basis of a consortium with the vision and mission outlined previously.

Just a thought.
—David

On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 12:38 AM Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>> wrote:

Prachant Bradwell,

Also for purposes of discussion:


4. What do you think about a consortium model, e.g. an international Artificial Intelligence Data Consortium, perhaps improving upon the Linguistic Data Consortium model (https://www.ldc.upenn.edu/about)?


Best regards,
Adam Sobieski


________________________________
From: Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski@hotmail.com<mailto:adamsobieski@hotmail.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 6:36:24 PM
To: Bradwell (US), Prachant; semantic-web@w3.org<mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>
Subject: RE: World AI Governance Body


Prachant Bradwell,



Interesting ideas. Some points for discussion:



  1.  Why would or should scientists choose to defer to the voting results of an intranational or international supermajority of participants?

     *   Historical opinions to consider include those of James Madison.

  1.  Instead of voting-based systems, what about argumentation-based systems and other group reasoning and group decision-making systems (see: [1], [2])?
  2.  What do you think about democratizing and/or crowdsourcing content for portions of artificial intelligence textbooks and courses, e.g. portions discussing comparative ethical standards pertaining to artificial intelligence (see: [3])?





Best regards,

Adam Sobieski



[1] Klein, Mark. "Achieving collective intelligence via large-scale on-line argumentation." In Second International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services (ICIW'07), pp. 58-58. IEEE, 2007.

[2] Carrascosa, Iván Palomares. Large Group Decision Making: Creating Decision Support Approaches at Scale. Springer, 2018.

[3] Russell, Stuart J., and Peter Norvig. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. Malaysia; Pearson Education Limited,, 2016.



________________________________
From: Bradwell (US), Prachant <prachant.bradwell@boeing.com<mailto:prachant.bradwell@boeing.com>>
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2019 4:30:30 PM
To: semantic-web@w3.org<mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>
Subject: World AI Governance Body

Hi all,

What if there was a world governance body (e.g. UN, World Economic Forum, etc.)  which enables voting for “high value data opportunities” that AI/linked data can be used to solve significant world problems.

The voting system would work similar to Reddit, in which designated voters can “upvote” or “downvote” a high value opportunity. This would be the mechanism for prioritization. The highest scores would receive the top priority.

Those opportunities which receive 0 or fewer would not be actionable until further review.

This could create work for nonprofits, private, and public entities through competition and/or collaboration, enabling quick development of solutions.

This could enable us to prioritize and attack key issues such as climate change with advanced technologies on a world stage.

Last, policy for this voting body would require a supermajority vote; which would in my opinion help enable truly global ethical decisions.

Thoughts?

Sent from my iPhone
--
David McDonell Co-founder & CEO ICONICLOUD, Inc. "Illuminating the cloud" M: 703-864-1203 EM: david@iconicloud.com<mailto:david@iconicloud.com> URL: http://iconicloud.com