Re: AI For good

I've posted previously I think, regards the generic conceptual framework (Brian E. Ret.) Hodges' model, but this question - thread also highlights this model's potential utility in reflection, critical thinking and (possibly?) 'transdisciplinary argumentation'. 

The model is a rather ubiquitous 2x2 matrix formed from two axes:
INDIVIDUAL --- GROUP (population)

and HUMANISTIC ---- MECHANISTIC
These intersecting axes can be found in the healthcare context through a Socratic process (which I use with students ...):
Who do we care for?
What type of activities - tasks do we need to do to deliver care?
This structure then creates four quadrants, care or knowledge domains [ allied with 4 P's ]:
SCIENCES (all of them, (built-) environment, climate change, physical, materials, technology ...) [PROCESS]
POLITICAL (policy, law, human (machine?) rights, funding, IPO, organisations, globalization, welfare, tax ...) [POLICY]
SOCIOLOGY (family, culture, upbringing, ethnicity, society, language, meaning, social values ...) [PRACTICE]
INTRA- INTERPERSONAL (intellect - mind, intentionality, literacies, cognition, beliefs (individual), memory, behaviour, motivation, meta-cognition, attitude, philosophy - personal values ...) [PURPOSE]

What is SPIRITUAL (unknown - a matter of faith) combines and surrounds the model.

An illustration is available in the sidebar of the blog at:
http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/
- where many posts highlight the model's structure, content and scope.
On ethics of course the INTRA- INTERPERSONAL covers ethics and 'fuzzy' analogue forms of logic (binary is mechanistic - 'digital').
An original purpose model is very suited to is bridging the THEORY-PRACTICE gap.
The model is situated and can represent many (ALL?) conceptual - disciplinary bridges, e.g.
SOCIO-TECHNICAL (key in the ethics and application of TECHNOLOGY)
PSYCHO-SOCIAL (mental health, appearance of AI)
PSYCHO-SOMATIC
PHYSICO-POLITICAL (disabled access)PSYCHO-POLITICAL (mental health law, registration of health professions, learning disability- work, life opportunities) - also GEO-PSYCHIATRY (impact of climate change / conflict on refugees)
SCIENCES-SOCIOLOGY (public understanding of science & AI?)GEO-POLITICALSOCIO-POLITICAL (and ECONOMIC)
...

DEMAND-SUPPLY
MIND-BODYSELF-OTHERHUMAN-COMPUTER
ARTS-SCIENCESNURTURE-NATUREFOLK THEORY-THEORYANALOGUE-DIGITAL...

The model could even provide one formulation for the basis for a 'semantic web' the four domains provide 'conceptual anchors'?
Peter Gärdenfors' work on 'conceptual spaces' may provide some theoretical underpinning plus Meyer & Land's - 'threshold concepts'.

Having emailed Brian Hodges' last month I must travel to Sheffield soon to learn how he is, I last met him in 2013.
I still aspire to create a 'reflective workbench' for students.)
If anyone has any thoughts - questions on the model I would be really pleased to hear your views?
Thank you.

Peter JonesCommunity Mental Health Nurse & ResearcherBlogging at "Welcome to the QUAD"http://hodges-model.blogspot.com/http://twitter.com/h2cm 

    On Tuesday, 18 June 2019, 05:23:59 BST, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:  
 
 PrachantI have been working on Technology Ethics for some time.Have studied the for good movements across different fields, much needs to be expoundedbefore the forces for good can be unified1. much evil is carried out under for good label, this is characterized by either some genuineignorance, or by some human limitation - people thing they are doing for good but have only limitedvisibiity/understanding hence eventually lose control over the set intentions - or by someintention to mislead (people know that they are using for good label to camouflage something else, very common I learn).2. sometimes, what is good for some, is not so good for others, so we need to resolve the dimensional challenges across various aspect of system development and deployment3. in this challenging mess, which reflects the history of humanity, with all the tragedies and triumphsthere sneak in systemic pervasiveness, a layer of widespread perversion that transforms and twistsresources I address these looselyhttps://stream.syscoi.com/2019/06/01/systemic-deviation-aka-the-evil-in-the-machine-paola-di-maio-2016-academia-edu/ ��

Technically, I tackle these challenges by insisting on explicit logically proofableAI KR - we should  understand (see, touch with hand, probe) as much as possible of AI systemsas well as on insisting on very good logical system design and processes
On a wider, bigger global scale, the struggle is to be able to understand the scale of thingsthe struggle between good and evil, the paradox that there can be good in evil and evil in good,without losing the plot and remain functional for all intents and purposes
:-)
PDM



On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:13 AM Bradwell (US), Prachant <prachant.bradwell@boeing.com> wrote:

Hi all, 

Just had a conversation with a colleague about AI for good; and how it’ll contribute to environmental protection, healthcare, etc etc. 

Right now, there is a diaspora of efforts in that place, and it seems that there hasn’t yet been a movement to unify the movement within the private/public sectors. Think about the UN as an ethical “governing body.”

If a concept of operations could be developed to enable “failing fast and failing forward,” with the UN driving prioritization, I believe that we can create powerful and world-changing solutions fast. 

If this is a good idea, how do conglomerate and make this happen?

Thanks 

Prachant Bradwell

Sent from my iPhone