We Humans and the Intelligent Machines. Jörg Dräger
Читать онлайн книгу.
Who would today seriously long to return to the pre-industrial era of the early 18th century?
It would be naïve, however, to simply trust that again this time everything will turn out for the better. Whether intelligent machines will improve society or make it worse is far from clear. The good news is that it is up to us to shape how things change. Algorithms are created by humans and do what humans tell them to do. We are therefore the ones who can decide which interests and values they should serve.
The purpose of this book is to encourage everyone to get involved. We want to show how intelligent machines can be used to serve society, which is one of the most important policy tasks of our time. The book is full of international examples but written from the perspective of Germany, where politicians have been somewhat slow and negligent in responding to digital change. While the debate in our country has generally been a long lament about insufficient wireless coverage and slow Internet access, other nations have clearly outpaced us. In early 2016 – an eternity in digital times – then US President Barack Obama convened a high-ranking expert commission to develop recommendations on how American society could use AI to its advantage. Immediately after taking office, French President Emmanuel Macron made European cooperation on this issue one of his core concerns. It will indeed be necessary to join forces in Europe, since China is prepared to invest the equivalent of $150 billion in AI projects in the coming decade.
Algorithms are here to stay. The Algorithmic Revolution is not something we will simply be able to sit out. It is not a purely economic phenomenon, social concerns are at least as urgent. Intelligent machines can directly impact the common good – which is why we have written this book. In the first part, The algorithmic world, it examines the far-reaching changes transforming our lives and the necessity for humans and machines to find a meaningful way to complement their respective strengths. The second part, What algorithms can do for us, provides a structured overview of the broad use of algorithms in society and their opportunities, risks and consequences. The third part, What we must do now, develops specific proposals for creating a sound algorithmic society, followed by a brief outlook. With this mix of wake-up call, analysis and ideas for solutions, we hope to fuel a broader societal debate.
That is why this book is not about technology, but about its social consequences and requirements to shape the future. We are not concerned with business models, but with social models. Many practical examples illustrate how the increasing use of seemingly intelligent machines affects both individuals and society as a whole. Seemingly refers to the simple fact that algorithms can imitate human intelligence and, in some areas, even outperform us in cognitive terms. This so-called artificial intelligence, however, is limited to narrowly defined tasks and lacks precisely what continues to make human beings unique: our ability to combine different facts, to evaluate and transfer knowledge, and to weigh conflicting interests and goals. Whenever in this book we speak of “intelligent machines” as synonyms for algorithms – even more correctly, as synonyms for algorithmic (software) systems – we are very aware of this essential limitation of their “intelligence.” Even then, however, their impact remains extremely far-reaching.
Our book was originally published in the spring of 2019 in German. Since the topic is global and since we received a lot of interest from abroad, we decided to follow up with this English translation. Consequently, it was carried out by the artificially intelligent translation software DeepL, enriched by some editing. We hope that the outcome of this machine-human collaboration enables a broader community to build upon our thinking.
We Humans and the Intelligent Machines looks at the great challenges caused by the Algorithmic Revolution through the lens of the common good – independently and impartially, but by no means apolitically. Like the Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Ethics of Algorithms project (www.ethicsofalgorithms.org), we want to raise awareness of upcoming changes, structure the debate, develop solutions and help to initiate their implementation. In doing so, we are guided by a clear precept: The motivation to take action must not be triggered by what is technically possible, but by what is socially meaningful. This book is intended to encourage you to take up this notion and get involved. It remains up to us to ensure algorithms and AI are here to serve humanity.
1Always everywhere
“In short, success in creating effective AI could be the biggest event in the history of our civilization, or the worst. We just don’t know.” 1
Stephen Hawking, physicist (1942–2018)
December 11, 2017. It is the day the New York City Council reclaims its right to self-determination.2 For the 8.6 million residents of the US metropolis, it is an important victory to ensure that the algorithms used there will become more transparent. As a result, New Yorkers are perhaps the world’s first citizens to have the right to know where, when, how and according to which criteria they are governed by machines. The man who leads the fight is James Vacca – a Bronx Democrat who heads the Committee on Technology during his third and final term as a member of the City Council. The law to be passed today will become part of his political legacy, and its significance could potentially extend far beyond New York and the United States.
“We are increasingly governed by technology.”3 With this sentence, Vacca begins his speech introducing the bill. By “we” the 62-year-old means the citizens of the city but also himself and his fellow City Council members. New York’s public administrators have been using algorithms for some time and in a wide variety of areas: law enforcement, the judiciary, education, fire protection, social transfers – all with very little transparency. Neither the public nor their elected representatives know which data are fed into the algorithms and how they are weighted. In such situations, it is just as difficult for citizens to object to automated decisions taken by the authorities as it is for elected representatives to exercise political control. Vacca fights against this lack of transparency, wanting every office that uses algorithms to be accountable to the City Council and to the public. He wants to shed light on the black box of the algorithmic society.
Much has changed since Vacca first began working nearly 40 years ago. At the beginning of his career, letters were written on typewriters. When they were to be replaced by computers, he thought it was a waste of money. Vacca is anything but a digital native. But he is not a digital naive either. Through his work for the Committee on Technology, he knows to what extent computer-based decisions affect the daily lives of New Yorkers: Police officers patrol on the basis of machine-generated crime forecasts, students are assigned to their secondary schools by computers, social welfare payments are checked by software, and pretrial detention is imposed on the basis of algorithmically calculated recidivism rates. In principle, Vacca has no objection to that. Yet he wants to understand how these decisions are made.
Vacca was irritated by the lack of openness in administrative procedures as early as the 1980s. At the time, he was annoyed by what he considered a shortage of personnel at the Bronx police station which he oversaw as district manager. When he turned to the relevant government agency, he was told that the crime rate in his district was too low for more policemen. The underlying formula used to calculate the rate, however, was not given to him. Therefore, he could neither understand nor question the quota, nor take action against it.
Vacca wanted more transparency. In August 2017, he presented the first version of the bill to the City Council. It would have required all public authorities to disclose the source code for their algorithms. Yet the experts put the brakes on during the Committee on Technology hearing: The subject area is still too unknown, they said. Too much transparency would endanger public safety, make the systems vulnerable to hackers and violate software manufacturers’ intellectual property.
Vacca had to make concessions. A commission of academics and experts was set up to draft rules, due by the end of 2019, on how City Council