Ethics: Always in process

 

     There is a lot of talk about ethics currently -- especially in relation to developments in AI. According to the dictionary, ethics are the moral principles that govern behavior. Note there is nothing about "universal" or "unchanging" in the definition. Ethics are based within a specific society and their rules of behavior. Societies vary a lot in their viewpoints on many issues -- sex, gender roles, religion, death, expected behaviors, taboos, and so forth. A society that expects resurrection of the individual will look at death a lot differently from a society that expects only one life (whether they believe in an "afterlife" or not).

     Ethics also change along with societal norms. Fifty years ago, there were a set of behaviors that were normal, and expected, from the members of the community. Now, in this present time, some of those behaviors are no longer acceptable. The ethics relating to current societal norms may reasonably be applied to behaviors that are happening now. They can also be applied to past societies, writings, and other memorabilia but ONLY as if one is using a microscope. They can be examined and the difference between the ethics of that time and the ethics of the current time can be looked at as documentation of change. But the past behavior WAS acceptable at the time that it happened because the rule set, the ethics of the time, was different. Each period of time and each distinct society has its own rule books that should not be applied to judge behavior within other times/societies.

     The above is true -- but only in the abstract. In real life, everyone believes that their current ethics are THE correct ethics and ethics that differ are WRONG. People with different ethics -- whether of the past or of a different society or culture -- are BAD. This would be true in the opposite direction of course -- people of the past would consider OUR behavior to be BAD when judged according to the ethics of the past. This almost always leads to conflict and even to wars.

     A cultural anthropologist must always be very careful upon entering into a different culture/society because they are there to examine, analyze, and document. Since the new ethics are not known, it is easy for them to violate those in some manner which would make their work much more difficult or even impossible.

     We have been talking about the flux of ethics. Within the current time and current society there is a set of ethics rules that applies to everyone within that time/society. If they do not follow them they have to face social, and possibly legal or martial,  consequences. This is what is typically called an ethics problem.

     AI can face issues similar to that of human individuals. One is the ownership of intellectual property. For humans, taking such is called plagiarism. Generative AI systems need to be "trained" by giving it access to much information -- not all of which is legal for general use. In that way, AI may be considered to be plagiarizing or even stealing from others within the same subject matter? It may also affect the value of those systems, or people's valuable intellectual property, from which it absorbs information? I put question marks because those are part of the questions posed about defining ethics for AI systems.

     Humans can (and do -- much too often) lie. They do such deliberately (called with malice) and accidentally (by not verifying information before passing it along). If AI is trained with bad information (deliberately bad or non-verified information) then IT will use that bad information and pass it along as "good". For humans, this is called slander or libel -- but often not subjected to legal ramifications if done within social media. What is such when done by AI? Can this distortion of reality, and worldview, be considered a dangerous crime by AI systems? Another area of ethics in connection with AI systems.

     Humans can, and do, commit crimes as defined by the legal systems of their society. AI systems can be trained to do such faster, and possibly less noticeably, than that which is done by humans. AI systems can be trained to "phish", steal private (supposedly inaccessible) data, forge accounts, and other non-physical actions. If given access to "waldos" (physical systems capable of being controlled online) then they can even do physical crimes. What is the legal aspects, and ethics, of using AI systems for such actions?

     Humans can, and do, violate ethics systems. AI can be trained, or designed, to do similar violations and be done faster, and more effectively, than humans. These are the areas that badly need to be addressed before the problems that will occur become too unwieldy to deal with.

Weeds: The survival of the inconvenient

 

     Weeds. What in the world are weeds? They always seem to be disliked -- almost a synonym for unwanted. But what are they really? I would propose that weeds are plants/things that prosper better than other plants/things that we WANT to cultivate.

     People can admire, and enjoy, the benefits of dandelions -- dandelion salads, dandelion wine, dandelion vinegar, dandelion soap, ... But, if you want a yard full of Kentucky bluegrass and, instead, you have half of the yard with little yellow flowers turning into floating seed farms then that is when the definition of "weed" comes into play. We are (many of us, anyway) willing to poison ourselves, and the environment, with glyphosates in order to gain a measure of pretended control over our yards to get rid of that persistent survivor.

     There are the tradeoffs of economics. If you can sell tulips for $100/bushel (I'm making up these numbers) and dandelions are only worth $10/bushel -- IF you can find the appropriate market and transfer the dandelions in fresh enough condition -- then you do what you can to focus your resources on raising tulips and denying the dandelions the right to survive.

     But there may also be the affront to our pride. It is OUR yard and we want that Kentucky bluegrass to run from sidewalk to house. So, when dandelions (and possibly crabgrass, and sand burrs, and thistles, ...) decide to invade, we marshal our resources and try to have our own choice win out in the battle of the yard.

     Note also that those "weeds" -- those undesirably successful plants/things -- may have negative aspects too. In such cases, we might be forgiven our dislike of them. I remember not being able to walk barefoot through the lawn because of the proliferation of sand burrs. Designed to attach to feathers and fur in order to spread throughout the universe, they don't feel that good to bare feet.

     When we want to plant a particular crop in a field, the first step is to clear out everything that existed there before -- which was probably a viable ecology built up over time to live the best for the environment -- both weather and varieties of plants and animals that existed in that area. We do our best to eliminate all of the old and that which continues to survive, we call "weeds".

     The same can happen within societal and business cultures. We want to change an aspect of that culture -- eliminate past biases or practices, change orientation of business development, change to a different product line, allow for change in business needs or circumstances, etc. And the old culture will continue to permeate, with old behaviors and attitudes popping back up.

     Within a different, perhaps older, culture those would be acceptable but, within the desired modified culture, they are "weeds". If there is a commitment to the new, then the old must be pruned if they cannot be modified. In their time, they were acceptable and appreciated -- remember that when pruning and modifying.

Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?

     The United States (most of it) just went through the Spring ritual of changing to Daylight Savings Time. Or, as a cartoon published during my childhood indicated, cutting off one end of the blanket and sewing it on the other end. Along with the changing to DST comes the biannual articles and discussions on whether we should stay with Daylight Savings Time (I assume that it would then become the new "Standard" time and the old "Standard" time would disappear) year round.
     Personally, I don't know the "best" answer. But it does call out vividly that time, as displayed on a clock, is arbitrary. What we call time is a human invention. Of course, time as a reflection of entropy (physical movement towards disorder) exists without humans -- but it is unknown whether the manner in which we perceive time (past -> present -> future) is fixed or a matter of perspective.
     Within the general human situation, perception of time is generally more important than the numbers with which we associate it. It takes "forever" to receive an anticipated message or event. Children grow up "so quickly". In my experience (I cannot say about yours), looking back at time seems much shorter than looking ahead.
     I have a personal theory that perceived length of time is proportional to one's chronological age. Thus, for a five-year-old, a year is an enormous amount of time because it is 1/5 of their life so far. But, for a 60-year-old, a year seems much shorter.
     Perception of time is also cultural. Some cultures (stereotypical for the Swiss citizen) are "ruled by the clock" -- everything must be done exactly "on time" and the schedule rules. Other cultures (it is supposed to be traditionally true for many in the First Nations) see it as a general framework. Thus, "tomorrow morning" may vary plus or minus a day. And yet other cultures make an assumption of inherent delays in most planned events -- so a plane that takes off at "7pm" might actually take off sometime between 6:30pm and 9pm (or later, if mechanical or staffing problems intercede). And that is OK because punctuality is not expected.
     Another variable of perceived time is focus. If I am focused on doing something -- because of a deadline or because I really love doing it -- then I am concentrating on the task and not on the time and time will go "fast". If I am thinking of things other than the current task, "waiting" for something "better", or trying to keep in mind multiple things that should happen within the same period, time goes "slowly".
     One more parameter to the perception of time is emotion. If you are dreading something, time usually seems to go faster. If you are looking forward to something, then it "just never arrives". Perception of time seems to be the inverse of how much you want the event to arrive. I don't want it, it happens "faster". I do want it, it happens "slower".
     So, to answer the original question -- no, probably no one really knows what time it is. Does anyone really care?