DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA (11/14/83)
From: David Rogers <DRogers@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> Artificial intelligence promises to alter the world in enormous ways during our lifetime; I believe it's crucial for all of us to look forward to the effects our our work, both individually and collectively, to make sure that it will be to the benefit of all peoples in the world. It seems to be tiresome to people to remind them of the incredible effect that AI will have in our lifetimes, yet the profound mature of the changes to the world made by a small group of researchers makes it crucial that we don't treat our efforts casually. For example, the military applications of AI will dwarf that of the atomic bomb, but even more important is the fact that the atomic bomb is a primarily military device, while AI will impact the world as much (if not more) in non-military domains. Physics in the early part of this century was at the cutting edge of knowledge, similar to the current place of AI. The culmination of their work in the atomic bomb changed their field immensely and irrevocably; even on a personal level, researchers in physics found their lives greatly impacted, often shattered. Many of the top researchers left the field. During our lifetimes I think we will see a similar transformation, with the "fun and games" of these heady years turning into a deadly seriousness, I think we will also see top researchers leaving the field, once we start to see some of our effects on the world. It is imperative for all workers in this field to formulate and share a moral outlook on what we do, and hope to do, to the world. I would suggest we have, at the minimum, a three part responsibility. First, we must make ourselves aware of the human impact of our work, both short and long term. Second, we must use this knowledge to guide the course of our research, both individually and collectively, rather than simply flowing into whatever area the grants are flowing into. Third and most importantly, we must be spokespeople and consciences to the world, forcing others to be informed of what we are doing and its effects. Researches who still cling to "value-free" science should not be working in AI. I will suggest a few areas we should be thinking about: - Use of AI for offensive military use vs. legitimate defense needs. While the line is vague, a good offense is surely not always the best defense. - Will the work cause a centralization of power, or cause a decentralization of power? Building massive centers of power in this age increases the risk of humans dominated by machine. - Is the work offering tools to extend the grasp of humans, or tools to control humans? - Will people have access to the information generated by the work, or will the benefits of information access be restricted to a few? Finally, will the work add insights into ourselves a human beings, or will it simply feed our drives, reflecting our base nature back at ourselves? In the movie "Tron" an actor says "Our spirit remains in each and every program we wrote"; what IS our spirit? David
marcel@uiucdcs.UUCP (11/18/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1364800:uiucdcs:32300007:000:1899 uiucdcs!marcel Nov 17 11:05:00 1983 I agree. I myself am becoming increasingly worried about a blithe attitude I sometimes hear: if our technology eliminates some jobs, it will create others. True, but not everyone will be capable of keeping up with the change. Analogously, the Industrial Revolution is now seen as a Good Thing, and its impacts were as profound as those promised by AI. And though it is said that the growth of knowledge can only be advantageous in the long run (Logical Positivist view?), many people became victims of the Revolution. In this respect I very much appreciated an idea that was aired at IJCAI-83, namely that we should be building expert systems in economics to help us plan and control the effects of our research. As for the localization of power, that seems almost inevitable. Does not the US spend enough on cosmetics to cover the combined Gross National Products of 37 African countries? And are we not so concerned about our Almighty Pocket that we simply CANNOT export our excess groceries to a needy country, though the produce rot on our dock? Then we can also keep our technology to ourselves. One very obvious, and in my opinion sorely needed, application of AI is to automating legal, veterinary and medical expertise. Of course the law system and our own doctors will give us hell for this, but on the other hand what kind of service profession is it that will not serve except at high cost? Those most in need cannot afford the price. See for yourself what kind of person makes it through Medical School: those who are most aggressive about beating their fellow students, or those who have the money to buy their way in. It is little wonder that so few of them will help the under-priviledged -- from the start the selection criteria wage against such motivation. Let's send our machines in where our "doctors" will not go! Marcel Schoppers U of Illinois @ Urbana-Champaign
simon@psuvax.UUCP (Janos Simon) (11/21/83)
It seems a little dangerous "to send machines where doctors won't go" - you'll get the machines treating the poor, and human experts for the privileged few. Also, expert systems for economics and social science, to help us would be fine, if there was a convincing argument that a)these social sciences are truly helpful for coping with unpredictable technological change, and b) that there is a sufficiently accepted basis of quantifiable knowledge to put in the proposed systems. janos simon
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (11/22/83)
It seems a little dangerous "to send machines where doctors won't go" -
you'll get the machines treating the poor, and human experts for the privileged
few.
===========
If the machines were good enough, I wouldn't mind being underpriveleged.
I'd rather be flown into a foggy airport by autopilot than human pilot.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmtlewis@psuvax.UUCP (James W. Lewis) (11/23/83)
this line intentionally not left blank Why should it be dangerous to have machines treating the poor? There is no reason to believe that human experts will always be superior to machines; in fact, a carefully designed expert system could embody all the skill of the world's best diagnosticians. In addition, an expert system would never get tired or complain about its pay. On the other hand, perhaps you are worried about the machine lacking 'human' insight or compassion. I don't think anyone is suggesting that these qualities can or should be built into such a system. Perhaps we will see a new generation of medical personnel whose job will be to use the available AI facilities to make the most accurate diagnoses, and help patients interface with the system. This will provide patients with the best medical knowledge available, and still allow personal interaction between patients and technicians. -jim lewis psuvax!lewis
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/24/83)
Not to mention that while the underprivileged may get the machines, it is better than nothing which may be what they are getting now... Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (11/25/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1364800:uokvax:900007:000:203 uokvax!emjej Nov 23 08:18:00 1983 Re sending machines where doctors won't go: do you really think that it's better that poor people not be treated at all than treated by a machine? That's a bit much for me to swallow. James Jones
preece@uicsl.UUCP (12/06/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1364800:uicsl:15500019:000:460 uicsl!preece Dec 5 10:11:00 1983 Some studies have shown that for certain kinds of interaction, such as history taking, computers may be more effective than humans. People tend to be more open and honest with the computer (which is, after all, non-judgmental and has no opinion of you) than with human questioners. A computer diagnostician is also likely to be a useful aide to a human doctor, just as a second human would be. Any independent interpretation of the observations is desirable.
genji@ucbopal.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (12/06/83)
The suggestion for AI machines in medicine seems to point opposite to improving that profession. Medicine today has too many machines and machine-oriented workers, too few healers. The whole field is distorted by the excessive rewards given one major group-- MD holders. Workers in the middle levels of pay, prestige and authority, e.g., nurses and physical therapists, typically enter their work for a more balanced mix of self and other concern than do MDs, who can expect to be millionaires before middle-age. A friend told me of his relative whose life-long goal was to be a rancher; he became a plastic surgeon since that was the most direct way to accumulate capital for the ranch. How many MDs go into it mainly from pull of money or push of prestige-obsessed parents? The average MD has become a dispenser of technology, prescribing machine treatments and chemical doses. The exceptional medical workers in my experience (MDs and others) relate primarily to the whole human being before them (not simply to an active cadaver or complex of symptoms). Among close friends they might also admit love or spiritual interest as a key factor in their success at healing. There are already too many Artificial Inteligences with Medicinae Doctor initials-- we need more Humans. --Genji
marcel@uiucdcs.UUCP (12/06/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1364800:uiucdcs:32300011:000:1205 uiucdcs!marcel Dec 5 20:00:00 1983 And furthermore ... if the lower and middle ranks of the medical profession are more humane, why not give them some help with the knowledge reserved for the upper ranks? They'd be better equipped to stay humane AND be more helpful. Less people would need MD's. A related question is whether medical systems will replace any of the MD functions, and if so which? Diagnosis yes, but the machine will have to rely on human observations/measurements for a while yet. Surgery no, not for a very long time. Dispensing prescriptions is ok, and that's all that quite a few people need. Except for those who keep coming back for more because they need to be listened to ... they need help of a less physiological kind. A point I concede to Dietz@usc-ecla (re my first response) is that economic expert systems will not, of themselves, be much use. You can't have an expert system without an expert (at least not yet) and if the experts do exist it won't take very many of them to plan ahead for our economy. There is work now in progress, however, that promises eventually to be able to organize knowledge better than humans can, and at least we can be trying to apply THAT to economics. Marcel Schoppers
lum@osu-dbs.UUCP (12/06/83)
By my observation: One economist asserts doctrine. Two economists discuss economics. Three economists argue. Four economists incite to riot. ... No economists agree. Lum Johnson (cbosgd!osu-dbs!lum)
rgt@hpfclj.UUCP (12/24/83)
#R:sri-arpa:-1364800:hpfclj:7500001:000:1594 hpfclj!rgt Dec 19 10:25:00 1983 Sending Doctors .... Apparently more people involved in this discussion have seen Return of the Jedi than have visited a hospital/clinic/doctor's office in recent times. The day will be long in coming when an amiable chap like R2-D2 or C3PO ambles into a remote village of Ewoks and begins treating the ailments of all who come. A doctor is the visible apex of an extensive pyramid of medical professionals. The include certified clinical professionals, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, lab technicians, physical therapists, etc. Doctors today are the decision makers of the profession, but some of the information for those decisions come from labs and x-ray suites and a substantial amount of the treatment is by nurses, nurse's aides and therapists. Doctors are trained to make use of the available resources. Before you send doctors, send nurses, practitioner, registered, licensed. On indian reservations in the desert south-west, there are clinics where not doctors visit. The resident nurse will consult with a doctor as necessary by radio -- since there are no phones. If the nurse has something beyond her profession, she will have the patient taken to a hospital. In villages in South America, a nurse (even without consultation from a doctor) will improve the health of the residents. There is not concern from cancer, heart disease, brain tumors. The killers are malnutrition, inadequate sanitation, poor pre-natal and infant care. The days of Albert Schweitzer may well be over. (Don't tell me that Mother Theresa is an MD.)