I liked your very interesting article on AI, Mike. I especially admired the way you expressed your ideas.
Naturally, your piece generated thoughts, and one memory in particular popped up. I seem to recall an episode of "Star Trek, the Next Generation" where a creation in the Holodeck in the form of Professor James Moriarty goes rogue and seizes control of the *Enterprise* in his quest to live in reality, outside the holographic environment. I need to go back and watch the episode. It was scary. David Sharpe On Tue, May 7, 2024 at 6:13 AM Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: > I thought you all might be interested in my little contribution to a > colloquy in Reason magazine's 2024 issue. You can find the whole thing > here: > > https://web.archive.org/web/20240506084929/https://reason.com/2024/05/05/ai-is-like/ > > AI Is Like the Dawn of Modern Medicine > > By Mike Godwin > > When I think about the emergence of "artificial intelligence," I keep > coming back to the beginnings of modern medicine. > > Today's professionalized practice of medicine was roughly born in the > earliest decades of the 19th century—a time when the production of more > scientific studies of medicine and disease was beginning to accelerate (and > propagate, thanks to the printing press). Doctors and their patients took > these advances to be harbingers of hope. But it's no accident this > acceleration kicked in right about the same time that Mary Wollstonecraft > Shelley (née Godwin, no relation) penned her first draft of *Frankenstein; > or, The Modern Prometheus*—planting the first seed of modern > science-fictional horror. > > Shelley knew what Luigi Galvani and Joseph Lister believed they knew, > which is that there was some kind of parallel (or maybe connection!) > between electric current and muscular contraction. She also knew that many > would-be physicians and scientists learned their anatomy from dissecting > human corpses, often acquired in sketchy ways. > > She also likely knew that some would-be doctors had even fewer moral > scruples and fewer ideals than her creation Victor Frankenstein. Anyone who > studied the early 19th-century marketplace for medical services could see > there were as many quacktitioners and snake-oil salesmen as there were > serious health professionals. It was definitely a "free market"—it lacked > regulation—but a market largely untouched by James Surowiecki's "wisdom of > crowds." > > Even the most principled physicians knew they often were competing with > charlatans who did more harm than good, and that patients rarely had the > knowledge base to judge between good doctors and bad ones. As medical > science advanced in the 19thcentury, physicians also called for medical > students at universities to study chemistry and physics as well as > physiology. > > In addition, the physicians' professional societies, both in Europe and in > the United States, began to promulgate the first modern medical-ethics > codes—not grounded in half-remembered quotes from Hippocrates, but > rigorously worked out by modern doctors who knew that their mastery of > medicine would always be a moving target. That's why medical ethics were > constructed to provide fixed reference points, even as medical knowledge > and practice continued to evolve. This ethical framework was rooted in four > principles: "autonomy" (respecting patient's rights, including > self-determination and privacy, and requiring patients' informed consent to > treatment), "beneficence" (leaving the patient healthier if at all > possible), "non-maleficence" ("doing no harm"), and "justice" (treating > every patient with the greatest care). > > These days, most of us have some sense of medical ethics, but we're not > there yet with so-called "artificial intelligence"—we don't even have a > marketplace sorted between high-quality AI work products and statistically > driven confabulation or "hallucination" of seemingly (but not actually) > reliable content. Generative AI with access to the internet also seems to > pose other risks that range from privacy invasions to copyright > infringements. > > What we need right now is a consensus about what ethical AI practice looks > like. "First do no harm" is a good place to start, along with values such > as autonomy, human privacy, and equity. A society informed by a > layman-friendly AI code of ethics, and with an earned reputation for > ethical AI practice, can then decide whether—and how—to regulate. > > *Mike Godwin is a technology policy lawyer in Washington, D.C.* > > -- > Be vigitant, I beseech you! > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Shakespeare at Winedale Email List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to shakespeare-at-winedale-email-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shakespeare-at-winedale-email-list/CAKFh3H_zn5zHf1%2Be33hBLJ3VHeor%2BUgLZ%3D3x9BeT2rRBW__q-Q%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/shakespeare-at-winedale-email-list/CAKFh3H_zn5zHf1%2Be33hBLJ3VHeor%2BUgLZ%3D3x9BeT2rRBW__q-Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . >
_______________________________________________ Winedale-l mailing list -- winedale-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to winedale-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
