“As Adam Elkus has argued in Slate, the trouble with imparting “human” values onto computers is that different humans value competing things under varied circumstances. In that sense, the true lesson of Moral Machine may be that there’s no such thing as a moral machine, at least not under the circumstance that the site invites its visitors to explore.”
“Out drinking with a few biologists, Jad finds out about something called CRISPR. No, it’s not a robot or the latest dating app, it’s a method for genetic manipulation that is rewriting the way we change DNA. Scientists say they’ll someday be able to use CRISPR to fight cancer and maybe even bring animals back from the dead. Or, pretty much do whatever you want. Jad and Robert delve into how CRISPR does what it does, and consider whether we should be worried about a future full of flying pigs, or the simple fact that scientists have now used CRISPR to tweak the genes of human embryos.”
http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/
Interesting article about how we acquire and spread information. How we close ourselves off to voices we disagree with and how the frequency with which information is shared is not necessarily validation of its truthfulness.
“The problem is that social media is also a great way to spread misinformation, too. Millions of Americans shape their ideas on complex and controversial scientific questions – things like personal genetic testing, genetically modified foods and their use of antibiotics – based on what they see on social media. Even many traditional news organizations and media outlets report incomplete aspects of scientific studies, or misinterpret the findings and highlight unusual claims. Once these items enter into the social media echo chamber, they’re amplified. The facts become lost in the shuffle of competing information, limited attention or both.”
We will increasingly have to deal with questions and issues raised by our increasingly sophisticated abilities to alter genes and enhance humans through the use of biotechnologies. As our scientific abilities increase so too do the questions around the ethical use of such technologies. This article discusses public opinions around the abstract uses of these technologies.
What should the limits of the uses of these technologies be? What criteria should we use to determine these limits?
“Americans aren’t very enthusiastic about using science to enhance the human species. Instead, many find it rather creepy.
“A new survey by the Pew Research Center shows a profound distrust of scientists, a suspicion about claims of progress and a real discomfort with the idea of meddling with human abilities. The survey also opens a window into the public’s views on what it means to be a human being and what values are important.”
Should humans intentionally try to kill of a species? What if this tactic resulted in the complete extinction of these mosquitos? What if this extinction resulted in saving human lives?
“BIOTECHNOLOGISTS have engineered the mosquito that spreads the Zika virus to pass a lethal gene to its offspring. Another team of researchers has devised a way to spread sterility through the mosquito population, using a technique called gene drive to wipe out the offending insects.
“If regulators approve this genetic tinkering, these insects could become a powerful weapon against the spread of mosquito-borne diseases to humans. But bugs like these, and the techniques used to create them, might have another role to play: helping to protect the earth’s biodiversity.”
Another article on the same topic.
https://www.statnews.com/2016/02/03/zika-gene-drive-gene-editing/
Is AlphaGo Really Such a Big Deal?
“This ability to replicate intuitive pattern recognition is a big deal. It’s also part of a broader trend. In an earlier paper, the same organization that built AlphaGo — Google DeepMind — built a neural network that learned to play 49 classic Atari 2600 video games, in many cases reaching a level that human experts couldn’t match. The conservative approach to solving this problem with a computer would be in the style of Deep Blue: A human programmer would analyze each game and figure out detailed control strategies for playing it.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160329-why-alphago-is-really-such-a-big-deal/
The ethics of human experimentation on the internet has been greatly debated, especially in light of the revelation that Facebook engaged in experiments on its users without their consent. Another site, OK Cupid, proudly states that they experiment on humans and whether or not you realize it, if you’re on the internet then you’re being experimented on all the time.
“We noticed recently that people didn’t like it when Facebook ‘experimented’ with their news feed. Even the FTC is getting involved. But guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you’re the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site. That’s how websites work.”
http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/we-experiment-on-human-beings/
“But panel members said that they took the philosophical issues seriously, noting that someone with genetic material from two different maternal bloodlines would potentially have to wrestle with questions about identity, kinship and ancestry.
“They also countenanced the possibility that people would want to use this new technique to create babies that are enhanced in some way intellectually or physically. They said that is not a major concern at the moment because the feasibility of such enhancements remains speculative.”
Another article about the application of the technique.
Designing babies or saving lives in Mexico?
“In the 1950s, a group of scientists spoke out against the dangers of nuclear weapons. Should cryptographers take on the surveillance state?”
“But computer science has quite a bit to do with reality. Its practitioners devise the surveillance systems that watch over nearly every space, public or otherwise—and they design the tools that allow for privacy in the digital realm. Computer science is political, by its very nature.”
“It was the first time edits had been confirmed to have been done on reproductive cells and the news caused deep divisions within the scientific community. Some expressed optimism and hope that such research could eventually lead to the eradication of genetic diseases from the face of the Earth. Others were horrified — warning that genetically modifying humans is unsafe and could have devastating consequences on future generations of our race that no one can foresee.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/rweb/api/print.html?id=4c92e97901b450352df9f3f89c5f4496
TOK Topics 