Archive for

H+ Magazine: Wendell Wallach on Machine Morality

I’ve always maintained that our machines won’t achieve intelligence until they have the capacity for emotions and ethical volition. I guess I’m not the only one…

Wendell Wallach on Machine Morality

Eventually, we will need artificial moral agents which maintain the dynamic and flexible morality of bottom-up systems that accommodate diverse inputs, while also subjecting the choices and actions to the evaluation of top-down principles that represent ideals we strive to meet. In addition to the ability to reason about moral challenges, moral machines may also require emotions, social skills, a theory of mind, consciousness, empathy, and be embodied in the world with other agents. These supra-rational capabilities will facilitate responding appropriately to challenges within certain domains. Future AI systems that integrate top-down and bottom-up approaches together with supra-rational capabilities will only be possible if we perfect strategies for artificial general intelligence.

Read the whole interview.

What Is Philosophy of Information?

Philosophy of Information (PI) is “the new philosophical field concerned with (a) the critical investigation of the conceptual nature and basic principles of information, including its dynamics, utilisation and sciences; and (b) the elaboration and application of information-theoretic and computational methodologies to philosophical problems.” (Floridi, 2011, p. 46).

PI is a phenomenology like philosophy of language and epistemology are phenomenologies, and is not metatheoretical like philosophy of physics or philosophy of social sciences, interested in problems arising from the organized systems of knowledge. “PI, like philosophy of mathematics, is phenomenologically biased. It is primarily concerned with the whole domain of first- order phenomena represented by the world of information, computation and the information society, although it addresses its problems by starting from the vantage point represented by the methodologies and theories offered by ICS, and can be seen to incline towards a metatheoretical approach in so far as it is methodologically critical towards its own sources” (Floridi, 2011, p. 46).

PI privileges information over computation in the same way that epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge, not just perception. To summarize Floridi, PI isn’t an attempt to create a single “theory of everything” with respect to information, rather an integrated family of theories. It is concerned with the information life cycle, including the following phases: occurring (discovering, designing, authoring, etc.), processing and managing (collecting, validating, modifying, organising, indexing, classifying, filtering, updating, sorting, storing, networking, distributing, accessing, retrieving, transmitting etc.) and using (monitoring, modelling, analysing, explaining, planning, forecasting, decision-making, instructing, educating, learning, etc.). (Floridi, 2011, p. 47).

As a Philosopher of Information in the information science domain, I am interested in the complex philosophical, conceptual and cultural underpinnings of information. Philosophers of information must understand the diverse epistemologies and ontologies of other domains and cultures, as well as the sociological foundations of knowledge creation and information flows among a variety of sociotechnical systems. Being a philosopher of information allows me to work at a meta level in areas as diverse as philosophy, social media, intercultural communication, geography & GIS, and information sciences.

Wordle: The Ontologization of Tags

A Wordle of my dissertation:

Wordle: SaabDavid_PhD_Thesis

About my dissertation…

My dissertation research, which I successfully defended a couple weeks ago, focused on the question of semantic interoperability among sociotechnical systems—how a meaningful exchange of information can be accomplished across human cultural and technological boundaries using tags in folksonomies. Folksonomies reflect the cognitive schemas of dominant cultures when they are aggregated. The minority cultural voices that contribute to folksonomies get lost in the long tail of the tag set. Disaggregating tag sets into cultural groupings provides us with a diversity of semantic networks of tags—entry points into our human conceptual ontologies, i.e., our cultural landscapes. The patterning of our semantic networks in terms of lexical tags provides the foundation for a phenomenological hermeneutic that allows humans to explore these cultural landscapes through the continual schematic reconfiguration of our semantic networks. It is this exploration that is the essence of semantic interoperability. Semantic interoperability, therefore, is not simply an exchange of meaningful information, but rather also a pragmatic communication of understanding that facilitates the integration of new schemas–new patterns of entry points into a shared cultural landscape.

The meaningful exchange of information, in this view, forces information onto a phenomenological footing. Information is not something that can be captured, isolated and objectified. It cannot be exchanged, per se. Information is a phenomenon of ontologization, the core of which consists in the transformation of patterns through an entwined process of individual sense-making and sociocultural meaning-making. Moreover, the transformation of these patterns is handled schematically, which provides a consistency to these transformations such that data and knowledge are merged into one being—information as an ontological whole. By characterizing information as a phenomenology of ontologization, we can account for its variable manifestation within cultural landscapes and across semantic networks. If we can identify the cultural patterns embedded in tag sets, we can create a schematic form of ontologies to facilitate semantic interoperability and the “exchange of information” among our sociotechnical systems.

Because my research tackles fundamental concepts related to information, it can be applied in a variety of domains. The research I engage in can be grouped into four basic themes: information integration, social media & semantics, knowledge representation & visualization, and information ethics. See my research page for more detailed descriptions of each of these.

PhD

On Friday last week I defended my dissertation. It was a really good experience. The discussion was enjoyable, the comments and critiques were valuable and helpful. I have an awesome committee!

So I am now a PhD!

Teaching Information Ethics in an iSchool

Last year I developed a new course on Information Ethics and Technology. It was tailored to the needs of IST students, though it was probably the most philosophy-intensive course most of them had ever been exposed to. I was able to incorporate learning about traditional ethical frameworks (Virtue, Deontological, Consequentialist, Feminist/Care) with the newly developed Information Ethics framework. I was also able to incorporate a team project that relied on PBL, a preferred method in IST. The course was successful, and I wrote a paper about it. It was published last week in the International Review of Information Ethics, Vol. 14, an online journal. I hope to teach the course again soon.

4°C

What happens to the earth when the average temperature increases by 4°C? UK scientists have put together a series of videos and a Google Earth layer to help understand the impacts.

 

NACAP 2010

I’ll be heading to Pittsburgh this weekend for the NACAP 2010 conference. It’s about simulations and their philosophical implications. Should be interesting.

Your Computer Really Is a Part of You

Your Computer Really Is a Part of You

Posted using ShareThis

Wordle: The Ontology of Tags

Below is a Wordle of a paper that I’m presenting at the iConference in a few weeks:

Wordle: The Ontology of Tags

The paper offers up an ontology of tags based in Heideggerian phenomenology and schema theory. It critiques the view that social bookmarking sites are a type of collaborative effort among users and illustrates that collective is often mistaken for collaborative. The latter implies an shared cultural understanding and the former results in the loss of minority culture semantics. The paper argues that the semiotic approach underlying the analysis of tags likewise mistakes the ontic for the ontological. Only an approach that is inclusive of the cultural identities of the taggers can succeed in discerning the emergent semantics of tag sets and reach the ontological conceptualizations that are integral to semantics of tags.

Update 2010.02.05: QuickTime .mov of the presentation.