Public Computing Intellectuals in the Age of AI Crisis

2405.00860

YC

0

Reddit

0

Published 6/21/2024 by Randy Connolly

🤖

Abstract

The belief that AI technology is on the cusp of causing a generalized social crisis became a popular one in 2023. While there was no doubt an element of hype and exaggeration to some of these accounts, they do reflect the fact that there are troubling ramifications to this technology stack. This conjunction of shared concerns about social, political, and personal futures presaged by current developments in artificial intelligence presents the academic discipline of computing with a renewed opportunity for self-examination and reconfiguration. This position paper endeavors to do so in four sections. The first explores what is at stake for computing in the narrative of an AI crisis. The second articulates possible educational responses to this crisis and advocates for a broader analytic focus on power relations. The third section presents a novel characterization of academic computing's field of practice, one which includes not only the discipline's usual instrumental forms of practice but reflexive practice as well. This reflexive dimension integrates both the critical and public functions of the discipline as equal intellectual partners and a necessary component of any contemporary academic field. The final section will advocate for a conceptual archetype--the Public Computer Intellectual and its less conspicuous but still essential cousin, the (Almost) Public Computer Intellectual--as a way of practically imagining the expanded possibilities of academic practice in our discipline, one that provides both self-critique and an outward-facing orientation towards the public good. It will argue that the computer education research community can play a vital role in this regard. Recommendations for pedagogical change within computing to develop more reflexive capabilities are also provided.

Create account to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • The paper discusses the growing concerns about the potential negative social and political impacts of AI technology, even from within the tech sector itself.
  • It argues that this presents an opportunity for the academic field of computing to engage in self-examination and reconfiguration.
  • The paper outlines four key sections: 1) the nature of the AI crisis for computing, 2) possible critical responses and a focus on power relations, 3) a new characterization of computing's epistemological field, and 4) the concept of the "Public Computer Intellectual" as a way to imagine expanded academic practice.

Plain English Explanation

There is growing worry that AI technology could cause significant social problems. Even people in the tech industry are voicing these concerns. While some of this may be exaggerated, the paper argues there are real issues that need to be addressed.

This presents an opportunity for the academic field of computing to take a hard look at itself and figure out how to respond. The paper explores four key points:

  1. What exactly is the "AI crisis" that computing as a discipline is facing?
  2. How can computing take a more critical approach that focuses on power dynamics?
  3. Computing's knowledge and research should include not just practical, technical knowledge but also self-reflection and consideration of the public impact.
  4. The paper introduces the idea of the "Public Computer Intellectual" - academics in computing who both critique the field and work to benefit the broader public.

The goal is for computing to evolve in a way that allows it to thoughtfully address the social ramifications of the technology it creates.

Technical Explanation

The paper argues that the growing public and industry concerns about the negative social impacts of AI present an opportunity for the academic field of computing to critically examine itself.

It proposes four key elements:

  1. The AI Crisis for Computing: The paper expands on how current developments in machine learning and data science are leading to troubling social, political, and personal implications that the computing discipline must grapple with.

  2. Critical Responses and Power Relations: The paper advocates for computing to take a more critical, power-focused analytical approach, going beyond just the instrumental goals of the field.

  3. Expanding Computing's Epistemological Field: The paper suggests computing should incorporate not just practical technical knowledge, but also reflexive knowledge that integrates critical and public-facing functions as equal intellectual partners.

  4. The Public Computer Intellectual: The paper introduces this conceptual archetype as a way for computing academics to both self-critique the field and orient their work towards serving the public good.

The overall goal is for the computing discipline to evolve its knowledge, practices, and public engagement to responsibly address the social ramifications of the technologies it develops.

Critical Analysis

The paper raises important points about the need for computing as an academic field to grapple with the societal impacts of the technologies it creates. The call for more critical analysis of power dynamics and a broader epistemological scope that includes public-facing and reflective knowledge is well-founded.

However, the paper could benefit from more specific details on what this "reconfiguration" of computing might look like in practice. While the "Public Computer Intellectual" is an interesting concept, the paper does not provide a clear roadmap for how this role could be cultivated and integrated into standard academic computing practices.

Additionally, the paper does not address potential challenges or resistance that may arise from within the field itself. Academics deeply invested in the instrumental, technical goals of computing may be reluctant to embrace a more critical, public-oriented approach.

Further research and discussion are needed to work out the practical implications and implementation challenges of the changes proposed in this paper. But overall, it makes a compelling case for the computing discipline to evolve in response to the broader social ramifications of the technologies it develops.

Conclusion

This paper argues that the growing public and industry concerns about the potential negative social impacts of AI present a valuable opportunity for the academic field of computing to critically examine itself. It proposes that computing should take a more power-focused, reflexive approach that integrates public-facing knowledge and roles, such as the conceptual "Public Computer Intellectual."

The goal is for computing to evolve its practices and knowledge in a way that allows the discipline to responsibly address the societal implications of the technologies it creates. While the specifics of implementation require further exploration, the paper makes a compelling case for computing to broaden its scope and reckon with its social responsibilities.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

🤖

Now, Later, and Lasting: Ten Priorities for AI Research, Policy, and Practice

Eric Horvitz, Vincent Conitzer, Sheila McIlraith, Peter Stone

YC

0

Reddit

0

Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) will transform many aspects of our lives and society, bringing immense opportunities but also posing significant risks and challenges. The next several decades may well be a turning point for humanity, comparable to the industrial revolution. We write to share a set of recommendations for moving forward from the perspective of the founder and leaders of the One Hundred Year Study on AI. Launched a decade ago, the project is committed to a perpetual series of studies by multidisciplinary experts to evaluate the immediate, longer-term, and far-reaching effects of AI on people and society, and to make recommendations about AI research, policy, and practice. As we witness new capabilities emerging from neural models, it is crucial that we engage in efforts to advance our scientific understanding of these models and their behaviors. We must address the impact of AI on people and society through technical, social, and sociotechnical lenses, incorporating insights from a diverse range of experts including voices from engineering, social, behavioral, and economic disciplines. By fostering dialogue, collaboration, and action among various stakeholders, we can strategically guide the development and deployment of AI in ways that maximize its potential for contributing to human flourishing. Despite the growing divide in the field between focusing on short-term versus long-term implications, we think both are of critical importance. As Alan Turing, one of the pioneers of AI, wrote in 1950, We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done. We offer ten recommendations for action that collectively address both the short- and long-term potential impacts of AI technologies.

Read more

4/23/2024

🤖

AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse

Andrew J. Peterson

YC

0

Reddit

0

While artificial intelligence has the potential to process vast amounts of data, generate new insights, and unlock greater productivity, its widespread adoption may entail unforeseen consequences. We identify conditions under which AI, by reducing the cost of access to certain modes of knowledge, can paradoxically harm public understanding. While large language models are trained on vast amounts of diverse data, they naturally generate output towards the 'center' of the distribution. This is generally useful, but widespread reliance on recursive AI systems could lead to a process we define as knowledge collapse, and argue this could harm innovation and the richness of human understanding and culture. However, unlike AI models that cannot choose what data they are trained on, humans may strategically seek out diverse forms of knowledge if they perceive them to be worthwhile. To investigate this, we provide a simple model in which a community of learners or innovators choose to use traditional methods or to rely on a discounted AI-assisted process and identify conditions under which knowledge collapse occurs. In our default model, a 20% discount on AI-generated content generates public beliefs 2.3 times further from the truth than when there is no discount. An empirical approach to measuring the distribution of LLM outputs is provided in theoretical terms and illustrated through a specific example comparing the diversity of outputs across different models and prompting styles. Finally, based on the results, we consider further research directions to counteract such outcomes.

Read more

4/23/2024

🖼️

Lifelong learning challenges in the era of artificial intelligence: a computational thinking perspective

Margarida Romero (LINE, COMUE UCA, ULaval, Mnemosyne)

YC

0

Reddit

0

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought significant challenges to the education and workforce skills required to take advantage of AI for human-AI collaboration in the workplace. As AI continues to reshape industries and job markets, the need to define how AI literacy can be considered in lifelong learning has become increasingly critical (Cetindamar et al., 2022; Laupichler et al., 2022; Romero et al., 2023). Like any new technology, AI is the subject of both hopes and fears, and what it entails today presents major challenges (Cugurullo & Acheampong, 2023; Villani et al., 2018). It also raises profound questions about our own humanity. Will the machine surpass the intelligence of the humans who designed it? What will be the relationship between so-called AI and our human intelligences? How could human-AI collaboration be regulated in a way that serves the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)? This paper provides a review of the challenges of lifelong learning in the era of AI from a computational thinking, critical thinking, and creative competencies perspective, highlighting the implications for management and leadership in organizations.

Read more

5/31/2024

🤖

Implications for Governance in Public Perceptions of Societal-scale AI Risks

Ross Gruetzemacher, Toby D. Pilditch, Huigang Liang, Christy Manning, Vael Gates, David Moss, James W. B. Elsey, Willem W. A. Sleegers, Kyle Kilian

YC

0

Reddit

0

Amid growing concerns over AI's societal risks--ranging from civilizational collapse to misinformation and systemic bias--this study explores the perceptions of AI experts and the general US registered voters on the likelihood and impact of 18 specific AI risks, alongside their policy preferences for managing these risks. While both groups favor international oversight over national or corporate governance, our survey reveals a discrepancy: voters perceive AI risks as both more likely and more impactful than experts, and also advocate for slower AI development. Specifically, our findings indicate that policy interventions may best assuage collective concerns if they attempt to more carefully balance mitigation efforts across all classes of societal-scale risks, effectively nullifying the near-vs-long-term debate over AI risks. More broadly, our results will serve not only to enable more substantive policy discussions for preventing and mitigating AI risks, but also to underscore the challenge of consensus building for effective policy implementation.

Read more

6/11/2024