The paper intends to briefly present a view on current trends on our society, highlighting the technical aspects introduced by the big data phenomenon and the machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms. It covers the threats that privacy and human rights can suffer by the general ignorance about this issues,nd calls for a discussion on educational agendas and a new digital literacy.
One of the points on which the vast majority of contemporary analyses of society agree is informational overload, and the technologies that promote them. The last decades have brought us the internet, the web, social networks – empowered by mobile devices – and the internet of things. If we think about the relation of society to these stocks of available information, we could imagine an undeniable process of democratization, both by the popularization of technologies and also by the greater availability of data, fueling the access to a more significant and diversified range of the cultural production of humanity. Such a scenario, in theory, would make it difficult to control information, because the sources are so many and varied today that biases should be more explicit and easily overcome. Paradoxically, it is increasingly complex to establish parameters for judging the quality of information, precisely because no sample is more significant – in comparison to the whole – and the phenomenon of rapid obsolescence makes the knowledge produced rapidly outdated. At the same time, bubbles and silos, arising from the manipulation of information by the great content producers, create and multiply fragmented societies, in terms of ideas and values. We, as individuals, are somewhat numbed and passively uncritical over the great discussions underway, about the choices made and its consequences. Being subject to media manipulation, narrative wars, and the “post-truth” phenomenon, we perceive a context that resembles a blend of two dystopias: “The Brave New World”, by Aldous Huxley (1998) and “1984”, by George Orwell (2009).
In his book “The Consequences of Modernity” (2013), Giddens already pointed to trust in expert systems as a distinctive feature of our times. In terms of behavior, the ubiquity of the network and the pervasive characteristic of its products in our lives have shaped society and instilled the need for permanent connection. Entertainment is based on streaming technologies,1
Information repositories are digital. Urban mobility depends on navigation systems, GPSs and information captured by the collective use of the systems themselves, such as Waze and Google Maps. Intelligent city management involves ongoing monitoring of public transport, monitoring of events with cameras and drones, and the use of smart grids for energy management and distribution.3
Communication between individuals is fluid in a myriad of channels that compete with each other, coupled with social networks, and based on mobile phones. Medicine is based on images and measurements for increasingly detailed diagnostics,4
the mere fact of living in this epoch is enough for us to be permanently watched and recorded, through cameras, sensors and automatic systems. We give away huge chunks about our life in social networks, and through smart devices connected to IoT (Internet of Things). In this case, the concept of privacy is violated by clauses in lower case letters,7
But it is not an easy task to free oneself from unhook from these technologies, because that would imply giving up the comfort we got used to in this century.9
invisibly in our daily lives. Their “intelligence” lies in supercomputers in the clouds but also in prosaic devices such as cell phones, wristwatches, televisions, toasters, refrigerators, and even children’s toys.14
relegate The Turing test to a reminiscence of good old and romantic times, in which humans still used to challenge machines in games such as Trivia, Poker, Chess or GO.26
We see the return of the robots, very present in the collective imagination of those who lived in the 1970s; arousing divergent feelings about the future of our relationship with these anthropomorphized technological creations.28
In this scenario, it seems extremely important to ask some questions about the alleged imputability of the algorithms that animate artificial intelligence devices. The decisions we delegate to them go beyond the merely pragmatic and invade the field of ethics, psychology and even philosophy. A while ago, in more romantic times, the three laws of robotics, as stated by Isaac Asimov36
were sufficient to guarantee safe parameters, but perhaps they may not cover the complexity of current use cases. As an example, we can think of an autonomous vehicle in the imminent threat of an accident, having to choose between protecting the passengers or the passers-by. Should we expect it to minimize human losses, or protect its owner? Whose fault is it when accidents happen; manufacturers or owners? Moreover, should a drone that has identified and attacked terrorists accept a controlled number of civilian casualties to achieve its goals? These are deep questions with no easy answers. On the other hand, there is a wide range of arguments as to why some decisions should be left to computers. They, in theory, would not be affected by cognitive biases; would not modify programmed behavior under stress, pressure, or fatigue and, in principle, could be modeled on the highest moral standards. But, as we all know, definitions of ethics are culturally and diachronically conditioned, and transcend the decision scope of well-meaning programmers and designers.37
are inherent in the social inequalities and biased cleavages present in the data we produce in our social fabric and context. As a primordial source of learning of these algorithms, these data are being produced in the core of the human activities, reproducing and perpetuating points of view and comprehension gaps.39
The alleged objectivity associated to computer based activities is, in this case, a dangerous myth, and all neutrality is suspect. Furthermore, the effort to make the personal assistants – Alexa, Google, Cortana, Siri, etc. – seem more human40
which reifies a preponderance of the algorithms in decision making processes. Just as a divine authority was legitimized by religion and mythology, and a human authority was imposed through humanist ideologies, high-tech gurus and silicon valley prophets are creating a new universal narrative fueled by Big Data.
Overcoming these dilemmas depends on many variables. Understanding and raising awareness for the problem by the general public – the great majority of the users of technologies – are sine qua non conditions. Unfortunately, the observed trend is the amplification of the digital divide into the field of algorithms and artificial intelligence. Yet, very few seem to care about privacy, and fewest are willing to sacrifice the comfort provided by technology because of issues such as privacy or ethics. As history recalls, a technology has never ceased to be used because of ethical issues. And this is most likely a recipe for trouble ahead.
So…what should we do?
There is an urge to reformulate school curricula and reorganize discussion patterns in society. Being challenged by a new digital divide, we need answers promoting a new digital literacy. It is not enough just to “learn to program”, as many campaigns to reformulate school curricula advocate. To make the problem of the pervasiveness of the algorithms less intrusive, we must stimulate holistic and interdisciplinary approaches that promote debate, hacker activism, social appropriation of themes such as ethics, privacy, and digital awareness. The civil rights framework for the Internet must to be extended to cover digital rights, and there are fuzzy lines to draw, between changes that may allow equality and welfare and those that increase inequality, perpetuate social and intellectual imbalance and seem to forget the illuminist Voltaire (1971) saying Sapere Aude, or “Dare to know”. As Rousseau (1968) puts it, our free will should be, therefore, the highest authority of all.
References
1.
Giddens,A. The Consequences of Modernity. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
2.
Huxley,A. Brave New World (1998). 1932. London: Vintage.
