In the Wake of Fake News, Several Universities Including MIT and Harvard Introduce New Course On Ethics and Regulation of AI (nytimes.com)

The medical profession has an ethic: First, do no harm. Silicon Valley has an ethos: Build it first and ask for forgiveness later. Now, in the wake of fake news and other troubles at tech companies, universities that helped produce some of Silicon Valley's top technologists are hustling to bring a more medicine-like morality to computer science, the New York Times reporter. From the report: This semester, Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are jointly offering a new course on the ethics and regulation of artificial intelligence. The University of Texas at Austin just introduced a course titled "Ethical Foundations of Computer Science" -- with the idea of eventually requiring it for all computer science majors. And at Stanford University, the academic heart of the industry, three professors and a research fellow are developing a computer science ethics course for next year. They hope several hundred students will enroll. The idea is to train the next generation of technologists and policymakers to consider the ramifications of innovations -- like autonomous weapons or self-driving cars -- before those products go on sale.

Comments

Obvious question

[grasshoppa]

Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue? I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

Re:Obvious question

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.

They didn't influence anything. It's pure scapegoating and deflection by the losers. The republicans were ready to do the same if they had lost. This whole "fake news" shtick is nothing more than the quest for control of mass media in its confrontation with an open internet

Re:Obvious question

[grasshoppa]

Speaking of obvious, until you can definitely prove that "shenanigans" did not influence who was or is elected leader of one of the most powerful countries on the planet, you have no grounds to say that fake news isn't an issue.

That's not how it works at all. If you want to change the status quo, you have to prove your position ( that being that fake news has significant influence ). Of course, the more you research this the more you realize it's not necessarily "fake news" that has the media in an uproar, it's more along the lines of "not our brand of dog food" fake news. It's all fine and dandy when it's fox or cnn doing it, but some uncontrolled actor? Sharpen the pitchfork and pull out your torches!

Re:Obvious question

[chispito]

You're the one making the claim that has to be defended. You're saying that this new stream of disinformation has no effect.

How can somebody disprove an effect if nobody is able to describe or quantify it?

Really?

[argStyopa]

Do they have an "Ethics in Physics" class required for people who might design nuclear weapons?

Or an "Ethics in Chemistry" for those who might design mundane explosives or chemical weapons?

Or an "Ethics in Biomedical Engineering" for those who may eventually build killer cyborgs?

Yes, I'm saying this is silly.
Ethics is ethics, and if you're going to REQUIRE it, require it of everyone - I think our entire culture could use a good shot of ethics.

Wrong Target

[tsqr]

You don't need to teach ethics to CS majors. You need to teach ethics to Business majors.