AI, Impact Investment, Ethics & Deeply Human-Centered Innovation: #3

Part 3: AI at the Center vs. Humans at the Center of our Considerations.

 

How considerate of humans, or life in general, is a text if the majority of the humans are still oblivious about its topic (being the topic of AI, on AI and ethics, or on AI and how it affects humanity)? If not oblivious, we are perhaps disinterested, disenfranchised or not considered. Or, so some humans might feel. More importantly are we, humans, offered clear sequential steps (a human algorithm?) containing applicable preparations and solutions in approaching an increasing (technological) literacy of sorts?

Except their concerns of application and consequences of automated and (quasi) artificially-intelligent systems of the present or imagined future, I found very little to no considerations that besides only tiptoeing around some human condition and the human potentialpresented anything more than (present or forecasted) consequences for humans surrounding versions of AI.

The latter to me feels as AI-centric, not considerate of human; not starting from humanity, from the other or from life at the center of one’s thinking. It feels as if it takes AI and its ethics as fixed facts while sauced over with the fluid flavors of ethical choices as to approach AI or the fluid palette of mesmerizing innovations to come from a techno-centric point of view.

I feel that too many expert-authors are thinking of consequences (of AI), without also offering deep reaching, early-staged, sustainable and progressive developmental and innovative cognitive means to shift one’s (soon to become) habituated cognitive modus operandi. This absence feels as something as defeatist or as dismissive of the majority of the human population.

I want to proactively change this sensation, irrespective of my lack of expertise or of an extrinsic group of expert-authors and their texts. Hence, my first constructive and supportive attempt to reaching out with this consideration here and this towards a solution for impact investment.

I’m now returning to the authoring of texts that consider in a particular manner, or entirely lack to consider ethics, in association with AI. How much can we find humanity at the centered of a text and its suggested (ethical) solutions, if humans have to adapt unilaterally to a technological change and if that needs to occur without offering tools for adaptation beyond the superficial and beyond the techno-centric only?

The solution of ethics for AI might perhaps lie in increasing an ethical consciousness of the coder (as seen elsewhere, one might imagine perhaps enabling a code imbued with a trans-ethical codex)[13] and any other individual, beyond the code. In a number of texts (including those claiming human-centeredness) humans are quickly displaced, misplaced and replaced.

While, surely, adaptation is required, and an openness to change is of creative usage besides potentially humanly rejuvenating and exciting, I still sustain a believe that an augmenting ethical approach –where life (human and other) is at its center of thinking– can be further and deeper considered.


Contents

It is strictly advised to take only one tablet in a day has been accounted the cheapest viagra in australia deeprootsmag.org highest & maximum dosage of tadalis. One pill can save your relationship from viagra sale deeprootsmag.org breakup or any other stressful issues. A soft tablet works brand viagra from canada deeprootsmag.org in about 30 minutes and remains longer in the male body to give a strong erection. So it takes about a month to recondition the body, and this is easily provable if you just entered into a brand new relationship, using the methods within the viagra generic E.D.