Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 3 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (3 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

Cognition as a Service: Can next-gen creepiness be countered with crowd-sourced ethics?

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 5/9/14

- Advertisement -

Now that marketers use cloud computing to offer everything as a service: infrastructure as a service, platform as a service, and software as a service, what's left?

Cognitive computing, of course.

Cognition as a service (CaaS) is the next buzzword you'll be hearing. Going from the top of the stack to directly inside the head, AI in the cloud will power mobile and embedded devices to do things they don't have the on-board capabilities for, such as speech recognition, image recognition, and natural-language processing (NLP). Apple's Siri cloud-based voice recognition was one of the first out of the gate but a stampede is joining the fray including Wolfram Alpha, IBM's Watson, Google Now, and Cortana, as well as newer players like Ginger, ReKognition, and Jetlore.

Companies want to know more about their customers, business partners, competitors, and employees -- as do governments about their citizens and cybercriminals about their potential victims. The cloud will connect the Internet of Things (IoT) via machine-to-machine (M2M) communications -- to achieve that goal.

The cognitive powers required will be embedded in operating systems so that apps can easily be developed by accessing the desired functionality through an API rather than requiring each developer to reinvent the wheel.

Everything in your daily life will become smarter -- "context-sensitive" is another new buzz-phrase -- as devices provide a personalized experience based on databases of accumulated personal information combined with intelligence gleaned from large data sets.

The obvious question is to what extent the personalized experience is determined by the individual user as opposed to corporations, governments, and criminals. Vint Cerf, "the father of the Internet" and Google's Internet Evangelist, recently warned of the privacy and security issues raised by the IoT.

But above and beyond the dangers of automated human malfeasance is the danger of increasingly intelligent tools developing an attitude problem.

- Advertisement -

Stephen Hawking recently warned of the dangers of AI running amuck:

Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks. AI may transform our economy to bring both great wealth and great dislocation. There is no physical law precluding particles from being organised in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains. One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand. Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all.

Eben Moglen warned specifically about mobile devices that know too much and whose inner workings (and motivations, if they are actually intelligent) are unknown:

... we grew up thinking about freedom and technology under the influence of the science fiction of the 1960s. Visionaries perceived that in the middle of the first quarter of the 21st century, we'd be living contemporarily with robots.

They were correct. We do. They don't have hands and feet. Most of the time we're the bodies. We're the hands and feet. We carry them everywhere we go. They see everything which allows other people to predict and know our conduct and intentions and capabilities better than we can predict them ourselves.

- Advertisement -

But we grew up imagining that these robots would have, incorporated in their design, a set of principles.

We imagined that robots would be designed so that they could never hurt a human being. These robots have no such commitments. These robots hurt us every day.

They work for other people. They're designed, built and managed to provide leverage and control to people other than their owners. Unless we retrofit the first law of robotics onto them immediately, we're cooked.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://davrola.com

David Solomonoff is President of New York Chapter of Internet Society, http://isoc-ny.org a nonprofit that works for open development of technology, Internet freedom and access for all.


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Cognition as a Service: Can next-gen creepiness be countered with crowd-sourced ethics?

Net governance is a game -- play it to win

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

There is no one size fits all wants. Even "cognit... by Derryl Hermanutz on Monday, May 12, 2014 at 8:09:28 PM