Algocracy and Transhumanism Podcast

In this episode I talk to Angèle Christin. Angèle is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Stanford University, where she is also affiliated with the Sociology Department and Program in Science, Technology, and Society. Her research focuses on how algorithms and analytics transform professional values, expertise, and work practices. She is currently working on a book on the use of audience metrics in web journalism and a project on the use of risk assessment algorithms in criminal justice. We talk about both. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 1:30 – What’s missing from the current debate about algorithmic governance? What does Angèle’s ethnographic perspective add? 5:10 – How does ethnography work? What does an ethnographer do? 8:30 – What are the limitations of ethnographic studies? 12:33 – Why did Angèle focus on the use of algorithms in criminal justice and web journalism? 23:06 – What were Angèle’s two key research findings? Decoupling and Buffering 24:40 – What is ‘decoupling’ and how does it happen? 30:00 – Different attitudes to algorithmic tools in the US and France (French journalists, perhaps surprisingly, more obsessed with real time analytics than their American counterparts) 39:20 – What explains the ambivalent attitude to metrics in different professions? 44:42 – What is ‘buffering’ and how does it arise? 54:30 – How people who worry about algorithms might misunderstand the practical realities of criminal justice 57:47 – Does the resistance/acceptance of an algorithmic tool depend on the nature of the tool and the nature of the workplace? What might the relevant variables be? Relevant Links Angèle’s Homepage “Algorithms in Practice: Comparing Web Journalism and Criminal Justice” by Angèle “Counting Clicks: Quantification and Variation in Web Journalism in the United States and France” by Angèle “Courts and Predictive Algorithms” by Christin, Rosenblat and Boyd “The Mistrials of Algorithmic Sentencing” by Angèle Episode 41 with Reuben Binns (covering the debate about the Compas algorithm and bias) Episode 19 with Andrew Ferguson on big data and policing  

In this episode I talk to Kate Devlin. Kate is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Digital Humanities at King’s College London. Kate’s research is in the fields of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and Artificial Intelligence (AI), investigating how people interact with and react to technology in order to understand how emerging and future technologies will affect us and the society in which we live. Kate has become a driving force in the field of intimacy and technology, running the UK’s first sex tech hackathon in 2016. She has also become the face of sex robots – quite literally in the case of one mis-captioned tabloid photograph. We talk about her recent, excellent book Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots, which covers the past, present and future of sex technology. You download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 2:08 – Why did Kate talk about sex robots in the House of Lords? 3:01 – How did Kate become the face of sex robots? 5:34 – Are sex robots really a thing? Should academics be researching them? 11:10 – The important link between archaeology and sex technology 15:00 – The myth of hysteria and the origin of the vibrator 17:36 – What was the most interesting thing Kate learned while researching this book? (Ans: owners of sex dolls are not creepy isolationists) 23:03 – Is there are moral panic about sex robots? And are we talking about robots or dolls? 30:41 – What are the arguments made by defenders of the ‘moral panic’ view? 38:05 – What could be the social benefits of sex robots? Do men and women want different things from sex tech? 47:57 – Why is Kate so interested in ‘non-anthropomorphic’ sex robots? 55:15 – Is the media fascination with this topic destructive or helpful? 57:32 – What question does Kate get asked most often and what does she say in response?   Relevant Links Kate’s Webpage Kate’s Academic Homepage Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots by Kate Devlin Kate and I in conversation at the Virtual Futures Salon in London ‘A Failure of Academic Quality Control: The Technology of the Orgasm‘ by Hallie Lieberman and Eric Schatzberg (on the myth that vibrators were used to treat hysteria) Laodamia – Owner of the world’s first sex doll? ‘In Defence of Sex Machines: Why trying to ban sex robots is wrong?‘ by Kate ‘Sex robot molested at electronics festival’ at Huffington Post ‘First tester made love to sex robot so furiously it actually broke‘ at Metro.co.uk The 2nd London Sex Tech Hackathon Robot Sex: Social and Ethical Implications edited by Danaher and McArthur

In this episode I talk to Ole Martin Moen. Ole Martin is a Research Fellow in Philosophy at the University of Oslo. He works on how to think straight about thorny issues in applied ethics. He is the Principal Investigator of “What should not be bought and sold?”, a $1 million research project funded by the Research Council of Norway. In the past, he has written articles about the ethics of prostitution, the desirability of cryonics, the problem of wild animal suffering and the case for philosophical hedonism. Along with his collaborator, Aksel Braanen Sterri, he runs a podcast, Moralistene (in Norwegian), and he regularly discusses moral issues behind the news on Norwegian national radio. We talk about a potentially controversial topic: the anti-tech philosophy of the Unabomber, Ted Kaczysnki, and what’s wrong with it. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe via iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 2:05 – Should we even be talking about Ted Kaczynski’s ethics? Does it not lend legitimacy to his views? 6:32 – Are we unnecessarily anti-rational when it comes to discussing dangerous ideas? 8:32 – The Evolutionary Mismatch Argument 12:43 – The Surrogate Activities Argument 20:20 – The Helplessness/Complexity Argument 23:08 – The Unstoppability Argument 26:45 – The Domesticated Animals Argument 30:45 – Why does Ole Martin overlook Kaczynski’s criticisms of ‘leftists’ in his analysis? 34:03 – What’s original in Kaczynski’s arguments? 36:31 – Ae philosophers who write about Kaczynski engaging in a motte and bailey fallacy? 38:36 – Ole Martin’s main critique of Kaczynski: the evaluative double standard 42:20 – How this double standard works in practice 47:27 – Why not just drop out of industrial society instead of trying to overthrow it? 55:04 – Is Kaczynski a revolutionary nihilist? 58:59 – Similarities and differences between Kaczynski’s argument and the work of Nick Bostrom, Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu 1:04:21 – Where should we go from here? Should there be more papers on this topic?   Relevant Links Ole Martin’s Homepage ‘The Unabomber’s Ethics’ by Ole Martin Moen “Bright New World” and “Smarter Babies” by Ole Martin Moen “The Case for Cryonics” by Ole Martin Moen Ted Kaczynski on Wikipedia (includes links to relevant writings) “The Unabomber’s Penpal” – article about the philosopher David Skrbina who has corresponded with Kaczynski for some time “The Unabomber on Robots” – by Jai Galliott (article appearing in Robot Ethics 2.0 edited by Lin et al) Unfit for the Future by Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu Nick Bostrom’s Homepage (check out his recent paper ‘The Vulnerable World Hypothesis“)  

In this episode I talk to Michele Loi. Michele is a political philosopher turned bioethicist turned digital ethicist. He is currently (2017-2020) working on two interdisciplinary projects, one of which is about the ethical implications of big data at the University of Zurich. In the past, he developed an ethical framework of governance for the Swiss MIDATA cooperative (2016). He is interested in bringing insights from ethics and political philosophy to bear on big data, proposing more ethical forms of institutional organization, firm behavior, and legal-political arrangements concerning data. We talk about how you can use Rawls’s theory of justice to evaluate the role of dominant tech platforms (particularly Facebook) in modern life. You download the show here or listen below. You can also subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 1:29 – Why use Rawls to assess data platforms? 2:58 – Does the analogy between data and oil hold up to scrutiny? 7:04 – The First Key Idea: Rawls’s Basic Social Structures 11:20 – The Second Key Idea: Dominant Tech Platforms as Basic Social Structures 15:02 – Is Facebook a Dominant Tech Platform? 19:58 – How Zuckerberg’s recent memo highlights Facebook’s status as a basic social structure 23:10 – A brief primer on Rawls’s two principles of justice 29:18 – Dominant tech platforms and respect for the basic liberties (particularly free speech) 36:48 – Facebook: Media Company or Nudging Platform? Does it matter from the perspective of justice? 41:43 – Why Facebook might have a duty to ensure that we don’t get trapped in a filter bubble 44:32 – Is it fair to impose such a duty on Facebook as a private enterprise? 51:18 – Would it be practically difficult for Facebook to fulfil this duty? 53:02 – Is data-mining and monetisation exploitative? 56:14 – Is it possible to explore other economic models for the data economy? 59:44 – Can regulatory frameworks (e.g. the GDPR) incentivise alternative business models? 1:01:50 – Is there hope for the future?   Relevant Links Michele on Twitter Michele on Research Gate ‘If data is the new oil, when is the extraction of value from data unjust?‘ by Loi and Dehaye ‘Technological Unemployment and Human Disenhancement’ by Michele Loi ‘The Digital Phenotype: A Philosophical and Ethical Exploration‘ by Michele Loi ‘A Blueprint for content governance and enforcement‘ by Mark Zuckerberg ‘Should libertarians hate the internet? A Nozickian Argument Against Social Networks‘ by John Danaher John Rawls’s Two Principles of Justice, explained  

In this episode I talk to Matthijs Maas. Matthijs is a doctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen’s ‘AI and Legal Disruption’ research unit, and a research affiliate with the Governance of AI Program at Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute. His research focuses on safe and beneficial global governance strategies for emerging, transformative AI systems. This involves, in part, a study of the requirements and pitfalls of international regimes for technology arms control, non-proliferation and the conditions under which these are legitimate and effective. We talk about the phenomenon of ‘globally disruptive AI’ and the effect it will have on the international legal order. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe via iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 2:11 – International Law 101 6:38 – How technology has repeatedly shaped the content of international law 10:43 – The phenomenon of ‘globally disruptive artificial intelligence’ (GDAI) 15:20 – GDAI and the development of international law 18:05 – Will we need new laws? 19:50 – Will GDAI result in lots of legal uncertainty? 21:57 – Will the law be under/over-inclusive of GDAI? 25:21 – Will GDAI render international law obsolete? 31:00 – Could we have a tech-neutral international law? 34:10 – Could we automate the monitoring and enforcement of international law? 44:35 – Could we replace international legal institutions with technological systems of management? 47:35 – Could GDAI lead to the end of the international legal order? 57:23 – Could GDAI result in more isolationism and less multi-lateralism 1:00:40 – So what will the future be? Relevant Links Follow Matthijs on Twitter Artificial Intelligence and Legal Disruption research group (University of Copenhagen) Governance of AI Program (University of Oxford) Dafoe, Allan. “AI Governance: A Research Agenda.” Oxford: Governance of AI Program, Future of Humanity Institute, 2018. On history of technology and international law: Picker, Colin B. “A View from 40,000 Feet: International Law and the Invisible Hand of Technology.” Cardozo Law Review 23 (2001): 151–219. Brownsword, Roger. “In the Year 2061: From Law to Technological Management.” Law, Innovation and Technology 7, no. 1 (January 2, 2015): 1–51. Boutin, Berenice. “Technologies for International Law & International Law for Technologies.” Groningen Journal of International Law (blog), October 22, 2018. Moses, Lyria Bennett. “Recurring Dilemmas: The Law’s Race to Keep Up With Technological Change.” SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, April 11, 2007. On establishing legal ‘artificially intelligent entities’, etc: Burri, Thomas. “International Law and Artificial Intelligence.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2017.  

In this episode I talk to David Gunkel. David is a repeat guest, having first appeared on the show in Episode 10. David a Professor of Communication Studies at Northern Illinois University. He is a leading scholar in the philosophy of technology, having written extensively about cyborgification, robot rights and responsibilities, remix cultures, new political structures in the information age and much much more. He is the author of several books, including Hacking Cyberspace, The Machine Question, Of Remixology, Gaming the System and, most recently, Robot Rights. We have a long debate/conversation about whether or not robots should/could have rights.   You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 1:52 – Isn’t the idea of robot rights ridiculous? 3:37 – What is a robot anyway? Is the concept too nebulous/diverse? 7:43 – Has science fiction undermined our ability to think about robots clearly? 11:01 – What would it mean to grant a robot rights? (A precis of Hohfelds theory of rights) 18:32 – The four positions/modalities one could take on the idea of robot rights 21:32 – The First Modality: Robots Can’t Have Rights therefore Shouldn’t 23:37 – The EPSRC guidelines on robotics as an example of this modality 26:04 – Criticisms of the EPSRC approach 28:27 – Other problems with the first modality 31:32 – Europe vs Japan: why the Japanese might be more open to robot ‘others’ 34:00 – The Second Modality: Robots Can Have Rights therefore Should (some day) 39:53 – A debate between myself and David about the second modality (why I’m in favour it and he’s against it) 47:17 – The Third Modality: Robots Can Have Rights but Shouldn’t (Bryson’s view) 53:48 – Can we dehumanise/depersonalise robots? 58:10 – The Robot-Slave Metaphor and its Discontents 1:04:30 – The Fourth Modality: Robots Cannot Have Rights but Should (Darling’s view) 1:07:53 – Criticism’s of the fourth modality 1:12:05 – The ‘Thinking Otherwise’ Approach (David’s preferred approach) 1:16:23 – When can robots take on a face? 1:19:44 – Is there any possibility of reconciling my view with David’s? 1:24:42 – So did David waste his time writing this book?   Relevant Links David’s Homepage Robot Rights from MIT Press, 2018 (and on Amazon) Episode 10 – Gunkel on Robots and Cyborgs ‘The other question: can and should robots have rights?‘ by David Gunkel ‘Facing Animals: A Relational Other-Oriented Approach to Moral Standing‘ by Gunkel and Coeckelbergh The Robot Rights Debate (Index) – everything I’ve written or said on the topic of robot rights EPSRC Principles of Robotics Episode 24 – Joanna Bryson on Why Robots Should be Slaves ‘Patiency is not a virtue: the design of intelligent systems and systems of ethics‘ by Joanna Bryson Robo Sapiens Japanicus – by Jennifer Robertson

In this episode I talk to Virginia Eubanks. Virginia is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, SUNY. She is the author of several books, including Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor and Digital Dead End: Fighting for Social Justice in the Information Age. Her writing about technology and social justice has appeared in The American Prospect, The Nation, Harper’s and Wired. She has worked for two decades in community technology and economic justice movements. We talk about the history of poverty management in the US and how it is now being infiltrated and affected by tools for algorithmic governance. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the show on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 1:39 – The future is unevenly distributed but not in the way you might think 7:05 – Virginia’s personal encounter with the tools for automating inequality 12:33 – Automated helplessness? 14:11 – The history of poverty management: denial and moralisation 22:40 – Technology doesn’t disrupt our ideology of poverty; it amplifies it 24:16 – The problem of poverty myths: it’s not just something that happens to other people 28:23 – The Indiana Case Study: Automating the system for claiming benefits 33:15 – The problem of automated defaults in the Indiana Case 37:32 – What happened in the end? 41:38 – The L.A. Case Study: A “match.com” for the homeless 45:40 – The Allegheny County Case Study: Managing At-Risk Children 52:46 – Doing the right things but still getting it wrong? 58:44 – The need to design an automated system that addresses institutional bias 1:07:45 – The problem of technological solutions in search of a problem 1:10:46 – The key features of the digital poorhouse   Relevant Links Virginia’s Homepage Virginia on Twitter Automating Inequality ‘A Child Abuse Prediction Model Fails Poor Families’ by Virginia in Wired The Allegheny County Family Screening Tool (official webpage – includes a critical response to Virginia’s Wired article) ‘Can an Algorithm Tell when Kids Are in Danger?’ by Dan Hurley (generally positive story about the family screening tool in the New York Times). ‘A Response to Allegheny County DHS’ by Virginia (a response to Allegheny County’s defence of the family screening tool) Episode 41 with Reuben Binns on Fairness in Algorithmic Decision-Making Episode 19 with Andrew Ferguson about Predictive Policing  

In this episode I talk to Francesca Minerva. Francesca is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Ghent. Her research focuses on applied philosophy, specifically lookism, conscientious objection, abortion, academic freedom, and cryonics. She has published many articles on these topics in some of the leading academic journals in ethics and philosophy, including the Journal of Medical Ethics, Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly Review of Ethicsand the Hastings Centre Report. We talk about life, death and the wisdom and ethics of cryonics. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes: 0:00 – Introduction 1:34 – What is cryonics anyway? 6:54 – The tricky logistics and cryonics: you need to die in the right way 10:30 – Is cryonics too weird/absurd to take seriously? Analogies with IVF and frozen embryos 16:04 – The opportunity cost of cryonics 18:18 – Is death bad? Why? 22:51 – Is live worth living at all? Is it better never to have been born? 24:44 – What happens when live is no longer worth living? The attraction of cryothanasia 30:28 – Should we want to live forever? Existential tiredness and existential boredom 37:20 – Is immortality irrelevant to the debate about cryonics? 41:42 – Even if cryonics is good for me might it be the unethical choice? 45:00 (ish) – Egalitarianism and the distribution of life years 49:39 – Would future generations want to revive us? 52:34 – Would we feel out of place in the distant future? Relevant Links Francesca’s webpage The Ethics of Cryonics: Is it immoral to be immortal? by Francesca ‘Cryopreservation of Embryos and Fetuses as a Future Option for Family Planning Purposes‘ by Francesca and Anders Sandberg ‘Euthanasia and Cryothanasia‘ by Francesca and Anders Sandberg ‘The Badness of Death and the Meaning of Life‘ (Series) – pretty much everything I’ve ever written about the philosophy of life and death Alcor Life Extension Foundation Cryonics Institute To be a Machine by Mark O’Connell  

In a riveting discussion, Shannon Vallor, a professor of philosophy at Santa Clara University, delves into the ethical implications of technology. She highlights the phenomenon of acute techno-moral opacity, emphasizing the limitations of traditional ethical frameworks like utilitarianism in our rapidly changing world. Vallor advocates for a virtue ethics approach to navigate these complex moral challenges. The conversation also touches on the role of social media in shaping self-perception and its impact on society's ethical landscape.

In this episode I chat to Diana Fleischman. Diana is a senior lecturer in evolutionary psychology at the University of Portsmouth. Her research focuses on hormonal influences on behavior, human sexuality, disgust and, recently, the interface of evolutionary psychology and behaviorism. She is a utilitarian, a promoter of effective altruism, and a bivalvegan. We have a long and detailed chat about the evolved psychology of sex and how it may affect the social acceptance and use of sex robots. Along the way we talk about Mills and Boons novels, the connection between sexual stimulation and the brain, and other, no doubt controversial, topics. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on iTunes or Stitcher (the RSS feed is here). Show Notes 0:00 – Introduction 1:42 – Evolutionary Psychology and the Investment Theory of Sex 5:54 – What’s the evidence for the investment theory in humans? 8:40 – Does the evidence for the theory hold up? 11:45 – Studies on the willingness to engage in casual sex: do men and women really differ? 18:33 – The ecological validity of these studies 20:20 – Evolutionary psychology and the replication crisis 23:29 – Are there better alternative explanations for sex differences? 26:25 – Ethical criticisms of evolutionary psychology 28:14 – Sex robots and evolutionary psychology 29:33 – Argument 1: The rising costs of courtship will drive men into the arms of sexbots 34:12 – Not all men… 39:08 – Couldn’t something similar be true for women? 46:00 – Aren’t the costs of courtship much higher for women? 48:27 – Argument 2: Sex robots could be used as treatment for dangerous men 51:50 – Would this stigmatise other sexbot users? 53:31 – Would this embolden rather than satiate? 55:53 – Could the logic of this argument be flipped, e.g. the Futurama argument? 58:05 – Isn’t this an ethically sub-optimal solution to the problem? 1:00:42 – Argument 3: This will also impact on women’s sexual behaviour 1:07:01 – Do ethical objectors to sex robots underestimate the constraints of our evolved psychology? Relevant Links Diana’s personal webpage Diana on Twitter Diana’s academic homepage ‘Uncanny Vulvas’ in Jacobite Magazine – this is the basis for much of our discussion in the podcast ‘Disgust Trumps Lust: Women’s Disgust and Attraction Towards Men Is Unaffected by Sexual Arousal‘ by Zsok, Fleischman, Borg and Morrison Beyond Human Nature by Jesse Prinz ‘Which people would agree to have sex with a stranger?‘ by David Schmitt ‘Sex Work, Technological Unemployment and the Basic Income Guarantee’ by John Danaher