The boss of Google - under fire over allegations of political bias and its failure to protect personal information - is to tell congress it supports government legislation that defends against privacy violations. On the day Google announced it was to terminate earlier than planned its modestly-used social media network Google Plus because of a flaw that had leaked the personal information of 52.5m users, CEO Sundar Pichai made clear he would defend the company against accusations of favouritism or predisposition. "I lead this company without political bias and work to ensure that our products continue to operate that way," Mr Pichai will say in prepared remarks he is due to deliver on Capitol Hill. "To do otherwise would go against our core principles and our business interests." He added: "We are a company that provides platforms for diverse perspectives and opinions - and we have no shortage of them among our own employees. "Some of our Googlers are former servicemen and women who have risked much in defence of our country.
The authors of the Harrisburg University study make explicit their desire to provide "a significant advantage for law enforcement agencies and other intelligence agencies to prevent crime" as a co-author and former NYPD police officer outlined in the original press release. At a time when the legitimacy of the carceral state, and policing in particular, is being challenged on fundamental grounds in the United States, there is high demand in law enforcement for research of this nature, research which erases historical violence and manufactures fear through the so-called prediction of criminality. Publishers and funding agencies serve a crucial role in feeding this ravenous maw by providing platforms and incentives for such research. The circulation of this work by a major publisher like Springer would represent a significant step towards the legitimation and application of repeatedly debunked, socially harmful research in the real world. To reiterate our demands, the review committee must publicly rescind the offer for publication of this specific study, along with an explanation of the criteria used to evaluate it. Springer must issue a statement condemning the use of criminal justice statistics to predict criminality and acknowledging their role in incentivizing such harmful scholarship in the past. Finally, all publishers must refrain from publishing similar studies in the future.
"Please think forward to the year 2030. Analysts expect that people will become even more dependent on networked artificial intelligence (AI) in complex digital systems. Some say we will continue on the historic arc of augmenting our lives with mostly positive results as we widely implement these networked tools. Some say our increasing dependence on these AI and related systems is likely to lead to widespread difficulties. Our question: By 2030, do you think it is most likely that advancing AI and related technology systems will enhance human capacities and empower them? That is, most of the time, will most people be better off than they are today? Or is it most likely that advancing AI and related technology systems will lessen human autonomy and agency to such an extent that most people will not be better off than the way things are today? Please explain why you chose the answer you did and sketch out a vision of how the human-machine/AI collaboration will function in 2030.