digital technologies

Prof. Dr. José van Dijck (Utrecht University, NL)

The growing dominance of two global platform ecosystems has left European countries to rely on American and Chinese digitale infrastructures. This dependency is not just affecting markets and labor relations, but is also transforming social practices, and affecting democracies. While two large ecosystems fight for information control in the global online world, the European perspective on digital infrastructures is focused on regulation rather than on building alternatives. With emerging technologies such as generative AI (ChatGPT, Bard) and geopolitical changes, the infrastructural perspective becomes more poignant. How can Europe achieve sovereignty in the digital world?

This lecture takes up two questions. First, what public values are fundamental to Europe’s platform societies? Values such as privacy, security, transparency, equality, public trust, and (institutional, professional) autonomy are important principles upon which the design of platform architectures should be based. Second, what are the responsibilities of companies, governments, and citizens in building an alternative, sustainable platform ecosystem based on those public values?

 

Following Mark Weiser’s vision from 1991 that the digital of the 21st century weaves itself “into the fabric of everyday life” until it is “indistinguishable from it,” we are today facing an evolution of the digital toward its naturalization. In this context, the miniaturization of technology plays an important role, but even more so the increasingly natural access to the digital, which brings the digital closer to emotions, affects and intuitions. The term “naturalization” ambiguously refers on the one hand to the digital as a technology that becomes (second) nature, and on the other hand to the naturalization (citizenship) of us in the digital sphere. The lecture analyses from a philosophical perspective the increasing acceptance of digital technology as an affective infrastructure and the phenomenological consequences for us. In particular, the concept of implicit knowledge (Michael Polanyi) plays an increasingly important role in this naturalization process. However, naturalization does not answer the question of whether machines or we as individuals will be tamed. Looking at current developments, it seems more likely that we will be the ones who will have to adapt to the rationality of machines.

This upcoming iteration of our "Taming the Machine" lecture series sheds light on the social background that AI technologies are embedded in.
For better or worse, the revolutionary potential of AI has reached public consciousness, with a growing recognition of the ways that AI might change how we live and work together. Indeed, the fabric of society is already changing in front of our very eyes, with powerful profiteers of AI rallying behind its supposed inevitability. The AI revolution is afoot and it seems as if there is nothing that we can do about it. However, Donald Trump’s emerging alliance with Silicon Valley’s “Magnificent Seven” provides a potent reason for pause and for sustained reflection on the path we are collectively treading.
To discuss how AI, like any other technology, is part of a societal process of struggle, negotiation, and cooperation, this lecture series brings together experts from philosophy, law, and cognitive science. How are technologies like AI grounded in social processes of knowledge production, design, and innovation? What is the environmental impact of AI systems and what ecological responsibilities fall to providers, politicians, and users? What is the human rights impact of AI technologies deployed in military and security contexts? And what, to speak with Nietzsche, renders AI ‘all too human’ after all?
Join us at our “Taming the Machine” lecture series this summer term to explore with our distinguished guests these and other related questions. To get the latest updates and details how to attend the lectures, please visit http://uhh.de/inf-eit.

 

Let us imagine that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is broken. Not in the physical sense in which pieces are falling apart and need to be put together; rather, in the metaphorical sense in which there are serious ethical concerns related to the design and development of AI that demand repair. In this talk I will outline a definition of Sustainable AI as an umbrella term to cover two branches with different aims and methods: AI for sustainability vs the sustainability of AI. I will show that AI for sustainability holds great promise but is lacking in one crucial aspect; it fails to account for the environmental impact from the development of AI. Alternatively, the environmental impact of AI training (and tuning) sits at the core of the sustainability of AI, for example measuring carbon emissions and electricity consumption, water and land usage, and regulating the mining of precious minerals. All of these environmental consequences fall on the shoulders of the most marginalized and vulnerable demographics across the globe (e.g. the slave like working conditions in the mining of minerals, the coastal communities susceptible to unpredictable weather conditions). By placing environmental consequences in the centre one is forced to recognize the environmental justice concerns underpinning all AI models. The question then becomes, how can the AI space be repaired to transform current structures and practices that systemically exacerbate environmental justice issues with the consequence of further marginalizing vulnerable groups.

 

Prof. Dr. Aimee van Wynsberghe, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Aimee van Wynsberghe is the Alexander von Humboldt Professor for Applied Ethics of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Bonn in Germany. Aimee is director of the Institute for Science and Ethics and the Bonn Sustainable AI lab. She is co-director of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics and a member of the European Commission's High-Level Expert Group on AI. In each of her roles, Aimee works to uncover the ethical risks associated with emerging robotics and AI. Aimee’s current research, funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, brings attention to the sustainability of AI by studying the hidden environmental costs of developing and using AI.

About the lecture

tbd

Institutions

To explore these and other related questions, this public lecture series invites distinguished international researchers to present and discuss their work. To get the latest updates and details how to attend the lectures, please visit http://uhh.de/inf-eit.

 

Speaker: Prof. Dr. Elena Esposito, Universität Bielefeld, DE

The distinction between “convivial” and “monopolistic” technologies, introduced in the 1970s by the philosopher Ivan Illich, was the foundation for a radical critique of contemporary technological society (Illich 1973). This key distinction was adopted in a critique of technology and economic reason (Gorz 1988) by French critical phenomenology (avant la lettre).
This talk will focus on how this distinction between convivial and monopolistic (or non-convivial) technologies can support a critical phenomenology of technology. I will argue that Gorz attempts to do just this, but that his development of the “convivial – un-convivial” distinction in terms of a broader account of “autonomy” vs “heteronomy” would benefit from a more phenomenologically grounded account of autonomy. I will pose (and try to address) the question of whether a more embodied account of autonomy, such as developed within the context of enactive approaches to cognition would serve such an aim.
A third step will be to ask if and how an enactively enriched notion of autonomy, when situated within the critique of technology and economic rationality, can contribute to the development of programmes for “concrete utopias”.