Skip to main content

A Citizen's Guide to Artificial Intelligence - John Zerilli et al ****

The cover of this book set off a couple of alarm bells. Not only does that 'Citizen's Guide' part of the title raise the spectre of a pompous book-length moan, the list of seven authors gives the feel of a thesis written by committee. It was a real pleasure, then, to discover that this is actually a very good book.

I ought to say straight away what it isn't - despite that title, it isn't a book written in a style that's necessarily ideal for a general audience. Although the approach is often surprisingly warm and human, it is an academic piece of writing. As a result, in places it's a bit of a trudge to get through it. Despite this, though, the topic is important enough - and, to be fair, the way it is approached is good enough - that it deserves to be widely read.

John Zerilli et al give an effective, very balanced exploration of artificial intelligence. Although not structured as such, it's a SWOT analysis, giving us the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of AI. Of course we get the concerns that have been repeatedly raised in books such as Weapons of Math Destruction that artificial intelligence and big data can result in opaque decision making that influences our lives and that can have unintentional biases baked into the systems. But we also see the potential benefits of AI and rather than just bemoaning the dangers, there is real consideration of the checks and balances that can be put in place to make use of it without suffering from its unwanted side-effects.

Some aspects really jump out at the reader, for me particularly around what is and isn't possible as far as transparency goes, and making the very important point that we should not judge AI in isolation but have to weigh it up against the lack of transparency and biases that human decision makers also have. Similarly, for example, when talking about self-driving cars, there is a discussion of the challenging aspect where a famous ethical puzzle, the trolley problem, is brought to life: how should a car judge priorities if, say, it had the choice of saving the driver or a cyclist, or has to choose between the life of the driver or a group of children on the pavement. As Zerilli et al point out, we all might favour saving the children in principle, but would you buy a car that is prepared to intentionally kill the driver?

The book's academic origin comes through in the care with which it drills down into things we tend to take for granted. So, for instance, there is a box explaining the difference between 'appeal' and 'review' in responding to legal and governmental decisions that some considers incorrect. That particular example was quite interesting, though overall this approach does contribute to the parts of the book that are quite hard going.

Despite being relatively heavyweight reading, this is a different take on AI to any I've read before. It focusses on how AI will affect our lives and how we as a society should react to it. At the very least it should be recommended reading for those in government who are having to make decisions in this area - and deserves a significantly wider readership too.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why Nobody Understands Quantum Physics - Frank Verstraete and Céline Broeckaert **

It's with a heavy heart that I have to say that I could not get on with this book. The structure is all over the place, while the content veers from childish remarks to unexplained jargon. Frank Versraete is a highly regarded physicist and knows what he’s talking about - but unfortunately, physics professors are not always the best people to explain physics to a general audience and, possibly contributed to by this being a translation, I thought this book simply doesn’t work. A small issue is that there are few historical inaccuracies, but that’s often the case when scientists write history of science, and that’s not the main part of the book so I would have overlooked it. As an example, we are told that Newton's apple story originated with Voltaire. Yet Newton himself mentioned the apple story to William Stukeley in 1726. He may have made it up - but he certainly originated it, not Voltaire. We are also told that ‘Galileo discovered the counterintuitive law behind a swinging o...
Post a Comment
Read more

On Time - Jim Al-Khalili *****

By a small margin Jim Al-Khalili's The World According to Physics is my favourite of his books, both because the 'three pillars' concept at its heart works so well - but also because it's short. On Time is somewhat heavier, but thankfully not a wrist-buster. It might seem at first sight odd that a book on a subset of physics is considerably longer than one covering the whole thing, but time is one of those subjects that inevitably involves considerable complexities and needs depth. As Al-Khalili establishes, it's hard to think of any other scientific concept where our perception of it - what he refers to as manifest time or psychological time - is so different from the view from physics. Some physicists go so far as to suggest that time doesn't exist at all. In the book, Al-Khalili sets out (to my mind quite successfully) both to explain why they think this is the case, but also why it's not the best interpretation of time. I'd certainly note that I...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Everyone Knows That Everyone Knows: Steven Pinker *****

In the past I've found Steven Pinker's books hypnotic - I drift along enjoying the words and feeling I'm getting something deep from it without anything much sinking in. This one was different - it was sometimes a little harder to get your head around the underlying concept, descending as it tends to into infinite regression, but overall I did feel I'd gained a lot.  Pinker's focus here is 'common knowledge' which is when not only do we both/all know something, but we know that the other(s) know as well and the implications this has for human interactions. One entertaining thing to emerge from this is the ability to get into infinite loops of the 'I know that you know that I know that...' variety. Although we aren't mentally equipped to deal with more than a handful of iterations, we are told that a simple but limited interaction like a text exchange strictly needs the full infinite set to be definitive. For example, if you and a friend are tryin...
Post a Comment
Read more