Skip to main content

John Zerilli - Four Way Interview

John Zerilli was a Research Fellow at the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence in the University of Cambridge, and is now a Leverhulme Trust Fellow at the University of Oxford. He co-authored A Citizen's Guide to Artificial Intelligence.

Why AI? 

In a way, I fell into the field. My PhD was in cognitive science and philosophy, so I’d been familiar with some of the history of AI, and always understood these disciplines as complementary. (It’s sometimes said that cognitive science takes the mind to be a kind of computer, while AI takes the computer to be a kind of mind.) But I originally trained as a lawyer, and it just so happened that when I entered the academic job market in my mid-thirties, deep learning was getting lots of attention, including among legal scholars, social scientists and others concerned with the wider implications of advanced machine learning and big data. Almost overnight, postdoctoral fellowships began appearing for which suitable applicants had to demonstrate a background in either computer science, machine learning, cognitive science or data science, on the one hand, and public policy, law, philosophy or bioethics on the other. I seemed to fit the bill. A postdoc opened up in New Zealand (I was in Australia). I applied and was offered the job. From there I took up a fellowship at Cambridge, and now find myself in Oxford. 

Why this book? 

It became clear to me that while there’d been no shortage of books on specific social issues in AI, like discrimination and privacy, many of them excellent (Cathy O’Neil’s Weapons of Math Destruction, Shoshana Zuboff’s Surveillance Capitalism, and Virginia Eubank’s Automating Inequality all spring to mind), there was no all-round user-friendly guide to all the big issues: privacy and bias for sure, but also transparency, control, accuracy, safety, liability, employment, and regulation. Some of the earlier books also had the feel of investigative and even literary journalism. This style makes for an interesting read, but it doesn’t always make for the sort of precise, targeted, issue-by-issue dissection likely to be of use to people who just want to get up to speed quickly. 

Beyond that, my co-authors and I were keen for people to get a better grip on the technology than most trade books allow for. There’s definitely something to be said for keeping technicalities to a minimum. But big tech is about tech, and we thought citizens deserve more than a superficial acquaintance with it. Hence the idea for A Citizen’s Guide to Artificial Intelligence was born. 

What’s next? 

I love the field I work in, and that it draws so extensively on my philosophical, legal and cognitive science backgrounds. I’d like to contribute further to making AI a mainstream concern in moral and political philosophy. Developments in AI are posing questions that traditional philosophical answers in these areas aren’t always adequate to resolve. 

What’s exciting you at the moment? 

I’m particularly excited at the prospect of machine learning assisting our best scientists in the discovery of new medicines tackling everything from cancer to mental illness—and, of course, in tackling global warming.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Introducing Artificial Intelligence – Henry Brighton & Howard Selina ****

It is almost impossible to rate these relentlessly hip books – they are pure marmite*. The huge  Introducing  … series (a vast range of books covering everything from Quantum Theory to Islam), previously known as …  for Beginners , puts across the message in a style that owes as much to Terry Gilliam and pop art as it does to popular science. Pretty well every page features large graphics with speech bubbles that are supposed to emphasise the point. Funnily,  Introducing Artificial Intelligence  is both a good and bad example of the series. Let’s get the bad bits out of the way first. The illustrators of these books are very variable, and I didn’t particularly like the pictures here. They did add something – the illustrations in these books always have a lot of information content, rather than being window dressing – but they seemed more detached from the text and rather lacking in the oomph the best versions have. The other real problem is that...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Laws of Thought - Tom Griffiths *****

In giving us a history of attempts to explain our thinking abilities, Tom Griffiths demonstrates an excellent ability to pitch information just right for the informed general reader.  We begin with Aristotelian logic and the way Boole and others transformed it into a kind of arithmetic before a first introduction of computing and theories of language. Griffiths covers a surprising amount of ground - we don't just get, for instance, the obvious figures of Turing, von Neumann and Shannon, but the interaction between the computing pioneers and those concerned with trying to understand the way we think - for example in the work of Jerome Bruner, of whom I confess I'd never heard.  This would prove to be the case with a whole host of people who have made interesting contributions to the understanding of human thought processes. Sometimes their theories were contradictory - this isn't an easy field to successfully observe - but always they were interesting. But for me, at least, ...
Post a Comment
Read more