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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

On the Fringe - Michael Gordin *****

This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty. The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science. Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a n

A (Very) Short History of Life on Earth - Henry Gee *****

In writing this book, Henry Gee had a lot to live up to. His earlier title  The Accidental Species was a superbly readable and fascinating description of the evolutionary process leading to Homo sapiens . It seemed hard to beat - but he has succeeded with what is inevitably going to be described as a tour-de-force. As is promised on the cover, we are taken through nearly 4.6 billion years of life on Earth (actually rather more, as I'll cover below). It's a mark of Gee's skill that what could have ended up feeling like an interminable list of different organisms comes across instead as something of a pager turner. This is helped by the structuring - within those promised twelve chapters everything is divided up into handy bite-sized chunks. And although there certainly are very many species mentioned as we pass through the years, rather than feeling overwhelming, Gee's friendly prose and careful timing made the approach come across as natural and organic.  There was a w

Michael D. Gordin - Four Way Interview

Michael D. Gordin is a historian of modern science and a professor at Princeton University, with particular interests in the physical sciences and in science in Russia and the Soviet Union. He is the author of six books, ranging from the periodic table to early nuclear weapons to the history of scientific languages. His most recent book is On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience (Oxford University Press). Why history of science? The history of science grabbed me long before I knew that there were actual historians of science out there. I entered college committed to becoming a physicist, drawn in by the deep intellectual puzzles of entropy, quantum theory, and relativity. When I started taking courses, I came to understand that what really interested me about those puzzles were not so much their solutions — still replete with paradoxes — but rather the rich debates and even the dead-ends that scientists had taken to trying to resolve them. At first, I thought this fell under