Learning Module

Emerging Technologies

MEET YOUR LECTURER

RYAN JENKINS

Dr. Ryan Jenkins is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and a Senior Fellow at the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University. His research focuses on the potential for emerging technologies to enable or encumber meaningful human lives—especially artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, autonomous weapons, and driverless cars.

Dr. Jenkins has affiliations with the Center for Advancing Safety of Machine Intelligence (CASMI) at Northwestern University and the Karel Čapek Center for Values in Science and Technology in Prague. He is a former member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) TechEthics Ad Hoc committee and a former co-chair of the Robot Ethics Technical Committee of the IEEE’s Robotics and Automation Society. He has also served as a principal investigator or senior personnel for several grants on the ethics of autonomous vehicles, predictive policing, and cyber warfare.

His work has appeared in journals such as Techne, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, and Journal of Military Ethics, as well as public fora including the Washington Post, Slate and Forbes. His work has been cited in Daedalus, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Philosophy Compass. His interviews have appeared in The New Yorker, Inc. Magazine, Engadget, NPR, and elsewhere.

Dr. Jenkins earned his BA in Philosophy from Florida State University (Phi Beta Kappa) and his PhD in Philosophy from the University of Colorado Boulder. He earned the College of Liberal Arts’s Early Career Award for Achievement in Scholarship in Spring 2021.

Lessons

1.

Is Technology as “Neutral” as We Think It Is?

2.

Should Online Platforms Prevent the Spread of False Information?

3.

Should Online Platforms Censor Hate Speech?

4.

Are There Hidden Dangers in Robots that Look Like Us?

5.

Should We Use Killer Robots to Fight Our Wars?

6.

Do Drones Make War Too Easy?

7.

Will Autonomous Vehicles Live Up to Their Promise?

8.

Should We Worry about Our Diminishing Sphere of Privacy?

9.

Does Predictive Policing Make Us All Safer?

10.

What if Robots Did All the Work?

Module Introduction

All of our lives are shaped by technology every day, and increasingly, these technologies are structuring the opportunities we have to live, work, play, and relate to one another. As technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) creep further into our lives, the need is greater than ever for careful reflection on their nature and implications. This series of videos investigates technology, from its development and creation through to its deployment, and the range of effects it has on society.

Ryan Jenkins, Associate Professor of Philosophy and a Senior Fellow at the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, leads us through an exploration of the ethical dimensions of technology to help inject some nuance into our understanding of technology and its role in our lives.

It is commonplace, especially in the West, to flippantly suggest that our tools are merely neutral, with no values built into or embedded in them. True, technologies can be used for good or ill, and the person wielding the tool is a more obvious subject of moral appraisal. But human priorities, values, and beliefs help to answer the question of which technologies get made, why, and for whom. Is technology neutral? Is AI objective—or simply a more efficient (and opaque) way of making value-laden and biased decisions?

We also consider a series of questions about how technology mediates our views of the world. Does interacting with female voice assistants and seeing overly sexualized robots in movies and TV reiterate the bias that women are subordinate? Is censorship the answer to hate speech and rampant misinformation online? And what’s the value of free speech, anyhow? Should we be comfortable offloading the task of killing to machines, as we are already gradually doing in warfare? Could that make war too easy, or too undignified? Or are those kinds of concerns just silly moralizing?

Lastly, we survey a series of technologies and their effects on society. Should the government be allowed to surveil us? And is it acceptable that the police might use AI to forecast when and where crime takes place—or even who might be most likely to commit a crime in the future? What if autonomous vehicles turn out to be merely playthings for the rich, at the expense of the poor? Answering these questions requires going deeper into the nature and significance of values like privacy and justice. When AI and robots become sophisticated enough to replace most human labor, what will be left for us to do? Should we look forward to a utopia of leisure, or dread the ennui and poverty that could result?

What’s the best way of incorporating technology into our lives without sacrificing the deepest and most significant interactions and activities that make life worth living? We can only answer this question after rolling up our sleeves and delving into the philosophical foundations of our views, our tools, our selves, and their connection.

Learning Outcomes

Explain why it’s important for us to engage in serious ethical investigation as we decide which technologies to develop, how to deploy the technologies we do develop, and the extent to which the creation and use of these technologies should be regulated and modified in light of their societal effects.
Critique the common assumption that, while technological innovations might be used with the aim of promoting a given goal or perspective, they are in themselves merely neutral tools.
Marshal concrete examples to show how technology mediates our views of the world, of each other, and even of ourselves.
Describe how the advantages of technologies like drones and killer robots in warfare come with certain ethical costs and push us to reassess the meaning and value of “honor” in combat.
Draw informed conclusions about the ways the government and private media companies should be allowed to use technology in policing our actions and speech.
Analyze the multilayered ethical considerations that arise when we offload everyday tasks and jobs to automated technologies.
Explain why proper ethical examination of emerging technologies requires thinking more carefully about the nature and significance of key familiar concepts, such as data, honor, privacy, justice, free speech, and even work.

LESSON ONE

Is Technology as “Neutral” as We Think It Is?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Explain what’s meant by the idea that our technologies are simply “value-neutral tools” to help us live more effective, efficient lives.
Identify reasons to question the supposed neutrality of our technological tools.
Reflect on which values should guide us in designing a technology like Google’s search engine.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. Which of the following statements best captures this video’s assessment of the commonly held assumption that our technologies are simply “neutral tools” that help us to pursue our goals in more efficient and effective ways?

While our technological tools don’t currently live up to this neutrality assumption, technology creators could design truly neutral technological tools if they just start acknowledging that their values and biases affect their designs and then make an effort to neutralize these effects.

It’s impossible for our technological tools to be as neutral and objective as this assumption implies. We must recognize this fact and use it to help us make honest, conscious, and ethical decisions about which values and views to use as guides in designing our technologies.

Although our technological tools don’t currently live up to the neutrality assumption, such neutrality would be achievable if technology creators were not so driven by the desire to maximize profit.

Strictly speaking, it’s right to assume that there are no values or biases embedded in the cold, mechanistic devices, algorithms, and datasets themselves; but we have to face the fact that we humans are inherently incapable of using these technologies in neutral, unbiased ways.

Correct! Wrong!

2. Which of the following examples serves as the clearest evidence for the video’s claim that Google’s search engine is NOT a neutral tool that provides objective results?

Searching for “hotel nearest to the Taj Mahal” returns a very different selection of results than you get when searching for “hotel nearest to the Eiffel Tower.”

Searching for “how many atoms are in the universe” returns only a rough estimate of the total number of atoms in the universe rather than the specific, objectively true number of atoms.

Searching for “best movies to get over a breakup” returns results that are shaped by which websites have paid more to Google to optimize attention to their content from users with profiles and browsing histories similar to yours.

Searching for “are whales fish or mammals” yields results that all categorize whales as mammals, even though the definition of mammal is just something humans made up.

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. Consider a user who enters a Google search for “how to commit identity theft without getting caught.” Which of the following most nearly reflects your opinion on how the Google search engine should respond to such a search query?

Google should display the websites most frequently visited and liked by users who make similar search queries, BUT it should also flag and track the user, in case they’re later arrested for identity theft and the prosecution comes looking for evidence.
Google should display results based on which sites pay to be prioritized for such queries, regardless of whether these are sites of professional identity thieves for hire, sites that help identity theft victims to recover their lives, or anything in between.
Google should respond by displaying no instructions at all. Instead it should display a warning that identity theft is a crime subject to severe punishment, as well as a set of links to the heartbreaking stories of people whose lives were destroyed by identity theft.
Google should operate as a neutral tool, displaying results that give the easiest, safest, and most effective instructions, based on expert analysis of data from all known attempts at identity theft.

LESSON TWO

Should Online Platforms Prevent the Spread of False Information?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Specify several key concerns that lead many to call for online media companies to restrict false and misleading speech on their platforms.
Describe arguments that social media companies have given for refusing to censor the free speech of their users as a means of preventing the spread of false information.
Assess the reasons for and against censorship of online speech, and draw conclusions about how online platforms ought to deal with the increasing proliferation of falsehoods online.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. According to the video, the spread of falsehoods that results from unrestricted online speech is concerning in all of the following ways, EXCEPT:

It undermines everyone’s ability to form beliefs reliably.

It has ruinous effects on our democracy.

It forces us to develop stronger critical thinking skills.

It leads to more people believing in conspiracy theories.

Correct! Wrong!

2. Which of the following is one way that social media companies publicly defend their decision not to take more significant steps to prevent the spread of falsehoods and misinformation online?

Unlike traditional newspapers, our role is simply to provide platforms for public discussion, not to ensure that everything said in these discussions is truthful and reliably sourced.

We are profit-driven companies, and allowing people to say whatever they want on our platforms—especially extreme comments that provoke shock and controversy—is what’s best for our bottom line.

No one is actually gullible enough to believe the falsehoods and misinformation anyway.

We’re absolutely committed to free speech and would never agree to censor information, even if some authoritarian government required it as a condition of letting us distribute our products to its population.

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. How do you think online media companies should deal with the problem of false and misleading information being spread on their platforms?

The real problem isn’t all the false information; it’s people’s inability to distinguish truth from falsehood. So rather than simply assembling a small group of so-called experts to find and censor falsehoods before they spread, we must instead focus on building everyone’s skills in critical thinking and dialogue until we’re all experts, working the truth out together.
Although free speech is tremendously important, so is the need to protect individuals and society from the worst effects of viral misinformation. To balance these priorities, online platforms must give fairly wide latitude to free speech while censoring falsehoods that are particularly alluring and dangerous.
The solution to bad speech is more speech: rather than censoring presumed falsehoods shared by some users, online platforms should remain neutral forums, where other users can challenge these claims, using evidence and argumentation, and the marketplace of ideas can determine where the truth lies.
Free speech is great in a well-ordered society, but can turn pernicious in societies like ours, where there’s significant distrust, fear, and antipathy between people, and where malicious individuals and groups are eager to take advantage by manipulating others with their lies. Given our volatile situation, online platforms must work with the government to censor any speech whose falsehood threatens to make things worse.

LESSON THREE

Should Online Platforms Censor Hate Speech?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Describe the paradox of tolerance that challenges the viability of an absolute commitment to free speech.
Demonstrate the conceptual and ethical difficulty of defining hate speech, by showing how one social media company determined which groups are worthy of protection from such speech.
Articulate your position on whether online hate speech should be censored.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. The paradox of tolerance is the idea that:

A society that tolerates even the most extreme voices will gradually find itself dominated by extremely tolerant voices.

If we refuse to tolerate other people’s voices, they will refuse to tolerate ours.

The historical figures who have done the most to advance tolerance in society were actually quite intolerant people.

If we allow every voice into our public discourse, we’ll gradually find this discourse dominated by the most intolerant voices.

Correct! Wrong!

2. According to the video’s discussion of the leaked 2017 Facebook policy regarding which groups were classified for protection from hate speech, which of the following groups would have fallen into a protected class?

Muslim children

White men

Poor women

Spanish teachers

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. Should our commitment to freedom of speech include allowing people to express hateful, derogatory views about others online?

Yes. After all, the only way to actually overcome hateful views is to engage with them directly. What we really need are forums that foster more honest, respectful, and constructive dialogue among all sides of a dispute, even between people who start off hating and fearing each other.
Yes. Our commitment to free speech means little if we are not willing to grant this freedom even to people whose speech we strongly disagree with or find vile and offensive.
No. Our commitment to free expression requires us to create the necessary conditions for everyone to feel reasonably safe enough to discover, express, and develop their own perspectives. Creating such conditions for historically oppressed and marginalized people requires censoring the kinds of hateful voices that seek to sustain this oppression and marginalization.
No. Hateful speech that attacks the basic human dignity of others is fundamentally contrary to the principle of free speech, which is grounded in a respect for the moral dignity of every person.

LESSON FOUR

Are There Hidden Dangers in Robots that Look Like Us?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Define the concept and purpose of anthropomorphic framing in the design of robots and other technologies.
Explain why anthropomorphic design framing raises concerns about the intentional and unintentional perpetuation of social injustices, and compare alternative approaches to resolving these concerns.
Evaluate the arguments and express your judgment on how we should respond to the concerns raised about anthropomorphic design.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. What does it mean to say that engineers use anthropomorphic framing when designing robots?

Engineers who work on robot design tend to develop more robotic speech and behavior patterns in their everyday lives.

Engineers strive to design robots that have the capacity to accurately understand human speech and behavior.

Engineers try to design robots with human-like traits and behaviors.

Engineers design robots that meet the needs and interests of the humans these robots will serve.

Correct! Wrong!

2. If a company plans to use anthropomorphic framing in designing its robots, which of the following tactics is most likely to ensure that that company’s designs avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes of historically marginalized groups?

Ensuring that every design team includes a relevantly diverse range of perspectives

Reminding design team members to leave their unconscious biases out of the design room

Requiring that every robot made by the company looks exactly the same

Excluding from the design teams anyone with overtly bigoted views

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. In your estimation, what is the best way to address the highlighted social justice concerns of critics regarding anthropomorphic design in our technologies?

Critics raise reasonable points about how biases can unconsciously affect robot design, so we should make sure designers understand this issue, trusting them to recognize when their biases are in play and eliminate these troubling influences from their designs.
These concerns are quite serious, and we can’t simply leave it up to designers to fix the problem themselves; rather, we should establish independent ethical boards to review anthropomorphic designs and ensure that only designs that are free of stereotyped features are approved for production.
These concerns are serious, but top-down solutions, like ethical review boards, won’t work. Real progress on this problem will only come by ensuring that there’s enough diversity of experiences and perspectives within the design community that biasing influences will be identified and neutralized more easily and early in the design process.
The design of our robots, voice assistants, and the like play little, if any, role in perpetuating harmful stereotypes and social injustices, so there’s no reason to push for changes to accommodate the overblown concerns of these critics.
These critics point to a troubling and unavoidable problem with anthropomorphic design framing, so we should pursue the only real solution: we should stop designing robots, voice assistants, and other technologies to look, talk, and act in ways that mimic humans.

LESSON FIVE

Should We Use Killer Robots to Fight Our Wars?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Discern the potential practical and ethical advantages of using autonomous weapons (i.e., killer robots) rather than human soldiers to fight our wars.
Explain how an analogy between killer robots and sociopathic soldiers helps to illuminate a core ethical criticism of deploying killer robots as weapons of war.
Determine whether the advantages of killer robots outweigh the ethical concerns about using robots to do our killing for us.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. Which of the following is NOT cited by supporters as a potential advantage of relying on autonomous weapons rather than on human soldiers to conduct our wars?

Robots have the potential to be much faster, stronger, and more skilful fighters, and therefore much more likely to complete their missions successfully than human soldiers.

Robots can attack their targets with greater accuracy and precision than humans can, thus significantly reducing the number of non-combatants killed by mistake or as collateral damage.

Robots, unlike humans, are not susceptible to irrational prejudices or to emotions like rage and vengeance, which might undermine the success or moral quality of their mission.

Robots operate autonomously, so if a military force directs its killer robots to decimate an enemy population through a campaign of horrific atrocities, it can deflect moral outrage and war crimes charges by blaming it all on the “unfortunate” actions of a bunch of “rogue robots.”

Correct! Wrong!

2. What is the primary sense in which sociopathic human soldiers can be considered analogous to killer robots, as we reflect on the ethics of using robots to fight our wars?

Sociopathic soldiers, like killer robots, tend to be extremely intelligent warriors.

Sociopathic soldiers, like killer robots, are unusually brave fighters, who love combat and are ready to take part in even the toughest of battles.

Sociopathic soldiers, like killer robots, lack the capacity for moral judgment and remorse.

Sociopathic soldiers, like killer robots, can be absolutely counted on to follow orders and the chain of command.

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. As autonomous weapon technology becomes more and more advanced, do you think we should be willing to increasingly rely on killer robots to conduct our wars?

Yes. We should take advantage of what these killer robots can do, but we should stick to using them in limited ways, where the missions are straightforward and extremely unlikely to involve decisions that require moral reflection.
We should resist using killer robots for warfare until the technology has advanced enough that the robots are capable of feeling empathy and bearing moral responsibility for their actions.
No. We should never use autonomous robots as weapons of war.
Yes. If they can complete their missions more quickly, precisely, and decisively than human soldiers can—all while keeping our soldiers out of direct danger—we should eagerly deploy killer robots to fight our battles.

LESSON SIX

Do Drones Make War Too Easy?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Consider the advantages of drones in warfare, along with the reasons that critics oppose drone warfare as fundamentally worse than conventional methods of war.
Analyze the threshold argument against the use of drone warfare.
Express an ethical position on the increasing prevalence of drones in war.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. According to the video, which of the following is the strongest reason critics give when they argue that drones are fundamentally worse than conventional weapons of war?

Drones increase the likelihood of unjust warfare.

Drones cause excessive collateral damage.

Drone pilots who conduct lethal attacks often suffer from PTSD afterward.

Drones are especially expensive weapons of war.

Correct! Wrong!

2. Which is NOT a reason that drones are thought to reduce the threshold to war?

Compared to other military options, drones make war less expensive for taxpayers.

Most people in the world see targeted drone attacks as aggressions rather than acts of war, so they put up less resistance to drone warfare.

Drones allow a military force to engage in war with less danger to its own soldiers.

Drone warfare is less risky for politicians since it draws less attention and opposition from the electorate than conventional warfare does.

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. Which of the following statements best expresses your strongest opinion about the increased use of drones as weapons of war?

Drones are a great boon to warfare, and we should put them to use whenever possible. Not only do they make wars cheaper and less dangerous for our own soldiers, but their precision and low-profile operation also enable us to minimize collateral damage, as well as public attention and outrage.
Because drone warfare is, in various ways, so much less costly than conventional warfare, it makes war too easy. So, unless we’re prepared to wage more and more unjust wars, reprehensibly causing untold numbers of unnecessary deaths, we must strictly limit the use of drones in war.
It’s wrong to conduct war through remotely controlled aircraft operated by pilots sitting safely and comfortably in a room perhaps thousands of miles away, hunting down targets on their screens like it’s a video game, without genuinely understanding the moral gravity of their actions.
Drones are just another weapon of war, not fundamentally different from tanks, submarines, long-range missiles, or anything else. There are important ethical questions to ask about when and how to use drones in war, but drones don’t raise any significant ethical concerns that don’t also apply to other weapons.

LESSON SEVEN

Will Autonomous Vehicles Live Up to Their Promise?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Identify the potential benefits that lead many to see autonomous vehicles (AVs) as a highly promising technological innovation.
Articulate the concerns raised by critics who doubt that AVs will live up to their great promise, especially for people who aren’t wealthy.
Express your own perspective on how society should weigh the pros and cons of AVs, and what level of public oversight there should be in the further development of this industry.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. Which of the following is NOT a way that proponents expect AVs to benefit society?

Improving safety on the roads by replacing human drivers, whose distractibility, poor choices, and limited skills while driving currently lead to frequent injuries and deaths.

Provide human drivers with opportunities to contribute to scientific innovation by conducting road experiments, such as “playing chicken,” with AVs to discover flaws in their programming.

Increasing the availability of on-demand mobility, especially for those unable to drive themselves.

Leverage the ability of AVs to communicate with each other in order to reduce traffic congestion and allow us to get where we’re going more quickly.

Correct! Wrong!

2. The arguments in this video suggest that wealthier people are likely to disproportionately benefit from AVs in all of the following ways, EXCEPT:

Privately-owned AVs will likely be programmed to prioritize the lives of their own passengers, so the safety advantages enjoyed by these wealthier passengers could come at the expense of pedestrians, bicyclists, and others who can’t afford these pricier vehicles.

As AVs are increasingly adopted for passenger and commercial transportation, people who currently earn their living as drivers (driving taxis, buses, trucks, etc.) will lose their jobs and may struggle to find good alternatives for work.

Although the ability of AVs to communicate directly with each other will reduce traffic congestion on highways, these same vehicles could lead to increased congestion within city limits.

The proliferation of AVs for on-demand mobility will mean fewer resources get devoted to the upkeep and improvement of public transportation, and thus the gradual degradation of these services that are disproportionately used by the less wealthy.

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. Based on the potential benefits and concerns of AVs, which of the following most closely reflects your opinion of how society should proceed in adopting AV technology?

To maximize the benefits of innovation, choice, and efficiency in this industry, we should allow the market for this technology to operate without government regulation or other kinds of interference.
As this promising industry continues to grow, we must have a reasonable degree of government oversight to ensure that further developments aren’t left entirely in the hands of profit-driven AV companies.
The great potential benefits of AVs will only be fully realized if there are adequate government subsidies and regulation mechanisms in place to ensure that everyone who wants an AV can comfortably afford one that accommodates their needs.
While there are some attractive aspects of AVs, we should pause any further development of this industry and stick with human-driven vehicles, at least until we, as a society, properly assess the pros and cons of this potential shift and make a democratic decision about how to proceed.

LESSON EIGHT

Should We Worry about Our Diminishing Sphere of Privacy?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Explain the value of individual privacy and why the proliferation of surveillance technologies might therefore be a cause for concern.
Identify ways that the importance of privacy might be challenged and defended.
Express your perspective on the way that technology seems to be contracting our spheres of protected activities.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. In opposing the proliferation of surveillance technologies, proponents of privacy often argue that we need privacy because it gives us a sphere of protected activity. What is the most important thing about having this sphere of protected activity, according to these privacy advocates?

Society works best when everyone is protected from the intrusion of others while using the restroom.

It’s only within this sphere, with no one watching and judging what we do, that our moral character—or lack thereof—can truly show itself and be tested.

Without this sphere, we wouldn’t have any political rights.

This sphere allows us to experiment with different identities, helping us to develop into autonomous individuals.

Correct! Wrong!

2. Which of the following is NOT a way that supporters of surveillance tools usually respond to the concern that these tools present a threat to our individual privacy?

The widespread availability of surveillance technologies has significantly increased both safety and justice in society, which is well worth some losses in our privacy.

People who see privacy as such an important priority probably just don’t want to get caught doing things they shouldn’t be doing.

Surveillance technologies give us control over what people know about us, preventing the “chilling effect” that privacy has on our self-expression and personal growth.

While it’s fair to expect privacy in your home and other private spaces, there’s no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding the things you do and say in public.

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. In your view, how concerned should we be about the way that surveillance technologies are curtailing our privacies, and thus our spheres of protected activities?

Simply put, privacy is not as important as the boosts in safety, justice, and convenience that we gain as surveillance technologies become more prevalent, so there’s no reason to worry about this issue.
It’s possible that, at some point, developments will switch us onto a track that genuinely threatens our privacy, but as long as we keep an eye out for that possibility, we should be able to stay on the right track, continuing to enjoy the advantages of widespread surveillance technology without notable sacrifices to our privacy.
While the development and distribution of surveillance technologies has so far struck an acceptable balance between the advantages of these tools and the protection of privacy, there’s reason to be concerned that we’re rapidly approaching a point where further technological development will destroy our essential privacies.
Privacy is an essential right in a society that values freedom, democracy, and equality of persons, so we must take significant steps, not just to slow the progress of surveillance technologies, but to aggressively reverse the already excessive use of these tools.

LESSON NINE

Does Predictive Policing Make Us All Safer?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Describe the idea and purpose of predictive policing.
Explain how the historical crime data used as inputs for predictive policing might be shaped by biases, and why critics therefore warn that this approach to policing is likely to perpetuate certain kinds of prejudice and injustice.
Formulate a view on the proper role, if any, of predictive policing in creating a safer, more just, and more flourishing society.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. Which of the following best describes a primary goal of predictive policing?

Helping police officers to reduce the incidence of crime

Predicting which police academy applicants will become successful officers

Helping investigators to identify the perpetrator of an unsolved crime

Increasing the total number of police arrests

Correct! Wrong!

2. For predictive-policing technology to deliver fair and reliable predictions of the locations where greater police presence would most improve public safety and security, the historical crime data on which these predictions are based must themselves be objective records of information, unshaped by subjective bias. If (as many believe) these crime records have been shaped by human bias, which of the following historical biases is LEAST likely to have directly contributed to this problem?

Biases affecting which types of action were defined as crimes rather than as legally acceptable activities

Biases affecting which types of crimes were considered most important to solve, and therefore which kinds of suspects were most likely to get arrested and prosecuted

Biases affecting which kinds of criminal defendants were most likely to be found guilty by juries and judges

Biases affecting which crimes were classified as capital crimes, punishable by death

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. Should we support the greater use and innovation of predictive-policing technology by law enforcement?

Yes. It’s already a great technology, and it will only get better as we use and develop it further over time.
Although our datasets and algorithms aren’t yet objective and sophisticated enough to justify current uses of predictive policing, it’s a good idea that will eventually help us to prevent crimes in a highly effective way without perpetuating injustice.
While predictive policing sounds like a promising approach to crime prevention, its potential benefits will always be outweighed by its inevitable contributions to the perpetuation of injustice.
No. We should instead be directing our resources and innovation efforts at the root of the problem, working to transform the social and institutional conditions that push people toward unlawful activity.

LESSON TEN

What if Robots Did All the Work?

By the end of the lesson, you will be able to do the following:

Distinguish the kinds of work that increasingly can be done by advanced technologies, and understand why many find this move toward greater automation very promising.
Explain the value of work in our lives, and why critics see more peril than promise in the automation revolution.
Analyze the debate over the accelerating automation of work and assess the best path forward.

Watch

Comprehending the argument

1. Which of the following is NOT a reason that critics are concerned about the rapidly increasing automation of jobs?

Even people who find their jobs boring or unpleasant still feel a sense of purpose in being a contributing member of society through their labor.

Although people sometimes complain about things at work, most workers love their jobs and their coworkers, and would hate to have more paid time off to focus on their personal lives and projects.

As the gap grows between the many whose labor has been automated and the few whose work can’t (yet) be automated, the irreplaceable workers might start seeing the masses as a useless underclass, undeserving of equal social and political rights.

As automation deprives increasing numbers of people of the ability to contribute to society and earn a living through their labor, society is unlikely to provide these unemployed masses with the resources they need to live comfortable, happy lives.

Correct! Wrong!

2. Which job is LEAST likely to get replaced by robots in the near future?

Psychotherapist

Truck driver

Traffic cop

Accountant

Correct! Wrong!

Evaluating the argument

1. Which of the following best describes your opinion on how society should address the rapidly increasing automation of work?

Society must take full advantage of automation without worrying about the people who are unable or unwilling to adapt themselves to fit the jobs we still need humans to do. Like it or not, life is about survival of the fittest, and some won’t make it.
Society should embrace the economic efficiencies of automation without leaving anyone behind: anyone who loses their job due to automation should be given whatever retraining and other support they need until they can fill one of the growing number of non-automatable jobs in the changing economy.
Society should embrace automation, but use the tremendous productivity it provides to ensure that everyone has the resources and leisure time they need to live comfortable, fulfilling, and meaningful lives while putting in much shorter work weeks than they do now (usually for much less reward).
While there are advantages of more automation, it also presents far greater threats to individual flourishing and to the social fabric of society. So, we must proceed much more slowly and with much more public deliberation than we have done thus far.