A first speaker: Alex Stockberger
Technopolitics timeline of the "information society": they start it at the financial crisis of 2007 (! well, Austria's a big finace place...) Oh, no OK, that's when they started doing it, but they go back arbitrarily (his own term) at 1900. Edit & change, done in HK & California as well as European capitals.
They didn't like the term information society but wanted something freeing. Can make edits on postits.
I put bunch of Chowhurdy on my main account, follow both or the #tag #dighum #AIEthics
She does a great job of talking about everything practical you need to do that hardly anyone does. I'm not great at these kinds of points because I don't want to know people can't see this. Like the 1st point here on how "messed up" it is to have e.g. recent employees [presumably huge stock holders] be the new "independent" evaluator. Use the same standards as nuclear or even academia for independence!
#dighum Chowhurdy #digitalGovernance #AIRegulation
In the US IVOs are being mandated by states – independent verification organisations. No clear pathway to economic viability for IVOs, she calls for #AIAuditing to become boring.
Her final slide: Can you prove it?
In q&a she seems to be critiquing plurality in regulation, and justifies it with the google(r's, actually) moat leak, since GAFAM+ then tried to create political moats.
https://newsletter.semianalysis.com/p/google-we-have-no-moat-and-neither
OK, I've bounced to the third track. The speaker is trying to turn the conversation from public interest to public value which is actually more genius than it seems at first blush – let's quantify how we redistribute, not just say there's "interest" #dighum
pluto university of vienna
Joanna Bryson, blathering
