Just published: The socio-economic argument for the human right to internet access
Abstract: This paper argues that Internet access should be recognised as a human right because it has become practically indispensable for having adequate opportunities to realise our socio-economic human rights. This argument is significant for a philosophically informed public understanding of the Internet and because it provides the basis for creating new duties. For instance, accepting a human right to Internet access minimally requires guaranteeing access for everyone and protecting Internet access and use from certain objectionable interferences (e.g. surveillance, censorship, online abuse). Realising this right thus requires creating an Internet that is crucially different from the one we currently have. The argument thus has wide-ranging implications. https://tinyurl.com/56jp4hra
Enjoyed this publication and discussion with Michael. There is much to discuss - as you both stated - regarding generative AI and its implications for healthcare. I still feel both the ethical and moral implications of AI have not been considered enough. Also, the social-political aspect - which Dave touched upon - needs to be discussed much more. Who will be in control of the workings and data created and collected by the software? Furthermore, capitalism - Silcon Valley being in the heart of it - certainly lends itself to potential corruption and exploitation in pursuit of the dollar.
So much potential for AI if only we could ensure its development and implementation is for the betterment of society, the impoverished, and our environment, and our future.
Thanks as always, Erik. Tony Benn, an English politician, used to say that the reason you want governments running things is that you can have democratic elections and un-elect them if you don't like what they've done. You can't do that with private companies whose loyalties are not to you but to their shareholders. LLMs are being projected as politically neutral civil servants but the decision-making that frames how they work, whose interests they serve, and whose voices they deny cannot be interrogated because, unlike public bodies, they aren't in the public domain. Which is pretty scary when you think about how much they're now going to shape our lives. Why didn't we get a say, a vote, as a global community, in deciding whether we wanted all of this new processing power (and carbon debt) levied on our grandchildren's futures, for instance?
Just published: The socio-economic argument for the human right to internet access
Abstract: This paper argues that Internet access should be recognised as a human right because it has become practically indispensable for having adequate opportunities to realise our socio-economic human rights. This argument is significant for a philosophically informed public understanding of the Internet and because it provides the basis for creating new duties. For instance, accepting a human right to Internet access minimally requires guaranteeing access for everyone and protecting Internet access and use from certain objectionable interferences (e.g. surveillance, censorship, online abuse). Realising this right thus requires creating an Internet that is crucially different from the one we currently have. The argument thus has wide-ranging implications. https://tinyurl.com/56jp4hra
Enjoyed this publication and discussion with Michael. There is much to discuss - as you both stated - regarding generative AI and its implications for healthcare. I still feel both the ethical and moral implications of AI have not been considered enough. Also, the social-political aspect - which Dave touched upon - needs to be discussed much more. Who will be in control of the workings and data created and collected by the software? Furthermore, capitalism - Silcon Valley being in the heart of it - certainly lends itself to potential corruption and exploitation in pursuit of the dollar.
So much potential for AI if only we could ensure its development and implementation is for the betterment of society, the impoverished, and our environment, and our future.
Thanks as always, Erik. Tony Benn, an English politician, used to say that the reason you want governments running things is that you can have democratic elections and un-elect them if you don't like what they've done. You can't do that with private companies whose loyalties are not to you but to their shareholders. LLMs are being projected as politically neutral civil servants but the decision-making that frames how they work, whose interests they serve, and whose voices they deny cannot be interrogated because, unlike public bodies, they aren't in the public domain. Which is pretty scary when you think about how much they're now going to shape our lives. Why didn't we get a say, a vote, as a global community, in deciding whether we wanted all of this new processing power (and carbon debt) levied on our grandchildren's futures, for instance?