And Then the Hammer Broke: Reflections on Machine Ethics from Feminist Philosophy of Science
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Explores the implications of machine vision systems from a feminist philosophy of science perspective
- Examines how the design and deployment of these systems can reflect and reinforce societal biases
- Argues for the importance of incorporating feminist values and principles into the development of machine vision technology
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the ways in which machine vision systems, which are used to process and interpret visual information, can reflect and perpetuate societal biases and inequalities. It approaches this issue from the perspective of feminist philosophy of science, which looks at how the values, assumptions, and power structures inherent in scientific and technological development can shape their outcomes.
The author argues that the design and deployment of machine vision systems often fail to account for the diverse experiences and perspectives of different groups, particularly women and marginalized communities. As a result, these systems can amplify existing biases and discriminate against certain individuals or groups. For example, facial recognition algorithms have been shown to be less accurate for women and people with darker skin tones.
The paper suggests that incorporating feminist principles, such as considering the needs and experiences of underrepresented groups and challenging dominant power structures, can help to create more inclusive and ethical machine vision systems. This could involve actively seeking diverse perspectives during the design process, as well as considering the broader societal implications of these technologies.
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by examining the concept of "the hammer" - the idea that when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The author suggests that this metaphor can be applied to machine vision systems, which often approach the world through a narrow, predetermined lens.
The paper then explores the philosophical concept of "God is dead, and it has killed itself," which the author uses to contextualize the rise of machine vision and its implications for moral and ethical reasoning. The author argues that as machine vision systems become increasingly powerful and ubiquitous, they are taking on a god-like role in shaping our understanding of the world, but without the same level of accountability or scrutiny.
The core of the paper focuses on the intersection of machine vision and moral philosophy, drawing on feminist approaches to science and technology. The author highlights how the design and deployment of machine vision systems can reflect and reinforce existing societal biases, particularly those related to gender, race, and other forms of marginalization. They also explore how the dominant paradigms and assumptions underlying machine vision development may limit its ability to recognize and address these biases.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the ethical and social implications of machine vision technology, and the need to incorporate feminist values and principles into its development. However, the author acknowledges that this is a complex and multifaceted issue, and there are no easy solutions.
One potential limitation of the paper is that it focuses primarily on the conceptual and philosophical aspects of the problem, without delving too deeply into specific technical or empirical details. While this approach allows for a more wide-ranging discussion, it may leave some readers wanting more concrete examples or case studies to illustrate the issues being raised.
Additionally, the paper does not fully address the practical challenges of incorporating feminist principles into the design and deployment of machine vision systems, such as the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, the difficulty of addressing deeply entrenched biases, and the potential trade-offs between inclusive design and technical performance.
Conclusion
The paper presents a thought-provoking examination of the ethical and social implications of machine vision technology from a feminist philosophy of science perspective. It highlights the importance of considering the diverse experiences and perspectives of different groups when developing these systems, and the need to challenge dominant power structures and assumptions that may be encoded into their design.
By encouraging a more critical and inclusive approach to machine vision development, the paper suggests that these technologies can be better aligned with feminist values of justice, equity, and empowerment. While the challenges are significant, the author argues that addressing them is crucial for ensuring that machine vision systems serve the needs of all members of society, rather than reinforcing existing inequalities.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
And Then the Hammer Broke: Reflections on Machine Ethics from Feminist Philosophy of Science
Andre Ye
Vision is an important metaphor in ethical and political questions of knowledge. The feminist philosopher Donna Haraway points out the ``perverse'' nature of an intrusive, alienating, all-seeing vision (to which we might cry out ``stop looking at me!''), but also encourages us to embrace the embodied nature of sight and its promises for genuinely situated knowledge. Current technologies of machine vision -- surveillance cameras, drones (for war or recreation), iPhone cameras -- are usually construed as instances of the former rather than the latter, and for good reasons. However, although in no way attempting to diminish the real suffering these technologies have brought about in the world, I make the case for understanding technologies of computer vision as material instances of embodied seeing and situated knowing. Furthermore, borrowing from Iris Murdoch's concept of moral vision, I suggest that these technologies direct our labor towards self-reflection in ethically significant ways. My approach draws upon paradigms in computer vision research, phenomenology, and feminist epistemology. Ultimately, this essay is an argument for directing more philosophical attention from merely criticizing technologies of vision as ethically deficient towards embracing them as complex, methodologically and epistemologically important objects.
Read more4/9/2024
🖼️
0
Attention is All You Want: Machinic Gaze and the Anthropocene
Liam Magee, Vanicka Arora
This chapter experiments with ways computational vision interprets and synthesises representations of the Anthropocene. Text-to-image systems such as MidJourney and StableDiffusion, trained on large data sets of harvested images and captions, yield often striking compositions that serve, alternately, as banal reproduction, alien imaginary and refracted commentary on the preoccupations of Internet visual culture. While the effects of AI on visual culture may themselves be transformative or catastrophic, we are more interested here in how it has been trained to imagine shared human, technical and ecological futures. Through a series of textual prompts that marry elements of the Anthropocenic and Australian environmental vernacular, we examine how this emergent machinic gaze both looks out, through its compositions of futuristic landscapes, and looks back, towards an observing and observed human subject. In its varied assistive, surveillant and generative roles, computational vision not only mirrors human desire but articulates oblique demands of its own.
Read more5/17/2024
➖
0
Debunking Robot Rights Metaphysically, Ethically, and Legally
Abeba Birhane, Jelle van Dijk, Frank Pasquale
In this work we challenge arguments for robot rights on metaphysical, ethical and legal grounds. Metaphysically, we argue that machines are not the kinds of things that may be denied or granted rights. Building on theories of phenomenology and post-Cartesian approaches to cognitive science, we ground our position in the lived reality of actual humans in an increasingly ubiquitously connected, controlled, digitized, and surveilled society. Ethically, we argue that, given machines current and potential harms to the most marginalized in society, limits on (rather than rights for) machines should be at the centre of current AI ethics debate. From a legal perspective, the best analogy to robot rights is not human rights but corporate rights, a highly controversial concept whose most important effect has been the undermining of worker, consumer, and voter rights by advancing the power of capital to exercise outsized influence on politics and law. The idea of robot rights, we conclude, acts as a smoke screen, allowing theorists and futurists to fantasize about benevolently sentient machines with unalterable needs and desires protected by law. While such fantasies have motivated fascinating fiction and art, once they influence legal theory and practice articulating the scope of rights claims, they threaten to immunize from legal accountability the current AI and robotics that is fuelling surveillance capitalism, accelerating environmental destruction, and entrenching injustice and human suffering.
Read more4/17/2024
🤖
0
Epistemic Power, Objectivity and Gender in AI Ethics Labor: Legitimizing Located Complaints
David Gray Widder
What counts as legitimate AI ethics labor, and consequently, what are the epistemic terms on which AI ethics claims are rendered legitimate? Based on 75 interviews with technologists including researchers, developers, open source contributors, and activists, this paper explores the various epistemic bases from which AI ethics is discussed and practiced. In the context of outside attacks on AI ethics as an impediment to progress, I show how some AI ethics practices have reached toward authority from automation and quantification, and achieved some legitimacy as a result, while those based on richly embodied and situated lived experience have not. This paper draws together the work of feminist Anthropology and Science and Technology Studies scholars Diana Forsythe and Lucy Suchman with the works of postcolonial feminist theorist Sara Ahmed and Black feminist theorist Kristie Dotson to examine the implications of dominant AI ethics practices. By entrenching the epistemic power of quantification, dominant AI ethics practices -- employing Model Cards and similar interventions -- risk legitimizing AI ethics as a project in equal and opposite measure to which they marginalize embodied lived experience as a legitimate part of the same project. In response, I propose humble technical practices: quantified or technical practices which specifically seek to make their epistemic limits clear in order to flatten hierarchies of epistemic power.
Read more4/19/2024