[Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research

Mon Nov 22 12:59:40 EST 2021

Well stated, in my view. Pointedly applicable, to all.

In the US, we currently – on the political front – have the poster child for how NOT to do it. Two sides, opposite each other across the ramparts, fling verbal firebombs back-and-forth. There is no communication. Only crass, ugly, stupid people who suppose they are accomplishing something by their childish verbal antics.

When in fact only an unbreachable divide grows higher.

To move away, from entrenched bunker mentality, to a better place, means a shift in mindset. For all.

Out of the defensive posture, in the bunker. To a space, in the mindset, open to learn what those with opposite views may – surprise, surprise – bring as insight. Which those with opposite persuasion had not yet seen.

Where all may contribute. A common view may, or may not, emerge. But, there will be adult conversation that offers the prospect for thinking forward.

And we might hold our head up as a respectable forum.

David

> On Nov 22, 2021, at 11:20 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> A prerequisite for a productive discussion is the avoidance of loaded language and polemic in defining whatever the topic of discussion is.   
> 
> 
> --srs
> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 9:12:04 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>  
> Discussion, as we all know, is about putting forth evidence and logic and inviting a response. Respectfully. Appreciating and hoping for civil dialogue, in an ongoing stream.
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On Nov 22, 2021, at 10:28 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> These two paragraphs 
>> 
>>  big tech in the same vein as big lumber big whatever - a negative characterisation of an evil and monopolistic cartel, just to start with 
>> “Handing over tech governance”? In a multi stakeholder environment it is inevitable that one organisation may be better equipped than another in terms of technical expertise, background in specific policies or whatever else. Is the solution to that developing capacity oneself, or just complaining that tech governance is “handed over” to whichever organisation participates more in the process and has an actual stake in terms of time, people and money invested to participate?
>> This entire attitude smacks of othering. I am glad to be proved wrong.
>> If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently..
>> 
>> But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --srs
>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>>
>> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2021 8:42:12 PM
>> To: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu <mailto:david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu> <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu <mailto:david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>>  
>> David, when the entire point of a long screed posted to this list is simply to “other” specific groups and deny their right to participate in any particular activity, besides insiting on civil society primacy [which sections of civil society is the next interesting question to ask], there is no scope for thoughtful exchange rather than rejection of the views in question.
>>  
>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of david_allen_ab63--- via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Date: Monday, 22 November 2021 at 8:35 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>> 
>> Yes, on which side, machine or …?
>>  
>> It would be nice to see thoughtful exchange among different views, something that could not only enlighten discourse but make this forum proud for the quality of dialogue it engenders. Rather than reflexive few-line sniping, and unfortunately even ad hominem drivel that disgraces the forum.
>>  
>> David
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 22, 2021, at 12:25 AM, Mueller, Milton L via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>> wrote:
>>  
>> Suresh passes the Turing test
>>  
>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 3:21 AM
>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>>  
>> I’m asking you a simple question. You say civil society needs a stake in it. I can see where AI ethicists like Frances Haugen very definitely have a stake. What I also see is a blanket statement rejecting any right for industry or government to have a stake in it, and asking for civil society to step up. Step up and do what and with what capacity?
>>  
>> --srs
>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org>> on behalf of parminder via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 12:49:51 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>>  
>> I think I may be excused to think that Suresh Ramasubramanian is a bot that dutifully acts within 60 minutes of my every posting to this list, to trash it, choosing some random part of my message and aligning it with some criticism selected from publicly available  data :) ... 
>>  
>> List managers, any way such bots can be  turned off :)  ... thanks, parminder 
>>  
>>  
>> On 21/11/21 12:41 pm, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
>> Poor developing country? I’m kind of scared about big data in this current Indian government’s hands even more than they currently have access to, which with aadhaar is a lot.  
>>  
>> Given the uses to which voter data has already been put nearly two decades back .. https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms <https://m.timesofindia.com/india/misuse-of-voters-list-in-gujarat-riots-alleged/articleshow/3541858.cms>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> --srs
>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of parminder via Governance<governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2021 11:56:26 AM
>> To: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>>  
>> Milton, happy to respond to substantive points, but disappointed that you chose to attack this outstanding article on extraneous even ad hominem grounds. I'd come to them in a different email, not to distract from main points.
>>  
>> You ask in the end. "What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?"
>>  
>> I thought Meredith had made both absolutely clear. the problem especially, which is extremely profound and disturbing, and also her 'solution' (focused on tech employees and academics), which btw I do not think is adequate.
>>  
>> The problem is that in a world where AI is set to become a prime force determining much in all walks of life, it is nearly impossible to do any AI research without Big Tech weighing down heavily on it. Whether it be about how our education processes and content should be determined, to the basis of public health strategies, to almost everything. I find it incredulous that you see no problem in this. Meredeth herself points to the time when military had an extra-ordinary say in a lot of scientific and technical research, and she calls it a 'dark history' from which we should take lesson. But then at least even if technologies like Internet and others were born in defense labs, when theses technologies and applications entered our lives, these were mediated by business and others, which meant a useful division of power in determining the directions of development and use of these technologies. But today, from framing questions, to research to application to feedback, it is a single Big Tech captured system. That, dear Milton, is the problem. It is just that we do not want commercial logic of a few Big Tech owners to determine the future of the world and humanity, whether this disturbs you at all or not. 
>>  
>> Access to all the needed data, it, along with means of collecting it, all being with Big Tech is the biggest problem, even bigger than high computational power, which with the help of public resources may still be able to be mustered. But all data and its mining shafts are captive with Big Tech. That is one of the biggest contemporary problem, and many have recognized it as such.
>>  
>> To which your flippant response is: "Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states?"
>>  
>> Well, no, that is not what we want. 
>>  
>> Your next, rhetorically meant ,question is in fact more to the point: " Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? "
>>  
>> No, we do not fantasize. There is real work happening on this. 
>>  
>> I see two ways of doing it - both being actively pursued by many worthwhile actors.
>>  
>> (1) Making many kinds of data sharing mandatory for Big Tech. So that data they collect from the society is mandated to be contributed in a social commons that all or many can use. I know you would consider this fantastical. But India's committee on data governance framework has laid out elaborate legal basis as well as practical implementation means for achieving it. (Disclosure: I am a committee member). This is the second draft report <https://ourgovdotin.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/revised-report-kris-gopalakrishnan-committee-report-on-non-personal-data-governance-framework.pdf>, but the final one, quite a bit better, will be out soon. But I know how youd treat a policy document from a poor, developing country like India. So I may inform you that within a few months EU will be coming out with its Data Act that will contain some mandatory data sharing provisions. Apart from it, the EU is working on many projects to ensure sector wide data availability and sharing, like its GAIA-X project.
>>  
>> One of the man objectives of wide data sharing through the above means is to decentralise digital business concentration with a few Big Tech. It also works the other way which brings me to my second point.
>>  
>> (2) Breaking up big tech by various legal means -- employing platform- dependent actors separation (Lisa Khan and in India's ecom law) or in other ways ( see for instance our paper on 'Separating data, cloud and intelligence layers <https://datagovernance.org/report/breaking-up-big-tech-separation-of-its-data-cloud-and-intelligence-layers>' )  .... Even the US is mulling new laws to curb Big Tech's power and ensure more competition, as are many other jurisdictions. Enforcing platform interoperability is a good way to break platform power concentration (we are working on a proposal to do so for social media platforms to start with, while India's commerce ministry has a group to develop a platform for e-com interoperability) ... Once you have a multiplicity of actors and platforms in any sector, instead of a monopoly or two, it mitigated the problem of data availability, as well as of concentrated control over AI research..
>>  
>> parminder 
>>  
>>  
>> On 21/11/21 12:08 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>> I look at this article and see no measurements or even qualitative estimates of the sources of AI funding, the share controlled by "big tech" as opposed to universities,  government civilian research institutes, or by governmental military projects. 
>>  
>> All I see are assertions that everything is under the control of "big tech" - although there are useful notes about how governments - not big tech - are now pouring money into "AI" research based on a narrative about geopolitical military competition. And our project (IGP) has already sounded the alarm about Schmidt's and the U.S. military's attempt to make AI research into a "race" with the Chinese. More specifically, they are aiming at "AI supremacy," a rather scary term in our opinion, but in that case the source of the problem is nation-state competition not a demonized big tech.
>>  
>> The author, Meredith Whitaker, ironically, is a former Google employee and sang a quite different tune when she participated in multistakeholder IG organizations in that capacity. 
>>  
>> This article may be worth paying attention to, but it's not research, it wasn't written by a scholar, it's basically an opinion piece upholding the advocacy views of the organization Meredith now works for, whose position is that big tech is bad and should be controlled more by people like, uh, Meredith and Tristan Harris and Francis Haugen.
>>  
>> I'd also remind you not to be manipulated by framing. AI is basically software interacting with large data sets. The idea that commercial platforms who generate and collect lots of data and provide software applications and tools to billions of users are at the forefront of AI research should surprise or shock no one. It's like saying that EV companies are at the forefront of battery research. Would we feel better if all the data was being collected and research done by nation-states? Or do we fantasize about the large amounts of capital and data somehow being magically in the hands of "the people"? In what institutional capacity? 
>>  
>> Is the message that we are supposed to be against AI research per se? Or to eliminate big tech companies altogether? Or to be against "capitalism" because, well,  the Chinese Communist Party does so much nicer things with big data and does such a better job controlling its tech companies? Is the goal to "regulate" big tech? If so, how, exactly, and how does that prevent tech/data firms from being at the forefront of AI research anyway? What exactly is the problem being identified here and what is proposed as the solution?
>>  
>> Thoughts to consider as we prepare to meet in IGF 😉 
>>  
>> Dr Milton L Mueller, Professor
>> School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>> Internet Governance Project <https://internetgovernance.org/> 
>>  
>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of Suresh Ramasubramanian via Governance <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 5:21 AM
>> To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>; governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>>  
>> In other words, civil society needs to work on its own AI, and on AI ethics, as a multi stakeholder effort. Are you aware of any such efforts?  Or do you plan to launch such an effort?
>>  
>> From: Governance <governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance-bounces at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of parminder via Governance<governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Date: Friday, 19 November 2021 at 3:20 PM
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> Subject: [Governance] How strongly captured by Big Tech is the field of AI research
>> 
>> An excellent and eye opening article in ACM's journal on how strongly captured by Big Tech most AI research is today. There also seem not many alternatives on the horizon.
>> https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture <https://interactions.acm.org/archive/view/november-december-2021/the-steep-cost-of-capture>
>> If AI is the future, and everything AI is shaped by the Big Tech, then public interest actors of the world have something that must be addressed urgently..
>> But many apparently are busy handing even tech governance spaces over to Big Tech, so nothing ever comes in the latter's way.
>> parminder 
>> -- 
>> Governance mailing list
>> Governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:Governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
>> https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance <https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20211122/43746fee/attachment.htm>