The U.S. government used to study new technologies to flag ethical or social problems. Not anymore.
Last year, when the Food and Drug Administration approved an Apple Watch feature that notified users if they had an irregular heart rhythm, the information tech industry hailed it as a watershed moment in consumer-focused health care. Cardiologists, on the other hand, warned that the app could lead to privacy violations, unwarranted worrying and wasteful or even dangerous medical care.
One reason for the curiosity gap is that the United States no longer has a place to do that kind of technology review. The Office of Technology Assessment conducted 750 studies on topics ranging from biotechnology to robotics and fuel economy from 1972 until then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his allies shut it down in 1995.
In addition to the sale or breach or misuse of electronic data, other AI-related risks include the loss of jobs to AI or robots, and the unintended consequences of reliance on false or discriminatory AI algorithms. As it happens, there is a good precedent for the federal government stepping up to examine the ethical and legal issues around an important new technology. Starting in 1990, the National Institutes of Health set aside 5 percent of the funding for its Human Genome Project for a program known as ELSI—which stood for the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics research.
By contrast, there is no law—and only recently any public discussion—about how data companies use AI to generate financial and health risk scores on millions of Americans. These algorithms are being used to shape insurance policies and may affect doctors’ decisions, such as whether to prescribe a pain medication — all without consumers’ knowledge.
New developments in AI, by contrast, are often announced at flashy business presentations. And they are much harder to understand. Sometimes the engineers and scientists working on AI don’t even understand how the technology they’ve created is making decisions. Kohane is somewhat more skeptical of a big regulatory role for government. AI is not a coherent enough science to be regulated by a catch-all agency, and its risks to health and society are likely to be specific to particular contexts, he said.
Just as ELSI studies helped ease the introduction of genetic technology into medicine, they could improve understanding of the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods, digital health records—and AI, notes Brody.
Indonesia Berita Terbaru, Indonesia Berita utama
Similar News:Anda juga dapat membaca berita serupa dengan ini yang kami kumpulkan dari sumber berita lain.
Key Women's Heart Attack Symptoms Not So Different From Men's, AI Study FindsNew research finds that women are more likely to report multiple heart attack symptoms than men –– but the central one is overwhelmingly the same between both: chest pain. (commonhealth)
Baca lebih lajut »
What AI (Artificial Intelligence) Will Mean For The Cannabis SpaceTwo CEOs look at how the technology will impact regulation and quality control.
Baca lebih lajut »
This Startup Used AI To Design A Drug In 21 DaysHong Kong-based Insilico Medicine published research Monday showing that its deep learning system could identify potential treatments for fibrosis.
Baca lebih lajut »
120 million workers will need retraining due to AI—but they may already have the skills employers want mostAccording to a new report from IBM, an estimated 120 million workers worldwide will need to be retrained as a result of AI and automation within the next three years. Despite these projections, however, technical know-how isn't the most important thing employers want from their workforce.
Baca lebih lajut »
Supermajority at 51Fest with Cecile Richards, Katherine Grainger, Ai-jen Poo & Yoruba Richens – Women in the World
Baca lebih lajut »
https://www.instyle.comInStyle is the leading site for celebrity style. See expert fashion advice, star hairstyles, beauty tips, how-to videos and real-time red carpet coverage.
Baca lebih lajut »