I’ve just spent the last three days reading Stuart Russell’s new book on AI safety, ‘Human Compatible’. To be fair I didn’t read continuously for three days, this is because the book rewards thoughtful pauses to walk or drink coffee, because it nurtures reflection about what really matters.

The Global Health Security Index which considers pandemic threats has just been published. Unfortunately NZ scores approximately half marks (54/100), coming in 35 ^th in the world rankings – far behind Australia.

The AI Forum of New Zealand has just published a report on AI and Health in the New Zealand context. The report trumpets some of the potential cost savings and efficiencies that AI will no doubt bring to the sector over the next few years. However, there are other interesting findings in the research report worth highlighting.

I recently published an academic paper about island refuges in extreme pandemics with my co-author Nick Wilson. The paper has become the focus of media attention, including articles by Newsweek, Fox News and IFLScience. Unfortunately, the key argument of the paper has been misconstrued in several reports.

In this post I aim to describe some of the ethical issues around the use of algorithms to make or assist decisions in recruitment and for managing gig employment. When discussing ethics we are trying to deduce the right thing to do (not the permissible thing, or the profitable thing, or the legal thing). AI in recruitment Consider Usha, who is a software engineer specialising in machine learning.

Guyon Espiner has written two pieces in the last week about Pharmac, New Zealand’s medicines buying agency. They can be found here and here. Both pieces read as attacks. Claiming that the ‘secret’ black box processes Pharmac uses to justify funding for some medicines and not for others is causing people to die. I do not work for Pharmac, and beyond being a citizen of New Zealand, I have no vested interest in how Pharmac operates.

AI, digital technology, and the future of work Over recent years a number of concerns about the future of work have been raised. Many concerns focus upon the ‘robots will take our jobs’ slogan. Commentators representing technology firms tend to disagree and argue that many more jobs will be created.

I want to draw attention to an interview in the Guardian I just read about surveillance capitalism and the allegedly illegitimate conquest of personal data by big digital firms.

In an AI Forum NZ newsletter yesterday Forum Executive Director Ben Reid said the following: “Last week, I was part of the delegation at the annual Partnership on AI (PAI) annual all-partners meeting in San Francisco… …One of the highlights for me was an open and frank speaker panel featuring Kiwi Facebook executive Vaughan Smith which discussed the emerging effects of AI on media and democracy,

This post is on what I consider to be the most pressing problem in the world today. I lay out the theory underpinning information pollution, the significance and trajectory of the problem, and propose solutions (see bullets at the end). I encourage you to persist in reading this post, so that we can all continue this important conversation. Introduction

Does AI driven micro targeting of digital content violate human rights? The UN says ‘yes!’ Last month the United Nations published a document on AI and human rights with a particular focus on automated content distribution. The report focuses on the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, which are often excluded from public and political debates on artificial intelligence.