Vergangene Termine
- 2021-04-14T18:15:00+02:00
- 2021-04-14T19:45:00+02:00
Versöhnung in interdisziplinärer und interkultureller Perspektive
Die Gegenwart ist geprägt durch militärische, religiöse und ökonomische Konflikte auf der einen Seite und zunehmende private Konflikte auf der anderen Seite. Gleichzeitig hat der Wunsch nach Versöhnung Konjunktur. Aber was bedeutet „Versöhnung“ in unterschiedlichen Kulturen und zu verschiedenen Zeiten? Historiker, Soziologen, Philosophen und Theologen setzen sich in einer neuen Ringvorlesung an der Universität Bonn mit dem Schlüsselbegriff "Versöhnung" auseinander und begeben sich auf eine Reise durch historische und aktuelle Konfliktzonen. Die öffentlichen Vorträge finden ab jetzt bis zum 21. Juli jeden Mittwoch von 18.15 bis 19.45 Uhr digital über das Konferenzsystem Zoom statt.
- 2021-04-14T18:15:00+02:00
- 2021-04-14T19:45:00+02:00
Vortrag: ‚Theoretische Grundlagen des Versöhnungskonzepts‘
Teil der Ringvorlesung "Versöhnung in interdisziplinärer und interkultureller Perspektive" (Prof. Dr. Hans-Georg Soeffner) Die Ringvorlesung bietet eine Exkursion durch historische und aktuelle Konfliktzonen, in denen sich Potentiale zur Versöhnung abzeichnen. Case Studies zeigen sowohl Tiefenstrukturen‘ (Noam Chomsky) von Konfliktkonstellationen als auch ,Oberflächenstrukturen‘ der Konfliktbearbeitung in historisch, kulturell oder religiös variierenden Formen, zu denen Versöhnung, aber auch alternative Strategien und Modelle der Konfliktlösung gehören. Die Fallstudien der Vorlesungen sind kontrastiv, geschichts-, kultur- und religionsvergleichend ausgelegt.
- 2021-04-12T10:00:00+02:00
- 2021-04-12T11:45:00+02:00
Meeting KI-Postdocs: ‘Meaningful Human Control’
"A conceptual analysis" (Dr. Scott Robbins) Meaningful human control (MHC) is an oft-used phrase in the ethical literature on artificial intelligence (AI). But what is meaningful human control (MHC)? Let’s break that phrase down because it is quite ambiguous.
- 2021-03-29T10:00:00+02:00
- 2021-03-29T11:45:00+02:00
Meeting KI-Postdocs: ‘Taming Superintelligence’
"Governing global change through AI safety" (Dr. Apolline Taillandier) This presentation focuses on the recent history of “AI safety,” understood as a set of strategies for mitigating long-term AI risk. AI safety brings together computer science and policy expertise: while some AI safety researchers have redesigned algorithmic training methods for ensuring control over the goals or behavior of “human-level” AI, or systems with “artificial general intelligence,” (AGI) AI safety policy experts have developed scenarios and metrics of AI progress in order to anticipate and prepare for uncertain technological breakthroughs through specific models of governance. I show how AI safety expertise intersects transhumanist debates about the singularity and the possibility to predict and tame the emergence of a posthuman kind of intelligence; economic models of rational behavior in computer science; and a realist model of global security >as a product of interest-based cooperation and alignment.
- 2021-03-22T10:00:00+01:00
- 2021-03-22T11:45:00+01:00
Meeting KI-Postdocs: ‘An optimistic view on the merging with AI?'
"On Self- building technologies" (Dr. Charlotte Gauvry) The recent literature has convincingly demonstrated certain perverse effects of what has been called the “merging with AI.” Susan Schneider (2019) even argued that different merging techniques, for example the implantation of silicon chips in our brains, could lead to a dissolution of our selfhood. In my talk, I propose to discuss this hypothesis based on a recent provocative article by François Kammerer, which considers, on the contrary, the possibility of "self-building technologies:"artificial technologies (paradigmatically some digital app) would actually allow us to “strengthen our selfhood.”
- 2021-03-22T10:00:00+01:00
- 2021-03-22T11:45:00+01:00
Meeting KI-Postdocs: ‘What Machines Shouldn´t Do'
"Meaningful Human Control over the Evaluative" (Dr. Scott Robbins) In an increasingly autonomous world, it is becoming clear that one thing we cannot delegate to machines is moral accountability. Machines cannot be held morally accountable or responsible for their actions. This becomes problematic when a machine has an output that has a significant impact on human beings. Examples of machines that have caused such impact are widespread and include machines evaluating loan applications, evaluating criminals for sentencing, targeting and killing people, driving cars, and whatever digital assistants are supposed to do. The question that governments, NGOs, academics, and the general public are (or should be) asking is: how do we keep meaningful human control (MHC) over these machines? I argue that keeping meaningful human control over machines cannot be achieved without restricting the decisions we delegate to machines to the descriptive.
- 2021-03-15T10:00:00+01:00
- 2021-03-15T11:45:00+01:00
Meeting KI-Postdocs: ‘Supersizing Confirmation Bias’
(Dr. Uwe Peters) The hypothesis of extended cognition (HEC), i.e., the view that the realizers of mental states or cognition can include objects outside of the skull, has received much attention in philosophy. While many philosophers have argued that various cognitions might extend into the world, it has not yet been explored whether this also applies to cognitive biases. Focusing on confirmation bias, I argue that a modified version of the original thought experiment to support HEC helps motivate the view that this bias, too, might extend into the world. Indeed, if we endorse common conditions for extended cognition, then there is reason to believe that even in real life, confirmation bias often extends, namely into computers and websites that tailor online content to us.
- 2021-03-15T10:00:00+01:00
- 2021-03-15T11:45:00+01:00
Meeting KI-Postdocs: 'Proxyeconomics and Goodhart's Law'
"The downside of optimization" (Dr. Oliver Braganza) Competitive societal systems by necessity rely on imperfect proxy measures. For instance, profit is used to measure economic value, the Journal Impact Factor to measure scientific value, and clicks to measure online engagement or entertainment value. However, any such proxy-measure becomes a target for the competing agents (e.g. companies, scientists or content providers). This suggests, that any competitive societal system is prone to Goodhart’s Law, most pithily formulated as: ‘When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure’. Purported adverse consequences include environmental degradation, scientific irreproducibility and problematic social media content. The talk will explore the notion that a systematic research program into Goodhart’s Law, nascent in current AI-safety research, is urgently needed, and will have profound implications far beyond AI-safety.
- 2021-03-10T09:30:00+01:00
- 2021-03-10T16:00:00+01:00
Workshop: "Semantisierung in Zukunftsdiskursen"
Die „Großen Herausforderungen“, wie die Folgen des Klimawandels, die Frage nach Mobilität und Migration sowie die rasanten Veränderungen der Gesellschaft durch Digitalisierung und Künstliche Intelligenz betreffen alle Menschen. Die Frage nach der angemessenen Wahrnehmung, Beschreibung, und Deutung dieser Phänomenkomplexe ist zentral, denn bereits ihre Semantisierung formiert durch die Nutzung bestimmter Konzepte, Kategorien, Sprachbilder und Wertungsmuster mögliche Akteur*innen und Handlungsräume. Verschiedene Semantisierungen führen so zu jeweils bestimmten Vorstellungen von Agency und Integrität innerhalb der aufgemachten Zukunftsszenarien. Genau dieses Verhältnis soll im Projekt untersucht werden. Innovativ ist dabei die analytische Verbindung der Begriffe Semantisierung, Agency und Integrität.
- 2021-02-05T11:00:00+01:00
- 2021-02-05T11:30:00+01:00
Vorstellung: 'TRA 4'
Teil der dritten Forschungskonferenz der Philosophischen Fakultät Sprecher: Prof. Dr. Thomas Dohmen, Prof. Dr. Clemens Albrecht