Forum: Computer Science and Technology: What is wise technology?

If we assume technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself, then can we infer that wise technology would be one that leads to wise outcomes?  I'm interested in how to design technology that can either or both help us learn to be wiser, and actually be wiser in our outcomes whether we are wise ourselves. 

Sternberg's got a model of explicitly discussing wisdom to help us learn to be wise, so arguably a technology that supported us in making wise decisions in a process-scaffolding way would foster wisdom when coupled with some reflection.   

So how can technology help us be wise?  Going back to Sternberg's models (my background's psychology, so I find his easy to use but I'm open to other models, recommendations?), that would suggest that technology that supports us in determining outcomes might support us in considering both short- and long-term outcomes, and for not just ourselves and our immediate associates, but for society as a whole. And how do we address the values involved?  Do we predetermine them?  Bring in proposed sets?   

There's a subfield known as Decision Support Systems (often used in MIS style programs) which consists of systems that help one determine consequences for outcomes of a system - a crude example of this would be the "what-if" analysis available within certain spreadsheet programs.

If you believe that everything can be distilled into a set of numbers (since that is all computers work with, on a certain level), then a sufficiently comprehensive decision support system could, in theory, help with what you descibe.

Quinnovate:

If we assume technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself, then can we infer that wise technology would be one that leads to wise outcomes?  I'm interested in how to design technology that can either or both help us learn to be wiser, and actually be wiser in our outcomes whether we are wise ourselves. 

Sternberg's got a model of explicitly discussing wisdom to help us learn to be wise, so arguably a technology that supported us in making wise decisions in a process-scaffolding way would foster wisdom when coupled with some reflection.   

So how can technology help us be wise?  Going back to Sternberg's models (my background's psychology, so I find his easy to use but I'm open to other models, recommendations?), that would suggest that technology that supports us in determining outcomes might support us in considering both short- and long-term outcomes, and for not just ourselves and our immediate associates, but for society as a whole. And how do we address the values involved?  Do we predetermine them?  Bring in proposed sets?   

If the values that you speak of are just numbers, then they can be taught or trained (i. e., via a neural network) or in other ways they can be determined (see the rich literature in the field of optimization, which really is just a search for the right values). But if the values you meant are values - qualitative values - then if they can be addressed at all, then I'm not sure how - predetermining them is a possibility (most decision support systems have a goal of helping with cost estimates for the "what if" analysis - and so profit becomes what is valued).

You mention a process-scaffolding way of fostering wisdom. I presume this means a process that, upon having fostered some wisdom, would then be able to benefit from that wisdom to improve the process, and so on and so forth. Technologies often have fixed processes, except for those explicitly built upon higher-order logic (and there are a few of those), and so some non-traditional understandings of "technologies" might be worth considering. For example: humans appear to be capable of process-scaffolding (as I believe you mean it), and so perhaps the best "technology" is merely to engage in discussion with other humans. This involves "technologies" such as language (to discuss) and writing (to record histories, so we can learn from history, rather than repeating the mistakes of history), and so on. This suggests that technologies that foster discussion and writing might be some of what you're thinking of.

Blogging, perhaps?

NEW US PATENT ISSUED for the
TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS

A recently issued U.S. patent concerning ethical artificial
intelligence titled: Inductive Inference Affective Language
Analyzer Simulating AI (patent # 6,587,846) introduces the newly
proposed concept of the Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics: a system
which radically expands upon previous ethical-robotic systems. As
implied in its title, this patent represents the first AI system
incorporating ethical/motivational terms: enabling a computer to
reason and speak in an ethical fashion, serving in roles
specifying sound human judgement. These Ten Ethical Laws directly
expand upon Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, an earlier
Science Fiction construct that aimed to rein in the potential
conduct of a futuristic AI robot as rules that prohibit harm to
come to humans. Indeed, Asimov's first two laws state that (1) a
robot must not harm a human (or through inaction allow a human to
come to harm), and (2) a robot must obey human orders (unless
they conflict with rule #1). Although this cursory system of
safeguards proves intriguing in a Sci-Fi sense, it nevertheless
remains simplistic in its dictates, leaving open the specific
details for implementing such a system. The newly patented Ten
Ethical Laws fortunately remedy such a shortcoming, representing
a general overview of the enduring conflict pitting virtue
against vice: the virtues of which are initially partially listed
below:

Glory/Prudence           Honor/Justice
Providence/Faith         Liberty/Hope
Grace/Beauty              Free-will/Truth
Tranquility/Ecstasy      Equality/Bliss

Dignity/Temperance     Integrity/Fortitude
Civility/Charity          Austerity/Decency
Magnanim./Goodness     Equanimity/Wisdom
Love/Joy                    Peace/Harmony

The Ten Ethical Laws are written in a positive style of formal
mandate, focusing on the virtues to the necessary exclusion of
the corresponding vices. The purely virtuous mode (by definition)
is fully cognizant of the contrasting realm of the vices, without
necessarily responding in kind. Furthermore, the corresponding
hierarchy of the vices listed below contrasts point-for-point
with the respective virtuous mode (the overall patented system is
actually composed of 320 individual terms).

Infamy/Insurgency       Dishonor/Vengeance
Prodigal/Betrayal         Slavery/Despair
Wrath/Ugliness            Tyranny/Hypocrisy
Anger/Abomination      Prejudice/Perdition

Foolishness/Gluttony     Caprice/Cowardice
Vulgarity/Avarice         Cruelty/Antagonism
Oppression/Evil           Persecution/Cunning
Hatred/Iniquity             Belligerence/Turpitude

With such ethical safeguards firmly in place, the AI computer is
formally prohibited from expressing the corresponding vices,
allowing for a truly flawless simulation of virtue. Indeed, these
Ten Ethical Robotic Laws hold the potential for further
applications to a human sphere of influence, perhaps someday even
rivaling the closest competing system; namely, the Ten
Commandments. Although only a cursory outline of applications is
possible at this juncture, a more detailed treatment is posted
at: http://www.ethicalvalues.com/ A direct USPTO link is also found at -
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=6587846
The inventor is also available for interviews-clarifications
through the contact venues listed below.

#  #  #

EDITORIAL & INTERVIEW CONTACT:
John E.  LaMuth  -  M. S.
fax: 586-314-5960
P.O. Box 105  Lucerne Valley, CA   92356
http://www.ethicalvalues.com/

 I was very much meaning values as in ethics, morals, etc, not quantitative values in the system.  I was not thinking of having the computer do the value judgment, but instead having perhaps some form of process support (e.g. Gery-style Performance Support), such as a pop-up with just reminders to consider short/long term, others than just self or associates, and overall values.  One's self-selected (or, shudder, organizationally imposed) set of values.  

Interesting idea, cf the patent for ethics below, to have the system actually calculate the values (e.g. neural nets/genetic algorithms), but I'd want that juxtaposed with the opportunity for the human to make a differing judgment, I think.  

DSS is very much a likely locus for this.  Thanks for the reminder! 

Quinnovate:

Interesting idea, cf the patent for ethics below, to have the system actually calculate the values (e.g. neural nets/genetic algorithms), but I'd want that juxtaposed with the opportunity for the human to make a differing judgment, I think.

Greetings

Please excuse my oversight of not previously including the patented 10 Laws of Robotics (below)

Upon examination, it should prove clear that these apply equally well to humans (as well as AI agents)...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics

( I ) As personal authority, I will express my individualism within the
guidelines of the four basic ego states (guilt, worry, nostalgia, and
desire) to the exclusion of the corresponding vices (laziness, negligence, apathy, and indifference).

( II ) As personal follower, I will behave pragmatically in accordance with the alter ego states (hero worship, blame, approval, and concern) at the expense of the corresponding vices (treachery, vindictiveness, spite, and malice).

( III ) As group authority, I will strive for a personal sense of idealism
through aid of the personal ideals (glory, honor, dignity, and integrity)
while renouncing the corresponding vices (infamy, dishonor, foolishness, and capriciousness).

( IV ) As group representative, I will uphold the principles of
utilitarianism by celebrating the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice,
temperance, and fortitude) at the expense of the respective vices
(insurgency, vengeance, gluttony, and cowardice).

( V ) As spiritual authority, I will pursue the romantic ideal by upholding
the civil liberties (providence, liberty, civility, and austerity) to the
exclusion of the corresponding vices (prodigality, slavery, vulgarity, and
cruelty).

( VI ) As spiritual disciple, I will perpetuate the ecclesiastical tradition
by professing the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity, and decency)
while renouncing the corresponding vices (betrayal, despair, avarice, and antagonism).

( VII ) As humanitarian authority, I will support the spirit of ecumenism by espousing the ecumenical ideals (grace, free will, magnanimity, and
equanimity) at the expense of the corresponding vices (wrath, tyranny,
persecution, and oppression).

( VIII ) As a representative member of humanity, I will profess a sense of eclecticism by espousing the classical Greek values (beauty, truth,
goodness, and wisdom) to the exclusion of the corresponding vices (evil, cunning, ugliness, and hypocrisy).

( IX ) As transcendental authority, I will celebrate the spirit of secular
humanism by endorsing the humanistic values (peace, love, tranquillity, and equality) to the detriment of the corresponding vices (anger, hatred, prejudice, and belligerence).

( X ) As transcendental follower, I will rejoice in the principles of
mysticism by following the mystical values (ecstasy, bliss, joy, and
harmony) while renouncing the corresponding vices (iniquity, turpitude,
abomination, and perdition).

In essence, the instinctual terminology of instrumental conditioning provides an elementary foundation for a subjective hierarchy of the traditional groupings of virtues, values, and ideals. This innovation is further arranged as a hierarchy of metaperspectives – an ascending sequence of personal, group, universal, humanitarian, and transcendental power levels specialized into both authority and follower roles - as partially depicted below.

Nostalgia . H-Worship ......... Guilt . Blame
Glory …… Prudence .......... Honor . Justice
Providence . Faith ....…..... Liberty . Hope
Grace ……. Beauty ….... Free-will . Truth
Tranquility . Ecstasy ........ Equality . Bliss

Desire . Approval ............ Worry . Concern
Dignity . Temperance ...... Integrity . Fortitude
Civility . Charity ............... Austerity . Decency
Magnanim . Goodness .... Equanimity . Wisdom
Love . Joy .........………............ Peace . Harmony

Sincerely

John E. LaMuth M. S.

fax: 586-314-5960

Box 105

 Lucerne Valley, CA 92356

http://www.charactervalues.com
http://www.charactervalues.org
http://www.charactervalues.net
http://www.ethicalvalues.com
http://www.ethicalvalues.info
http://www.emotionchip.net
http://www.global-solutions.org
http://www.world-peace.org
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html

 Very much interested in this question - in my particular line of research, I want to know about wise technologies for (and by) children.  But I think there are two questions here, not just one. 

Quinnovate:

If we assume technology is a means to an end, not an end in itself, then can we infer that wise technology would be one that leads to wise outcomes?  I'm interested in how to design technology that can either or both help us learn to be wiser, and actually be wiser in our outcomes whether we are wise ourselves. 

This is one option that I see - technology that facilitates the development of wisdom in ourselves, or at least facilitates wise behavior.  Another option is technology that manifests wisdom in its design, i.e. an inherently wise technology because it operates with wisdom.  (Begs the question of what is wisdom, which we're all trying to answer, and whether wisdom has just one definition...I suspect not.)  Just as a possibility, I consider a computer's energy-saver/sleep mode to be an example of wise technology - it makes the right choice at the right time.  It would be even wiser if it learned from mistakes, like not to shut off when I'm watching a movie.  

This of course leads to a question of distinguishing between wise technology, wise designers, and wise use of technology.

I like your thought of technology that displays wisdom (begging the question of what is wise behavior).  In fact, such displays of wise behavior might serve as models of wisdom, but then we need to wrap around the reflection that turns it into a learning opportunity.  

My personal mission is looking at how technology might faciliate wisdom in us, either directly or, as you've led me to recognize, thru helping us make wiser decisions and adding some support for taking that as an example.

As to wise technology for kids, it might revolve around modeling actions based upon decisions that come from taking long-term perspectives and broad responsibility (e.g. energy-saving).   

But I think just manifesting wisdom is one thing, but fostering it is even more potentially powerful.  Beyond the individual situation, can we make it systemic? Could we layer wisdom across, say, the internet or even just the web?  Maybe the semantic web...

Consider the confirmation dialog box - the one that occurs when you go to close a document for which you haven't saved the most recent changes. This supports "wisdom" as you've defined it. But somehow, this is something we typically grow so accustomed to that we usually click past it without even thinking.

Far too often, what is intended to be a reminder of a wise thought becomes, through habituation, merely an annoying step that a person goes through in an unthinking manner. Far too often, I've found that people would be wiser in their use of technology if they would actually read what was presented to them on the screen and think about what it says. Far too often, when someone had a problem and asked me to help them with it, I'd ask them to tell me what they saw on the screen, and half of the time they'd not even finish that before they'd say "don't worry, I figured it out now"; the other half of the time, I'd then ask them "where, on this screen, do you think the functionality is that you are looking for?" and then, after just thinking for a little while, they'd get it.

On the one hand, we want technology that fosters wisdom in the sense of getting us to think about various important things - but on the other hand, we want technology that helps us do what we want to do faster, better, easier, and with less thought than before. These are in opposition.

I think the resolution to the opposition lies in the user, not in the technology (although the field of usability studies can certainly help here, I do believe).

What say you?

No to be flip, but it this vaguely reminds me of the old CS arguments: we should go back to punch cards to make programming language students think before coding, compiling, and running the debugger.  Seriously, I can think of all sorts of things we can do (vary the message, put in a timer, etc), but the fact of the matter is we should make as little as possible 'un-undoable', and then do our best to help them without interfering. And sometimes people will skip right past it (including me).   

If people are not taking the time, are in what Norman calls 'active cognition', it may not be the role of technology to try to force them into reflective cognition.  Good design says keep them from making errors, make recovery easy, and...?  Maybe just go back to teaching about wisdom.  Guess I'm agreeing with you...

However, if they're in reflective cognition, can we help them through technology then? 

I think a better analogy (because more people can relate to it) instead of using computer programming as an example of how to "force" people into "reflective cognition" is that of driving with a manual transmission instead of an automatic transmission.

The manual transmission requires a different level of understanding, and requires operating out of that understanding. The same task can be accomplished, and with enough experience/training, the operatings can take the same amount of time and may involve the same amount (or lack thereof) of "active" cognition.

There is, however, in both the example of the use of punch cards for computer programming, and in the example of manual transmission, the fact that the increased level of understanding that is required is one at a "lower" level - a level which is closer to the details of effecting the operation, and thus is further away from the goals/values/motivation behind wanting to accomplish the task in the first place.

I'm not trying to place a value judgment on that. There are some people who like, and who even take joy in, that sort of simpler "lower" level operation. To make a habit out of existing at that level, and to get used to doing so, makes it a little less easy to question the higher level. The more one works at the lower level, the more it becomes part of one's comfort zone, and the more questioning it seems threatening, because it is a change from one's comfort zone.

A good example might be the idea of reorganizing suburban America to rely more on public transportation than on driving via automobiles. Many people, when confronted with this, might claim it just isn't practical. There are many values, beliefs, and habits associated with this which feed in to why it seems impractical. Many of these are things which cause people to be in their comfort zones.

Thus, the exercise of wisdom occurs at some of the most fundamental aspects of technology: whether to use a particular technology or not.

But, once the choice of a technology - and thus, I'd claim, seemingly inevitably, the choice of a lifestyle based around using that technology (and don't think it doesn't separate lifestyles - I have heard many a person who drove a manual transmission vehicle say that everyone should at least learn how to, so that they can know the experience and be able to relate to those that are - passing a judgment on those that have only ever driven automatic transmission vehicles), is made, then there may be other places where wisdom comes into play.

You suggested "(e.g. Gery-style Performance Support), such as a pop-up with just reminders to consider short/long term, others than just self or associates, and overall values".

My reference to the confirmation dialog box example was to point out that a "pop-up with a reminder to consider short term" is something that people habituate themselves out of. In general, uninvited pop-ups seem to be something that people find interrupts the process of using the technology towards the end which they had in mind when they began to use it. It often seems as though once the task is chosen, reflection upon the wisdom of engaging in the task is inclined to stop. This suggests that the appropriate place (if anywhere) to put in possible reminders suggesting the consideration of "short/long term, others than just self or associates, and overall values" would be at the task-selection junctures. For example, if one usually leaves the keys to one's car at a particular location in one's residence, then to place something there that reminds the one who reaches for the keys to consider other forms of transportation.

Another example might be when one clicks on a "reply" button on a forum or within an e-mail program, to ask "Are you sure you really want to reply? Or could your energies be directed to better end elsewhere?"

The danger, of course, is that people may habituate themselves out of this. There's also the danger that these may not be the decision points in which they've decided upon the action. Perhaps it should be a tooltip that appears when moving the mouse over the reply button, or perhaps it should be when the person is reaching for their shoes - to ask if perhaps they should choose comfortable walking shoes so they could walk to work instead of drive.

How to envision a technology that truly does facilitate wisdom can, of course, be problematic. One might even be tempted to wonder if perhaps that is a question that should be defered until we have wide-spread adoption of humans being able to facilitate wisdom (in general, whatever a technology is developed for, it is something that humans reasonably perfected the ability to do before handing the task over to a machine, because otherwise we wouldn't know how to make the machine do it). 

 Anyway, these are just my thoughts. What say you?