TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    Education

    Philosophical Disquisitions

    Things hid and barr’d from common sense

    Advertise
    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify
    Latest Episodes:
    82 - What should we do about facial recognition technology? Sep 23, 2020
    Show notes
    Brenda Leong
    Facial recognition technology has seen its fair share of both media and popular attention in the past 12 months. The runs the gamut from controversial uses by governments and police forces, to coordinated campaigns to ban or limit its use. What should we do about it? In this episode, I talk to Brenda Leong about this issue. Brenda is Senior Counsel and Director of Artificial Intelligence and Ethics at Future of Privacy Forum. She manages the FPF portfolio on biometrics, particularly facial recognition. She authored the FPF Privacy Expert’s Guide to AI, and co-authored the paper, “Beyond Explainability: A Practical Guide to Managing Risk in Machine Learning Models.” Prior to working at FPF, Brenda served in the U.S. Air Force.
    You can listen to the episode below or download here. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).


    Show notes


    Topics discussed include:
    • What is facial recognition anyway?
    • Are there multiple forms that are confused and conflated?
    • What's the history of facial recognition? What has changed recently?
    • How is the technology used?
    • What are the benefits of facial recognition?
    • What's bad about it? What are the privacy and other risks?
    • Is there something unique about the face that should make us more worried about facial biometrics when compared to other forms?
    • What can we do to address the risks? Should we regulate or ban?

    Relevant Links

    • Brenda's Homepage
    • Brenda on Twitter
    • 'The Privacy Expert's Guide to AI and Machine Learning' by Brenda (at FPF)
    • Brenda's US Congress Testimony on Facial Recognition
    • 'Facial recognition and the future of privacy: I always feel like … somebody’s watching me' by Brenda
    • 'The Case for Banning Law Enforcement From Using Facial Recognition Technology' by Evan Selinger and Woodrow Hartzog

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    81 - Consumer Credit, Big Tech and AI Crime Sep 18, 2020
    Show notes

    In today's episode, I talk to Nikita Aggarwal about the legal and regulatory aspects of AI and algorithmic governance. We focus, in particular, on three topics: (i) algorithmic credit scoring; (ii) the problem of 'too big to fail' tech platforms and (iii) AI crime. Nikita is a DPhil (PhD) candidate at the Faculty of Law at Oxford, as well as a Research Associate at the Oxford Internet Institute's Digital Ethics Lab. Her research examines the legal and ethical challenges due to emerging, data-driven technologies, with a particular focus on machine learning in consumer lending. Prior to entering academia, she was an attorney in the legal department of the International Monetary Fund, where she advised on financial sector law reform in the Euro area.

    You can listen to the episode below or download here. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).



    Show Notes

    Topics discussed include:

    • The digitisation, datafication and disintermediation of consumer credit markets
    • Algorithmic credit scoring
    • The problems of risk and bias in credit scoring
    • How law and regulation can address these problems
    • Tech platforms that are too big to fail
    • What should we do if Facebook fails?
    • The forms of AI crime
    • How to address the problem of AI crime


    Relevant Links

    • Nikita's homepage
    • Nikita on Twitter
    • 'The Norms of Algorithmic Credit Scoring' by Nikita
    • 'What if Facebook Goes Down? Ethical and Legal Considerations for the Demise of Big Tech Platforms' by Carl Ohman and Nikita
    • 'Artificial Intelligence Crime: An Interdisciplinary Analysis of Foreseeable Threats and Solutions' by Thomas King, Nikita, Mariarosario Taddeo and Luciano Floridi
    Post Block Status & visibility Visibility Public Publish September 18, 2020 1:09 pm Stick to the top of the blog Author John Danaher Enable AMP Move to trash 9 Revisions Permalink Categories Uncategorized Podcast Add New Category Tags Add New Tag Separate with commas or the Enter key. Featured image Excerpt Discussion Open publish panel NotificationsCode editor selected Subscribe to the newsletter
    80 - Bias, Algorithms and Criminal Justice Aug 13, 2020
    Show notes


    Lots of algorithmic tools are now used to support decision-making in the criminal justice system. Many of them are criticised for being biased. What should be done about this? In this episode, I talk to Chelsea Barabas about this very question. Chelsea is a PhD candidate at MIT, where she examines the spread of algorithmic decision making tools in the US criminal legal system. She works with interdisciplinary researchers, government officials and community organizers to unpack and transform mainstream narratives around criminal justice reform and data-driven decision making. She is currently a Technology Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Formerly, she was a research scientist for the AI Ethics and Governance Initiative at the MIT Media Lab.

    You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).



    Show notes

    Topics covered in this show include

    • The history of algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice
    • Modern AI tools in criminal justice
    • The problem of biased decision-making
    • Examples of bias in practice
    • The FAT (Fairness, Accountability and Transparency) approach to bias
    • Can we de-bias algorithms using formal, technical rules?
    • Can we de-bias algorithms through proper review and oversight?
    • Should we be more critical of the data used to build these systems?
    • Problems with pre-trial risk assessment measures
    • The abolitionist perspective on criminal justice reform

    Relevant Links

    • Chelsea's homepage
    • Chelsea on Twitter
    • "Beyond Bias: Reimagining the terms "Ethical AI" in Criminal Law" by Chelsea
    • Video presentation of this paper
    • "Studying up: reorienting the study of algorithmic fairness around issues of power." by Chelsea and ors
    • Kleinberg et al on the impossibility of fairness
    • Kleinberg et al on using algorithms to detect discrimination
    • The Condemnation of Blackness by Khalil Gibran Muhammad

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    79 - Is There A Techno-Responsibility Gap? Aug 05, 2020
    Show notes
    Daniel_Tigard
    What happens if an autonomous machine does something wrong? Who, if anyone, should be held responsible for the machine's actions? That's the topic I discuss in this episode with Daniel Tigard. Daniel Tigard is a Senior Research Associate in the Institute for History & Ethics of Medicine, at the Technical University of Munich. His current work addresses issues of moral responsibility in emerging technology. He is the author of several papers on moral distress and responsibility in medical ethics as well as, more recently, papers on moral responsibility and autonomous systems.
    You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).

    Show Notes


    Topics discussed include:
    • What is responsibility? Why is it so complex?
    • The three faces of responsibility: attribution, accountability and answerability
    • Why are people so worried about responsibility gaps for autonomous systems?
    • What are some of the alleged solutions to the "gap" problem?
    • Who are the techno-pessimists and who are the techno-optimists?
    • Why does Daniel think that there is no techno-responsibility gap?
    • Is our application of responsibility concepts to machines overly metaphorical?

    Relevant Links


    • Daniel's ResearchGATE profile
    • Daniel's papers on Philpapers
    • "There is no Techno-Responsibility Gap" by Daniel
    • "Artificial Intelligence, Responsibility Attribution, and a Relational Justification of Explainability" by Mark Coeckelbergh
    • Technologically blurred accountability? by Kohler, Roughley and Sauer

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    78 - Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency and Anthropomorphism Jul 27, 2020
    Show notes
    Sven-Nyholm
    Are robots like humans? Are they agents? Can we have relationships with them? These are just some of the questions I explore with today's guest, Sven Nyholm. Sven is an assistant professor of philosophy at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. His research focuses on ethics, particularly the ethics of technology. He is a friend of the show, having appeared twice before. In this episode, we are talking about his recent, great, book Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency and Anthropomorphism.
    You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).


    Show Notes:

    Topics covered in this episode include:
    • Why did Sven play football with a robot? Who won?
    • What is a robot?
    • What is an agent?
    • Why does it matter if robots are agents?
    • Why does Sven worry about a normative mismatch between humans and robots? What should we do about this normative mismatch?
    • Why are people worried about responsibility gaps arising as a result of the widespread deployment of robots?
    • How should we think about human-robot collaborations?
    • Why should human drivers be more like self-driving cars?
    • Can we be friends with a robot?
    • Why does Sven reject my theory of ethical behaviourism?
    • Should we be pessimistic about the future of roboethics?

    Relevant Links

    • Sven's Homepage
    • Sven on Philpapers
    • Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency and Anthropomorphism
    • 'Can a robot be a good colleague?' by Sven and Jilles Smids
    • 'Attributing Agency to Automated Systems: Reflections on Human–Robot Collaborations and Responsibility-Loci' by Sven
    • 'Automated Cars Meet Human Drivers: Responsible Human-Robot Coordination and The Ethics of Mixed Traffic' by Sven and Jilles Smids

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    77 - Should AI be Explainable? Jul 20, 2020
    Show notes
    scott robbins
    If an AI system makes a decision, should its reasons for making that decision be explainable to you? In this episode, I chat to Scott Robbins about this issue. Scott is currently completing his PhD in the ethics of artificial intelligence at the Technical University of Delft. He has a B.Sc. in Computer Science from California State University, Chico and an M.Sc. in Ethics of Technology from the University of Twente. He is a founding member of the Foundation for Responsible Robotics and a member of the 4TU Centre for Ethics and Technology. Scott is skeptical of AI as a grand solution to societal problems and argues that AI should be boring.
    You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).


    Show Notes

    Topic covered include:
    • Why do people worry about the opacity of AI?
    • What's the difference between explainability and transparency?
    • What's the moral value or function of explainable AI?
    • Must we distinguish between the ethical value of an explanation and its epistemic value?
    • Why is it so technically difficult to make AI explainable?
    • Will we ever have a technical solution to the explanation problem?
    • Why does Scott think there is Catch 22 involved in insisting on explainable AI?
    • When should we insist on explanations and when are they unnecessary?
    • Should we insist on using boring AI?

    Relevant Links

    • Scotts's webpage
    • Scott's paper "A Misdirected Principle with a Catch: Explicability for AI"
    • Scott's paper "The Value of Transparency: Bulk Data and Authorisation"
    • "The Right to an Explanation Explained" by Margot Kaminski
    • Episode 36 - Wachter on Algorithms and Explanations

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    76 - Surveillance, Privacy and COVID-19 Apr 18, 2020
    Show notes Carissa Veliz
    How do we get back to normal after the COVID-19 pandemic? One suggestion is that we use increased amounts of surveillance and tracking to identify and isolate infected and at-risk persons. While this might be a valid public health strategy it does raise some tricky ethical questions. In this episode I talk to Carissa Véliz about these questions. Carissa is a Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics at Oxford and the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, also at Oxford. She is the editor of the Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics as well as two forthcoming solo-authored books Privacy is Power (Transworld) and The Ethics of Privacy (Oxford University Press).
    You can download the episode here or listen below.You can also subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Stitcher and a range of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).

    Show Notes

    Topics discussed include
    • The value of privacy
    • Do we balance privacy against other rights/values?
    • The significance of consent in debates about consent
    • Digital contact tracing and digital quarantines
    • The ethics of digital contact tracing
    • Is the value of digital contact tracing being oversold?
    • The relationship between testing and contact tracing
    • COVID 19 as an important moment in the fight for privacy
    • The data economy in light of COVID 19
    • The ethics of immunity passports
    • The importance of focusing on the right things in responding to COVID 19

    Relevant Links

    • Carissa's Webpage
    • Carissa's Twitter feed (a treasure trove of links about privacy and surveillance)
    • Views on Privacy: A Survey by Sian Brooke and Carissa Véliz
    • Data, Privacy and the Individual by Carissa Véliz
    • Science paper on the value of digital contact tracing
    • The Apple-Google proposal for digital contact tracing
    • ''The new normal': China's excessive coronavirus public monitoring could be here to stay'
    • 'In Coronavirus Fight, China Gives Citizens a Color Code, With Red Flags'
    • 'To curb covid-19, China is using its high-tech surveillance tools'
    • 'Digital surveillance to fight COVID-19 can only be justified if it respects human rights'
    • 'Why ‘Mandatory Privacy-Preserving Digital Contact Tracing’ is the Ethical Measure against COVID-19' by Cansu Canca
    • 'The COVID-19 Tracking App Won't Work'
    • 'What are 'immunity passports' and could they help us end the coronavirus lockdown?'
    • 'The case for ending the Covid-19 pandemic with mass testing'

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    75 - The Vital Ethical Contexts of Coronavirus Apr 15, 2020
    Show notes
    David Shaw
    There is a lot of data and reporting out there about the COVID 19 pandemic. How should we make sense of that data? Do the media narratives misrepresent or mislead us as to the true risks associated with the disease? Have governments mishandled the response? Can they be morally blamed for what they have done. These are the questions I discuss with my guest on today's show: David Shaw. David is a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Biomedical Ethics at the University of Basel and an Assistant Professor at the Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University. We discuss some recent writing David has been doing on the Journal of Medical Ethics blog about the coronavirus crisis.
    You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Stitcher and a range of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).

    Show Notes

    Topics discussed include...
    • Why is it important to keep death rates and other data in context?
    • Is media reporting of deaths misleading?
    • Why do the media discuss 'soaring' death rates and 'grim' statistics?
    • Are we ignoring the unintended health consequences of COVID 19?
    • Should we take the economic costs more seriously given the link between poverty/inequality and health outcomes?
    • Did the UK government mishandle the response to the crisis? Are they blameworthy for what they did?
    • Is it fair to criticise governments for their handling of the crisis?
    • Is it okay for governments to experiment on their populations in response to the crisis?

    Relevant Links

    • David's Profile Page at the University of Basel
    • 'The Vital Contexts of Coronavirus' by David
    • 'The Slow Dragon and the Dim Sloth: What can the world learn from coronavirus responses in Italy and the UK?' by Marcello Ienca and David Shaw
    • 'Don't let the ethics of despair infect the ICU' by David Shaw, Dan Harvey and Dale Gardiner
    • 'Deaths in New York City Are More Than Double the Usual Total' in the NYT (getting the context right?!)
    • Preliminary results from German Antibody tests in one town: 14% of the population infected
    • Do Death Rates Go Down in a Recession?
    • The Sun's Good Friday headline

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    74 - How to Understand COVID 19 Apr 10, 2020
    Show notes
    Katherine Furman
    I'm still thinking a lot about the COVID-19 pandemic. In this episode I turn away from some of the 'classical' ethical questions about the disease and talk more about how to understand it and form reasonable beliefs about the public health information that has been issued in response to it. To help me do this I will be talking to Katherine Furman. Katherine is a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Liverpool. Her research interests are at the intersection of Philosophy and Health Policy. She is interested in how laypeople understand issues of science, objectivity in the sciences and social sciences, and public trust in science. Her previous work has focused on the HIV/AIDs pandemic and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014-2015. We will be talking about the lessons we can draw from this work for how we think about the COVID-19 pandemic.
    You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Stitcher and a range of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).

    Show Notes

    Topics discussed include:
    • The history of explaining the causes of disease
    • Mono-causal theories of disease
    • Multi-causal theories of disease
    • Lessons learned from the HIV/AIDs pandemic
    • The practical importance of understanding the causes of disease in the current pandemic
    • Is there an ethics of belief?
    • Do we have epistemic duties in relation to COVID-19?
    • Is it reasonable to believe 'rumours' about the disease?
    • Lessons learned from the 2014-2015 Ebola outbreak
    • The importance of values in the public understanding of science

    Relevant Links

    • Katherine's Homepage
    • Katherine @ University of Liverpool
    • "Mono-Causal and Multi-Causal Theories of Disease: How to Think Virally and Socially about the Aetiology of AIDS" by Katherine
    • "Moral Responsibility, Culpable Ignorance, and Suppressed Disagreement" by Katherine
    • "The international response to the Ebola outbreak has excluded Africans and their interests" by Katherine
    • Imperial College paper on COVID-19 scenarios
    • Oxford Paper on possible exposure levels to novel Coronavirus

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    73 - The Ethics of Healthcare Prioritisation during COVID 19 Apr 03, 2020
    Show notes Lars_Sandman
    We have a limited number of ventilators. Who should get access to them? In this episode I talk to Lars Sandman. Lars is a Professor of Healthcare Ethics at Linköping University, Sweden. Lars’s research involves studying ethical aspects of distributing scarce resources within health care and studying and developing methods for ethical analyses of health-care procedures. We discuss the ethics of healthcare prioritisation in the midst of the COVID 19 pandemic, focusing specifically on some principles Lars, along with others, developed for the Swedish government.
    You download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe to the podcast on Apple, Stitcher and a range of other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).

    Show Notes

    • The prioritisation challenges we currently face
    • Ethical principles for prioritisation in healthcare
    • Problems with applying ethical theories in practice
    • Swedish legal principles on healthcare prioritisation
    • Principles for access to ICU during the COVID 19 pandemic
    • Do we prioritise younger people?
    • Chronological age versus biological age
    • Could we use a lottery principle?
    • Should we prioritise healthcare workers?
    • Impact of COVID 19 prioritisation on other healthcare priorities

    Relevant Links

    • Lar's Webpage
    • Swedish Legal Principles
    • Background to the Swedish Law
    • New priority principles in Sweden (English Translation by Christian Munthe)
    • "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions" by Persad, Werthheimer and Emanuel (good overview of the ethical debate)
    • The grim ethical dilemma of rationing medical care, explained - Vox.com

    Subscribe to the newsletter
    Previous 1 4 5 6

    Related Podcasts

    Making Sense with Sam Harris

    1

    Making Sense with Sam Harris Education
    Grammar Girl

    2

    Grammar Girl Education
    Good Life Project

    3

    Good Life Project Education
    Explain It to Me

    4

    Explain It to Me Education
    Team Never Quit

    5

    Team Never Quit Comedy
    Optimal Living Daily – Personal Development and Self-Improvement

    6

    Optimal Living Daily – Personal Development and Self-Improvement Alternative Health
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights