Can We Trust Synthetic Intelligence? - Capitol Technology University (Since 1927 Located Near Washington D.C.)

Direct Link: https://www.captechu.edu/node/3596

Dr. Jason M. Pittman, Sc.D.

Previously, we have discussed synthetic intelligence, agency in synthetic intelligence, and how we might measure both. Now, I would like us to consider a specific aspect of intelligence and agency: trust. Trust is an important notion to discuss because of our indirect experience of trust as a mediator of knowledge. Imagine that we have created a synthetic intelligence that is (through our tests!) demonstrably (a) intelligent and (b) has agency. Can we trust this synthetic intelligence? I suggest that the answer is yes. Let's explore why!

What is trust?
Foremost, we need to outline what we mean by trust. I’m not certain that we can directly identify trust; trust seems to be an attribute of information. Okay, then we can state that knowing something (information) relies on trust. Thus, trust encapsulates sub-attributes such as belief, reliance, or confidence. The implication of course is that trust is an attribute of information being shared between two things. In the context of our discussion such things are, at a minimum, a human and a synthetic intelligence. These things, we can say, are the object of trust. Further, trust is an object of the information or knowledge passing between these things.

Now, trust requires three components as far as I can tell. First, there must be a prover. That is, one of the things must be capable of demonstrating that knowledge is reliable or otherwise believable. Second, this prover is nothing without a verifier. The verifier substantiates that the prover possesses some knowledge through belief, reliance, and confidence. Third, there must a mediator that brokers or shares information between the prover and verifier.

This is all well and good for abstract discussion, I suppose. However, I'm interested in the practical, applied trust between us and synthetic intelligence. So: let's look at an example to illustrate how this trust triangle functions.

Consider this essay as a knowledge object. As the author, I am the prover. You (the reader) are the verifier. I think those roles are self-evident. What then is the mediator? Well, broadly speaking, the technology you are using to read the information is mediating how you verify what I am proving. You don't trust the technology directly mind you. Instead, you trust the information. The technology serves a critical function in mediating how you come to trust the information. However, there is an implicitness to the technology; it is background to the information, to me and you, which exists as foreground.

By now, we ought to agree on what trust is and how trust functions. Even with the simplified view I've provided, we should have enough understanding to examine our trust relationship with synthetic intelligence and information more closely.

Why do I think we can trust synthetic intelligence?
Trust, particularly trust mediated by technology, is essential to what it means to be human. Thus, I think the form of trust we’ve discussed will naturally extend to synthetic intelligence. The roles of prover and verifier will likely be innate. Further we will undoubtably use technology to mediate the space between synthetic intelligence and us. As long as the synthetic intelligence exhibits agency, we can believe (trust) the information coming from the synthetic intelligence with reliable confidence. Thus, the assurance of trust will rest in the construction and monitoring of the mediator.
www.CapTechU.edu

Rogue Space Cameras? - Capitol Technology University (Since 1927 Located Near Washington D.C.)

Direct Link: https://www.captechu.edu/node/3591

First, one U.S. company decides to skip FCC licensing and puts up 4 'rogue satellites'

Now a crowd favorite and industry heavyweight, SpaceX, is on the hook with NOAA (National Oceanic and Astropheric Administration) for illegal photos of Earth. Fortunately, this case is about an unintended gap in the law rather than a bad actor -- and with exemplary behavior by SpaceX as well as work to get the policy improved.

The short scoop is that any U.S. space-based camera that takes pictures of the Earth has to get permission from NOAA before launch, to ensure their data is not going to put national security or privacy issues at risk.  As an official briefing explains, "the National and Commercial Space Program Act requires a commercial remote sensing license for companies having the capacity to take an image of Earth while on orbit."

Capitol Technology University’s Cactus-1 CubeSat applied for and received its NOAA license/permission, on the grounds that (a) our camera is very low resolution and (b) it points inward, to image captured debris, and not outward to see the Earth.  Of all our paperwork, this was one of the easiest, but that is primarily because we aren't sending high quality video watched by millions.
SpaceX, like many companies, puts video cameras pointing down on their rockets, to provide exciting and useful images of the launch.  Much like the GoPro cameras Capitol AE students put on our twice-yearly high altitude balloon flights, launch vids are not a NOAA issue.

The catch is that if the camera is on a rocket stage that actually reaches on-orbit status, it could technically be seen as an orbiting camera and thus bound by a 26-year old standing NOAA law.
SpaceX's March 30 Falcon 9 launch was broadcasting video when, 9 minutes in, SpaceX cut the video feed.  The good news is this was intentional -- SpaceX recognized that a policy was in place and took steps to comply.

"Due to some restrictions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA for short, SpaceX will be intentionally ending live video coverage of the second stage just prior to engine shutdown," SpaceX materials engineer Michael Hammersley said during a live webcast commentary about the Iridium-5 mission. "We're working with NOAA to address these restrictions in order to hopefully be able to bring you live views from orbit in the future."

Space lawyer is a job, space policy is a degree you can get, and in this case, it seems NOAA has decided SpaceX's “Falcon 9 second stage can qualify as a 'remote sensing space system,' which would require a provisional license from the U.S. agency if SpaceX wanted to show the live video and still launch on time."

SpacePolicyOnline notes that under existing law, “SpaceX should have been getting licenses all along for transmissions that show Earth’s features.  That includes the Falcon Heavy Tesla launch.  It was the latter that prompted discussions between NOAA and Space X about the need for licenses." The 1992 law is currently under review by Congress, and an update (H.R. 2809) was approved by the House last year.

Another nuance: cargo launches to the International Space Station do not, it seems, require a license because they constitute “a government (NASA) payload".  Same gear, but different mission, means different laws.  Where's a space lawyer when you need one?

Still, I'm glad there's an agency actually checking whether private company satellites are able to do spy-level imaging-- and that the current new space pioneers have their act together, even in the changing space law landscape.  Now, if they can only reduce the paperwork required for Cactus-2...
www.CapTechU.edu