In episode 55 of The Gradient Podcast, Daniel Bashir speaks to Professor Suresh Venkatasubramanian.
Professor Venkatasubramanian is a Professor of Computer Science and Data Science at Brown University, where his research focuses on algorithmic fairness and the impact of automated decision-making systems in society. He recently served as Assistant Director for Science and Justice in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, where he co-authored the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights.
Have suggestions for future podcast guests (or other feedback)? Let us know here!
Subscribe to The Gradient Podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Pocket Casts | RSS
Follow The Gradient on Twitter
Outline:
(00:00) Intro
(02:25) Suresh’s journey into AI and policymaking
(08:00) The complex graph of designing and deploying “fair” AI systems
(09:50) The Algorithmic Lens
(14:55) “Getting people into a room” isn’t enough
(16:30) Failures of incorporation
(21:10) Trans-disciplinary vs interdisciplinary, the limiting nature of “my lane” / “your lane” thinking, going beyond existing scientific and philosophical ideas
(24:50) The trolley problem is annoying, its usefulness and limitations
(25:30) Breaking the frame of a discussion, self-driving doesn’t fit into the parameters of the trolley problem
(28:00) Acknowledging frames and their limitations
(29:30) Social science’s inclination to critique, flaws and benefits of solutionism
(30:30) Computer security as a model for thinking about algorithmic protections, the risk of failure in policy
(33:20) Suresh’s work on recourse
(38:00) Kantian autonomy and the value of recourse, non-Western takes and issues with individual benefit/harm as the most morally salient question
(41:00) Community as a valuable entity and its implications for algorithmic governance, surveillance systems
(43:50) How Suresh got involved in policymaking / the OSTP
(46:50) Gathering insights for the AI Bill of Rights Blueprint
(51:00) One thing the Bill did miss… Struggles with balancing specificity and vagueness in the Bill
(54:20) Should “automated system” be defined in legislation? Suresh’s approach and issues with the EU AI Act
(57:45) The danger of definitions, overlap with chess world controversies
(59:10) Constructive vagueness in law, partially theorized agreements
(1:02:15) Digital privacy and privacy fundamentalism, focus on breach of individual autonomy as the only harm vector
(1:07:40) GDPR traps, the “legacy problem” with large companies and post-hoc regulation
(1:09:30) Considerations for legislating explainability
(1:12:10) Criticisms of the Blueprint and Suresh’s responses
(1:25:55) The global picture, AI legislation outside the US, legislation as experiment
(1:32:00) Tensions in entering policy as an academic and technologist
(1:35:00) Technologists need to learn additional skills to impact policy
(1:38:15) Suresh’s advice for technologists interested in public policy
(1:41:20) Outro
Links:
Suresh is on Mastodon @geomblog@mastodon.social (and also Twitter)
Papers
Share this post