Dec 21, 2023 09:52 PM
(This post was last modified: Dec 22, 2023 08:57 PM by C C.)
AI consciousness: scientists say we urgently need answers
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-15149-...l#pid61504
EXCERPT: In comments to the United Nations, members of the Association for Mathematical Consciousness Science (AMCS) call for more funding to support research on consciousness and AI. They say that scientific investigations of the boundaries between conscious and unconscious systems are urgently needed, and they cite ethical, legal and safety issues that make it crucial to understand AI consciousness. For example, if AI develops consciousness, should people be allowed to simply switch it off after use? (MORE - missing details)
Climate scientists occupy the hot seat in mock trial training
https://undark.org/2023/12/20/climate-li...-evidence/
EXCERPTS: . . . It came across as a bumbling dress rehearsal because it was: The whole exercise was made up. The witness — Madelyn Cook, a geochemist and paleoceanographer at the University of Arizona who ordinarily studies tropical hydroclimate variability — was playing the role of a completely fictional scientist.
Her appearance at the mock hearing marked day three of a weeklong educational seminar known as the Expert Witness Training Academy, which is funded, in part, by a series of grants through the National Science Foundation cumulatively totaling more than $2 million, and takes place at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
[...] The workshop does not actually intend to train expert witnesses in preparation for climate litigation. Rather, it’s founders aim to tackle what they see as a more fundamental mismatch: Scientists, in their relentless quest for the truth and their aversion to making claims that extend beyond their data, can struggle in situations, such as courtrooms, where non-scientists demand answers.
Despite its intended purpose, strictly as a science communication workshop, the law school hypothetical did reflect some of the thorniest issues that have yet to come to a head in real-world cases. And there is a lot of pending litigation.
[...] Legal scholars anticipate a more consequential role for science, and particularly attribution science, which links climate change to extreme weather, in cases that may go to trial as soon as next year. Plaintiffs are increasingly attempting to hold polluters liable for extreme weather events — or to show that fossil-fuel burning companies knew about the potential harms and lied.
[,,,] One currently unrealized problem — and one of the exercises and friction points during the workshop in Minnesota — is the legal framework for admitting experts, particularly those testifying about new or novel scientific fields, and how that dovetails with a broader crisis of junk science. Several groups have questioned whether climate models might flunk the standard for admitting scientific testimony, given the lack of experimental validation and unknown margins of error (two of the factors in the Daubert standard outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court).
[,,,] Judge Starr determined that all of the scientists playing expert witnesses would testify at trial, and their testimony would be focal in showing whether the flood in the fictional town had been caused by negligence. It would be up to the jury to decide.
Despite her performance earlier in the day, Cook, whose character played a key role in denying the company’s liability, seemed in no mood for losing. She earnestly stressed how the dry run showed just how much scientists needed this sort of training, and then told the opposing team they were about to get creamed: “I really don’t think you guys can win.”
[...] “You just can’t have endless conflict in the law,” Verardo told the group. “So unlike in science, where research is always ongoing and we’re always moving ahead, the law needs some finality.”
[...] the mock jurors deliberated. In a real courtroom, this happens behind closed doors, but here the volunteers openly discussed what they thought while the law students and scientists from both sides listened in. Initially, the jury was split. Their discussion moved slowly, until suddenly, they all came around to a consensus. The forewoman turned to the judge: “We’ve unanimously decided that nobody was negligent in this case.” No negligence. No damages. It was a decisive win for the fictional company.
Of course, litigating complex concepts such as climate change is not merely some make-believe drama unfolding in a barely air-conditioned theater — and this mock verdict concerned a narrow hypothetical. And yet, at every step of the trial, it seemed, larger questions loomed: What does it take to attribute extreme weather to deliberate human activities? What convinces ordinary people?
These are questions not only for climate scientists and law students, but also for society more broadly...
[...] For Cook, the workshop reawakened the underlying motives in becoming an earth scientist, which, she said, was “to advocate for something that can’t advocate for itself: the planet.” Now, she plans to go to law school... (MORE - missing details)
https://www.scivillage.com/thread-15149-...l#pid61504
EXCERPT: In comments to the United Nations, members of the Association for Mathematical Consciousness Science (AMCS) call for more funding to support research on consciousness and AI. They say that scientific investigations of the boundaries between conscious and unconscious systems are urgently needed, and they cite ethical, legal and safety issues that make it crucial to understand AI consciousness. For example, if AI develops consciousness, should people be allowed to simply switch it off after use? (MORE - missing details)
Climate scientists occupy the hot seat in mock trial training
https://undark.org/2023/12/20/climate-li...-evidence/
EXCERPTS: . . . It came across as a bumbling dress rehearsal because it was: The whole exercise was made up. The witness — Madelyn Cook, a geochemist and paleoceanographer at the University of Arizona who ordinarily studies tropical hydroclimate variability — was playing the role of a completely fictional scientist.
Her appearance at the mock hearing marked day three of a weeklong educational seminar known as the Expert Witness Training Academy, which is funded, in part, by a series of grants through the National Science Foundation cumulatively totaling more than $2 million, and takes place at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law.
[...] The workshop does not actually intend to train expert witnesses in preparation for climate litigation. Rather, it’s founders aim to tackle what they see as a more fundamental mismatch: Scientists, in their relentless quest for the truth and their aversion to making claims that extend beyond their data, can struggle in situations, such as courtrooms, where non-scientists demand answers.
Despite its intended purpose, strictly as a science communication workshop, the law school hypothetical did reflect some of the thorniest issues that have yet to come to a head in real-world cases. And there is a lot of pending litigation.
[...] Legal scholars anticipate a more consequential role for science, and particularly attribution science, which links climate change to extreme weather, in cases that may go to trial as soon as next year. Plaintiffs are increasingly attempting to hold polluters liable for extreme weather events — or to show that fossil-fuel burning companies knew about the potential harms and lied.
[,,,] One currently unrealized problem — and one of the exercises and friction points during the workshop in Minnesota — is the legal framework for admitting experts, particularly those testifying about new or novel scientific fields, and how that dovetails with a broader crisis of junk science. Several groups have questioned whether climate models might flunk the standard for admitting scientific testimony, given the lack of experimental validation and unknown margins of error (two of the factors in the Daubert standard outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court).
[,,,] Judge Starr determined that all of the scientists playing expert witnesses would testify at trial, and their testimony would be focal in showing whether the flood in the fictional town had been caused by negligence. It would be up to the jury to decide.
Despite her performance earlier in the day, Cook, whose character played a key role in denying the company’s liability, seemed in no mood for losing. She earnestly stressed how the dry run showed just how much scientists needed this sort of training, and then told the opposing team they were about to get creamed: “I really don’t think you guys can win.”
[...] “You just can’t have endless conflict in the law,” Verardo told the group. “So unlike in science, where research is always ongoing and we’re always moving ahead, the law needs some finality.”
[...] the mock jurors deliberated. In a real courtroom, this happens behind closed doors, but here the volunteers openly discussed what they thought while the law students and scientists from both sides listened in. Initially, the jury was split. Their discussion moved slowly, until suddenly, they all came around to a consensus. The forewoman turned to the judge: “We’ve unanimously decided that nobody was negligent in this case.” No negligence. No damages. It was a decisive win for the fictional company.
Of course, litigating complex concepts such as climate change is not merely some make-believe drama unfolding in a barely air-conditioned theater — and this mock verdict concerned a narrow hypothetical. And yet, at every step of the trial, it seemed, larger questions loomed: What does it take to attribute extreme weather to deliberate human activities? What convinces ordinary people?
These are questions not only for climate scientists and law students, but also for society more broadly...
[...] For Cook, the workshop reawakened the underlying motives in becoming an earth scientist, which, she said, was “to advocate for something that can’t advocate for itself: the planet.” Now, she plans to go to law school... (MORE - missing details)