Guarding your borders - an ethical perspective?

During my time at university we discussed ethics and their role in professional behaviour, one the stories related to an autonomous system protecting a country's border (see full story - US border problems).

One of issues with our debate was not just what exactly did they mean by autonomous and also by guard, in other words what was it capable of doing, who would be responsible blah blah.  On the face of it, it may seem an intelligence answer to covering large areas of land which could be largely impossible to man, argument done?  No, of course, being an ethics discussion there had to be more and yes it was about the semantics, namely the detail.  The story focuses on tower sentries, used for observation, but our discussion carry on to "robots" that could be deployed to replace men and jeeps, surely a machine fitted with the relevant technology could out do man?

Let's consider this:

• robots do not get lazy
• robots do not sleep
• robots do not suffer from indecision
• robots do as they are told
• robots do not have morals
• robots do not have feelings
• robots can enter places humans cannot
• robots can survive longer than man
• robots can offer a lower error margin than man

Let's consider the upside of humans:

• human can make judgement calls (intuition)
• humans can have prior experience
• human are tried and tested (we've been around thousands of years)
• er, struggling now ??

Okay that was a quick overview and you could argue all day about man vs machine, but surely they are two different approaches to an unachievable goal or unrealistic solution. Every country suffers border issues, from   illegal entry to illegal exit (some countries forbid movement from their country's - shocking maybe).  Anything that aides the work is surely a good solution, but now consider what happens in this scenario. You have a autonomous sentry tower, with communications facilities and a rifle, a person is shot at for breaking the rules and crossing the border - who is to blame?

Did you blame the person?  Did you think to ask if the person was hit? Did you ask if they were leaving or entering the country?  Did you ask why this happened?  Okay I could have been more clear, so let's simply say the person was shot and killed, for entering the country - that simplifies your reasoning and questions surely?  So now we are assuming they had no right to enter and were subsequently warned and the country's armed forces observed the incident.  Clear cut then, the person is to blame for breaking a rule?

Morally speaking what was wrong with the above, anything?  Well let's consider the actors in this situation, there was the country involved, a person crossing and probably a company who built the autonomous machine.  Now tell me is this killing morally justified by the company who created it, how would you feel?  What if it was an accident, let's say the person was disguising themselves and was a local, entitled to cross the border, who is to blame?  Would you sue the government for deploying the machine, does the manufacturer have to justify itself for selling something that can kill, how about the engineers who designed and built it, are they ultimately responsible?  This is where ethics can get complicated, no matter if you believe if it's clear cut, not everyone has the same ethics, or reasoning.  You may have also neglected the MAIN actor in this - the robot, surely it is to blame, it pulled the trigger?  Of course we can go deeper again and suggest the person who coded the software instructions should ultimately be blamed, since this person basically provided the robot with a form of reasoning, rules to follow.

Are you still of the opinion the robot acted correctly and is free from blame?  Perhaps you should consider the ethics of the actor who actually was affected - the border crossing human.  We never asked what there intent was, what they did, what they intended to do when they crossed, did they have prior intelligence on the person?  Maybe this robot saved the nation from a terrorist, maybe the robot is a terrorist, you cannot muse the future affects if the person had crossed, because that is a non-event, it is in the realm of the unknown.

Hopefully you have thought, ethics is not a black and white subject, because if the border guard was a human the event could have been somewhat difficult.  Soldiers killing people tried in court for manslaughter or murder, think this has not happened.  Think again, by replacing us robots, surely the ethical situation is made worse, sure they can be made more efficient.  But at a time when we are replacing humans with machines to increase production, save money and improve efficiency, you have to wonder did we consider the ethics of replacing man with machine????

Teaching GCSE ICT - retrain or unemployment

We are fast approaching the era of computer science in schools, time is running out for schools, planning is required.  The dilemma caused by government partly, by Mr Gove and some may blame Google for their input on the great British education syllabus!  The theory suggest that comments from Google suggested Britain's  technology sector is so far behind other countries, many people do not consider British workers for jobs and there is a lack of people to hire from here.  This all related back to the apparent source of our troubles, just like so many other world problems, it is down to education.  Our children have learnt the most trivial of skills, using the same packages that maybe used in the real world, but this does not cement them with employment opportunities.

My thoughts on the underlying tone from reading on the subject is that ICT is a easy choice for students, simple and boring option, just follow the steps and you will get your grade.  My other suggestion is that because its staged in this way we may have prevented scores of children and generations from receiving a heard start in life and working there way in to the I.T. world.  Are this age of the "net children" any more advanced than mine of the 80's, where we were taught word processing using non GUI packages during the very few opportunities we got on a computer (we had one IT suite). Maybe not comparable to modern day packages but with the intuitive displays and dashboard on software now, but now you are not required to think, you point and click.  At least during my time you had to know commands, remember keyboard shortcuts (mice were not used back then) and yes this was before the web was everywhere.  I should make it clear, these students are still only children, you cannot blame them for poor education, poor teaching or boring syllabuses, they only do as they are told (sometimes).

So what is the solution, that's what you want, a magic wand to sort the technology gap, to give Britain a fighting chance and help our GDP?  The web and internet is providing ever more job prospects each year, with the mobile phone being a large catalyst, but so many are on foreign soil (just look at the stats above -  courtesy of code.org).  The plan is therefore to change the syllabus and bring in computer science as an option, finally a positive step, sure it will take some years to see the fruition of change, but worth it?  After recently involving myself with a community of people looking at how this may happen I can now comment on the subject.  From my research it is apparent the changes are scaring teachers somewhat, a radical change to this new science causes issues not just logistically but how can you teach something without any trained people.  The issue is there is not enough people with the tech subject knowledge in the first place, so where are suddenly going to appear from to teach this to the next generation?  Interestingly enough I see options and I understand the teachers perspective but let's get this straight you need subject specialists, there is no point teaching something you don't know about or don't care for.  You are entering a specialist area, land of the geek but also the world of science, where logic is your friend, so of course Maths and reasoning come in to play.

I believe a shake up WILL happen (and mostly likely already happening) in the teaching world and those not willing to learn or re-train (bad expression) will be left in the ever increasing unemployed list.  The group I spoke to all seem keen to find a way to learn the skills necessary to teach, but we come to the problem, how do you train them and when, what is the cost, because they have to carry on with the current year assessments and be ready to teach a new syllabus from the next semester (possibly?)  Would it be reasonable to train someone to cover Computer Science during the summer periods away from school, as that would be a large uptake for any person.  This may also cause problems logistically because you would need trainers along and across the breadth of the country, covering each and every county or school - is this even feasible?  This is why i understand so many are looking now for options or interim measures (like short courses on python), thank god for people like Computing at Schools (CAS) and the British Computer Society for their involvement.  Though hand on heart there are plenty of sources from across the pond (Khan Academy and CodeAcademy have to be up there).  There are many ways to learn, but practise does help, I know a way, the CAS group do and are working on solutions.

One flip side of the pending changes could be a massive influx of new graduate teachers, people like myself who have gone through a recent computer science degree (note i am actually a school ICT technician), have energy, passion for the subject and love to pass on our knowledge, but also love learning.  Maybe a re-assessment of computing teachers is required and new faces/new blood but you cannot beat experience.  Experienced teachers now what is required of them, now how to delivery, how to cope with problems and the inequities of life and children, the graduate is only potential at this stage. My other avenue of thought lies with people in the ICT support roles within schools, these people are dedicated professionals, they learn to cope with the needs of their environment and usually have the passion.   Why not harness their subject knowledge, let their passion flow to the students, involve them in lessons, integrate real life computing and the associated problems to the delivery of teaching.  The web has shown how people can collaborate from any walk of life, let's take that metaphor in to schools and let staff actually collaborate more on teaching, stop being departments, help each other.

Today I expressed my ramblings to an aspiring handful of (coding) students, these were the words used - "we are all tools in life".  We (in ICT support) aid the teachers ability to teach, teachers are tools students use to learn, the computers are tools we help to simplify and ease our work.  They did understand this, though funnily suggested that they did not think there teacher would liked being called a tool!!  Of course i laughed, but my point was communicated, they understood because I explained myself in a simple and clear manner.  We discussed operating systems other than Windows, coding in general and Raspberry Pi's (please get one).  hat was impressive about this small set of students was that they actually learned something from me, I asked a simple question, they responded with a good answer.  The answer was valid but was factually flawed, so I explained why, they understood and contemplated the facts I had presented.  They then had the ability to judge what i said, for their selves and had chance to disprove me or request more information, subsequently they then asked if I was going to teach.  I think, therefore, I may have proved my point, maybe its the trade qualifications I have studied or the real world computing experience, the minutes spent reading bloggs, the many hours at university (coding in HTML/CSS/PHP & SQL), maybe this all combined together has highlighted my passion - learning!

Enjoy your learning and good luck with the new syllabus.............

Computers are really sentient beings!!!

Sadly this is based on a true (sic) story,

Aliens helped the progress of computing to our current point of robot and automation in preparation for their arrival, we are close to the next development of technology - portals.

A shocking opening sentence from an over paranoid human, decimated by the fiction of films and books?No I am talking about some revelled humans, some you will know and stand up their in history.  Hubbard for his writing, Tesla for his science and Da Vinci for his visions, all greats but they have one thing in common - they all spoke to aliens. Remember Ron Hubbard, he put forward a religion to try and change the worlds attitude to aliens, that of Scientology.   The theory is computers from their early days of Babbage and earlier have been using borrowed technology, how else did these pioneers invent and discover such advancements in human understanding?

Maybe scientology has been affecting us without anyone realising, maybe aliens have been implementing ideas without you thinking (sub-consciously).  Many people have read science fiction, from Asimov and Clarke to K Dick and Adams, well maybe they were clues.  Hitchiker was no fiction, it was a manual after all, they helped us understand what is it come, get your towels ready, cause i'm working on my babel fish.

A normal day only a few years in the future

Imagine this, its just a few years from the present day, a day in your future?

You wake up to the sound of your favourite artist's latest track, set nice and low, then you realise its time to arise.  On your side of the bed you are surrounded with images and messages on the walls and ceiling telling you to get up, get organised.

So up you get, you plug in your watch, put your glasses on, your ear phones, then you attach  your exercise equipment and jolt your way to those perfect abs, quads and biceps.  You walk to your kitchen which has already warmed up the coffee, spoke some breakfast choices to you and adjusted the room temperature despite the chill of winter setting in.  You switch on your glasses (!) and your watch and listen to this mornings news from your favourite channels all compressed in to quick fire manageable sections.

You eat your breakfast while telling your watch to read your emails and stream video's you had saved the day before to your kitchen worktop.  You reply to the odd email and tell it to delete the rest then ask what your agenda is for the day.

You set off out the door and sure enough your trusty reliable Prius is sat waiting to take you to today's meeting.  In you get and make relevant phone calls, do a little studying on the people you are going to meet before your car drops you off at your destination and reminds you it will pick you up again later at the set time.

Refreshed and ready for work, time to crunch numbers and go about your daily business.

Is this the future you want, is this helpful?  Do you want a robot to do everything for you, would you prefer not to make any choices, to sit there and bask in your gadgets all enabling you to do your job without going anywhere or learning anything?  Do you believe the human race should be replaced with algorithms - since they are calculating all the choices in this technology.  Maybe one day the likes Apple and Google will know you better than yourself???????