Thanks to all the authors!
Gödel would be proud
Excellent work, now implementation steps needed!
Important, thank you!
Dear Authors of the Manifesto.
“This website uses “Google Analytics”, a web analytics service provided by Google Inc. (1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountainview, CA 94043, USA). Google Analytics uses “cookies” (text files stored on your computer) to help the website analyse how users use the site. The information generated by these cookies, such as the time, place and frequency of your use of this website, is usually transmitted to a Google server in the United States and stored there. When Google Analytics is used, it is entirely possible that the cookies set by Google Analytics may collect other personal data in addition to the IP address. Please note that Google may transfer this information to third parties where required to do so by law, or where such third parties process the information on Google’s behalf. The information generated by cookies is used by Google on behalf of the operator of this website to evaluate your use of the website, compile reports on website activity and provide other services related to website activity and internet usage to the website operator. According to Google’s own specifications, the IP address transmitted by your browser as part of of Google Analytics is not combined with other data from Google.”
I would have expected the Promotors to get information about the privacy risks implied by the above and, possibly, use a different site or create their own one.
Consequently, I did not fill the form for supporting it.
I also take this occasion for pointing out that, in my opinion, besides insisting *only* on the risks of privacy, democracy, freedom of speech and the like–all VERY important civil/human rights—in the age of the Internet of Things, one should address *also* the risks for human/planet SAFETY, including risks for (human) health, but also other risks, such as that for the right of property (of home, appliances etc) , which is nowadays put at risk by current (and probably future) licensing practices (for instance, in the near future, one will not “own” the refrigerator or tv-set she/he bought because she/he will not be the owner of their software).
You are right with what is written in the Data Protection Declaration of TU Wien. However, this is outdated, since already some time neither the main pages of TU WIEN, nor that of the Faculty of Informatics and the Manifesto’s site use Google Analytics.
But anyway, it should not be stated and I will forward the issue to the central authorities of TU Wien to correct the text accordingly.
Hannes Werthner, Dean of the Faculty of Informatics
What are the arguments for:
“Decisions with consequences that have the potential to affect individual or collective human rights must continue to be made by humans”
I’m excited about the Digital Humanism initiative. Can’t wait to see more. I’ll spread the word in the US.
Thank you for this effort. May I suggest you create a standard hashtag for this manifesto, which people can attach to their discussions/publicity about it on social media?
Thanks for the suggestion, #dighum #dighum2019 and #digitalhumanism are currently in use.
I do agree that the general theme is important and should be addressed.
I do agree on some of the items of the manifesto (especially about education)
– I do not agree with the underlying idea that humans take wise and good decisions. If I remember well, a couple of world wars were results of human decisions. Even racists laws were human
-I do not agree with the “negative feeling” toward technologies underlying the manifesto: technologies (AI included) can be regulated by human as everything else
-I do not agree with the underlying feeling that there is a divide, and when humans will take over, everything will be better. It is not like that.
So, overall, I find the Manifesto interesting, but a little simplistic. May be we should attempt a second try
I’ve just signed the Manifesto, which I found very inspiring and definitely needed.
The only thing I’m not sure I agree with, is the reference to the Wiener Kreis: I’ve studied Moritz Schlick very extensively, and I’m not sure he should be considered a model from a logic-epistemological viewpoint.
See Popper on the “Moral Responsibility of the Scientist” / http://www.unz.com/print/Encounter-1969mar-00052
And answering Paolo Paolini: no, we have no negative feelings toward technologies; on the contrary, the Manifesto is also intended as a call for innovation and research, but where – with Popper – the “scientist …. should consider it one of his special responsibilities to foresee as far as possible the unintended consequences of his work and to draw attention, from the very beginning, to those which we should strive to avoid”
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *