Is AI my friend?

I am sorry, Dave …

Let’s start this story with 2 supposed friends – Dave and Hal.

How do we become friends?

We have friends and we have enemies. We become friends when trust is established. Trust is established when there is an unsaid pact, a silent agreement that I can rely on you to keep my secrets private. I will know full well that you will protect my personal details with a strong conviction. Your decisions and your actions towards me are in my best interest, unbiased and would benefit both me and you.

I feel secure with you.

AI is my friend

When the walls of uncertainty and falsehood are broken down, we trust our friends more and more. We share deeper secrets with our friends when we believe that our privacy and safety are safeguarded and protected. We know well that we can rely on them and their decisions and actions on us are reliable and unbiased.

AI, can I count on you to protect my privacy and give me security that my personal data is not abused in the hands of the privileged few?

AI, can I rely on you to be ethical, unbiased and give me the confidence that your decisions and actions are for the benefit and the good of me, myself and I?

My AI friends (maybe)

As I have said before, I am not a skeptic. When there is plenty of relevant, unbiased data fed into the algorithms of AI, the decisions are fair. People accept these AI decisions when the degree of accuracy is very close to the Truth. The higher the accuracy, the greater the Truth. The greater the Truth, the more confident people are towards the AI system.

Here are some AI “friends” in the news:

But we have to careful here as well. Accuracy can be subjective, paradoxical and enigmatic. When ethics are violated, we terminate the friendship and we reject the “friend”. We categorically label him or her as an enemy. We constantly have to check, just like we might, once in a while, investigate on our friends too.

In Conclusion

AI, can we be friends now?

[Apology: sorry about the Cyberdyne link 😉 ]

[This blog was posted in LinkedIn on Apr 19th 2019]

Data Privacy First before AI Framework

A few days ago, I discovered that Malaysia already had plans for a National Artificial Intelligence (AI) Framework. It is led by Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDEC) and it will be ready by the end of 2019. A Google search revealed a lot news and announcements, with a few dating back to 2017, but little information of the framework itself. Then again, Malaysia likes to take the “father knows best” approach, and assumes that what it is doing shouldn’t be questioned (much). I will leave this part as it is, because perhaps the details of the framework is under the OSA (Official Secrets Act).

Are we AI responsible or are we responsible for AI?

But I would like to highlight the data privacy part that is likely to figure strongly in the AI Framework, because the ethical use of AI is paramount. It will have economical, social and political impact on Malaysians, and everybody else too. I have written a few articles on LinkedIn about ethics, data privacy, data responsibility, impact of AI. You can read about them in the links below:

I may sound like a skeptic of AI. I am not. I believe AI will benefit mankind, and bring far reaching developments to the society as a whole. But we have to careful and this is my MAIN concern when I voice about AI. I continue to question the human ethics and the human biases that go into the algorithms that define AI. This has always been the crux of my gripes, my concerns, my skepticism of everything we call AI. I am not against AI but I am against the human flaws that shape the algorithms of AI.

Everything is a Sheep (or a Giraffe)

A funny story was shared with me last year. It was about Microsoft Azure computer vision algorithm in recognizing visuals in photos. Apparently the algorithm of the Microsoft Azure’s neural network was fed with some overzealous data of sheep (or giraffes), and the AI system started to point out that every spot that it “saw” was either a sheep, or any vertical long ones was a giraffe.

In the photo below, there were a bunch of sheep on a tree. Check out the tags/comments in the red rectangle published by the AI neural network software below and see how both Microsoft Azure and NeutralTalk2 “saw” in the photo. You can read more about the funny story here.

This proves my point that if you feed the learning system and the AI behind it with biased and flawed information, the result can be funny (in this case here) or disastrous. Continue reading

Malaysia, when will you take data privacy seriously?

It is sad. I get about 5-10 silly calls a week and a bunch of nonsense messages in my WhatsApp text and SMS. They waste my time, and it has been going on for years. Even worse is that my private details are out there, exposed and likely be abused too.

Once I got a call from a municipal attorney in the state of Kelantan that I have unpaid summons of several thousand ringgit. They have phone number, my IC number and they threatened to send me a note to arrest me if I didn’t pay up. The thing is, I have never been to Kelantan and I challenged them to send the attorney letter to my home address. The guy on the phone hung up.

In this age where digital information is there at our finger tips, the private details of victims are out there, easily used for unsavoury gains. And we as Malaysians should not shrug our shoulders and not assume that everything is like that, as if it is a Malaysia way of life. That apathy, our state of indifference, should be wiped out from our attitude. We should question the government, the agencies of why is our privacy not protected?

We have the Personal Data Protection Act, ratified in 2010. I don’t know the details of the act, but in its most basic form, don’t you think our private details should at least be protected from the telemarketers calling us selling their personal loans, time share travel suites, private massage (with benefits?) and other silly stuff? How can an act, as a law, be so toothless? Why bother drafting the act, and going through multiple iterations, I would suppose, and making it a law, and yet remain so unworthy to be called a act? Continue reading