Digital me ontology and ethics. 21 December 2020. -/- Ljupco Kocarev and Jasna Koteska. -/- This paper addresses ontology and ethics of an AI agent called digital me. We define digital me as autonomous, decision-making, and learning agent, representing an individual and having practically immortal own life. It is assumed that digital me is equipped with the big-five personality model, ensuring that it provides a model of some aspects of a strong AI: consciousness, free will, and intentionality. As computer-based (...) personality judgments are more accurate than those made by humans, digital me can judge the personality of the individual represented by the digital me, other individuals’ personalities, and other digital me-s. We describe seven ontological qualities of digital me: a) double-layer status of Digital Being versus digital me, b) digital me versus real me, c) mind-digital me and body-digital me, d) digital me versus doppelganger (shadow digital me), e) non-human time concept, f) social quality, g) practical immortality. We argue that with the advancement of AI’s sciences and technologies, there exist two digital me thresholds. The first threshold defines digital me having some (rudimentarily) form of consciousness, free will, and intentionality. The second threshold assumes that digital me is equipped with moral learning capabilities, implying that, in principle, digital me could develop their own ethics which significantly differs from human’s understanding of ethics. Finally we discuss the implications of digital me metaethics, normative and applied ethics, the implementation of the Golden Rule in digital me-s, and we suggest two sets of normative principles for digital me: consequentialist and duty based digital me principles. -/- Authors are ordered alphabetically and equally contributed to the paper. (shrink)

The precarious rights of senior citizens, especially those who are highly educated and who are expected to counsel and guide the younger generations, has stimulated the creation internationally of advocacy associations and opinion leader groups. The strength of these groups, however, varies from country to country. In some countries, they are supported and are the focus of intense interest; in others, they are practically ignored. For this is reason we believe that the creation of a network of all these associations (...) is essential. The proposed network would act as a support for the already-existing policies of the United Nations’ High Commission for Human Rights, of independent experts, and of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People. All three have long ago recommended the creation of a recognized instrument for uniting presently scattered efforts. The proposed network, therefore, will seek to promote the international exchange of relevant expertise, and it will reinforce the commitments and actions that single countries are currently taking to meet these objectives. For example, informative public events can be organised to promote particular support initiatives and to provide an opportunity for new members of the network to be presented. The network will promote health for senior citizens, disease prevention, senior mobility, safe free time for seniors, alimentary education, protection against new risks and dangers, as well as equity in the services necessary for seniors to adopt new information and communication technologies. In the case of retired academic members, the network will promote equality with respect to continuing use of digital technologies (particularly email), continuing access to research libraries, and the guaranteed ability for seniors to fund their own research programs and to deliver free seminars. (shrink)

Studie poukazuje na tři základní slabiny současného českého diskurzu o kolapsech komplexních společností, jehož předním mluvčím se stal egyptolog Miroslav Bárta. Zaprvé nedošlo k vyrovnání s absencí vědeckého konsenzu ohledně determinantů historického vývoje a teorii, která by poskytla jednotící rámec pro zařazení a interpretaci konkrétních prediktorů kolapsu, byla věnována jen minimální pozornost. Zadruhé nebyla podána jasná odpověď na otázku, která společenská struktura je při studiu kolapsu vlastně předmětem zkoumání, přestože se volné přechody mezi rovinami kultur, států a civilizací nejeví z (...) analytického hlediska možné. Zatřetí se řada navržených prediktorů kolapsu ukazuje už při zběžném ohledání jako zásadně problematická. Studie dochází k závěru, že současný stav poznání problematiky kolapsů komplexních společností neospravedlňuje vyslovování žádných vědecky podložených predikcí, které by mohly být zdrojem pragmatické legitimizace pro společenské a humanitní vědy. (shrink)