Reith Lectures: 2021

[Belgrove]

This year’s Reith Lectures are on Artificial Intelligence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001216j

Over the years the format has morphed into shorter lecture followed by a q&a session from invited members of an audience. The garrulous Anita Anand presents.

[jayne lee wilson]

This year’s Reith Lectures are on Artificial Intelligence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001216j

Over the years the format has morphed into shorter lecture followed by a q&a session from invited members of an audience. The garrulous Anita Anand presents.

I feel that is a very unfair. Anita Anand presents Any Answers with exceptional tact, sensitivity and emotional intelligence with people who have suffered the traumas that are now too well known, from rape to losses in the Pandemic. She has truly made it her own through sheer articulate humanity.
Very Good on AQ when she stands in for others. But when questionable assumptions or claims are offered, political or pandemical, she goes straight for the direct challenge. Excellent.

I'd never call her garrulous. She doesn't waste a word but uses them very skilfully in her communications. I'd love to see her grilling a politico on Newsnight.....

[Belgrove]

Being bored in lockdown, I timed her contributions in Any Answers on a few occasions, these averaged on close to 25% of the programme. Fortunately I can now get out more. It’s pretty clear she has agendas and likes to voice them, in spite of the programme being ostensibly a vehicle for listeners to respond to points made on Any Questions rather than respond to her questioning. Sue Lawley was a better presenter for the Reith Lectures, letting the lecturer do the talking. The q&a element is not especially interesting anyway.

[jayne lee wilson]

Being bored in lockdown, I timed her contributions in Any Answers on a few occasions, these averaged on close to 25% of the programme. Fortunately I can now get out more. It’s pretty clear she has agendas and likes to voice them, in spite of the programme being ostensibly a vehicle for listeners to respond to points made on Any Questions rather than respond to her questioning. Sue Lawley was a better presenter for the Reith Lectures, letting the lecturer do the talking. The q&a element is not especially interesting anyway.

"25%"?
Ever heard of "quality not quantity..."?
Her intelligence, conceptual or emotional, is exceptionally acute. Her own contributions are an essential part of the programme now.

Increasingly the case that many (social-media-inspired, often crudely thought-through & fiercely held) points voiced on Any Answers absolutely need to be challenged. She does it very well. Listens and responds well too. Becomes the voice of the intelligent listener who tries to achieve a (loaded but vital concept) balanced view.

Sue Lawley was "old-BBC", terribly safe, polite, and unchallenging. Just fine for Desert Island Discs.

[Beresford]

When I first came across people talking about Artificial Intelligence over 40 years ago, the subversive comment was "Artificial Intelligence - Natural Stupidity". I hope it has improved since then.

[gradus]

I remember AA's stint on Newsnight where she seemed perfectly at home but presumably failed the audition or perhaps decided her future lay with radio. Its a path others have followed.

[Braunschlag]

This year’s Reith Lectures are on Artificial Intelligence:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001216j

Over the years the format has morphed into shorter lecture followed by a q&a session from invited members of an audience. The garrulous Anita Anand presents.

Thanks for the warning, one to avoid on that basis.

[french frank]

What I can't find, looking back, are the texts of the lectures. Last year there were "transcripts" made from the recordings (complete with virtual audience questions and presenter comments), pointing out that these were subject to 'mishearings' &c. I'm surprised they don't just reproduce the lecturer's own script.

[Jazzrook]

One of my favourite Reith Lectures was 'The Emerging Mind' given by neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran in 2003. I believe a book of the lectures is still available.
Here's the first lecture:

https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=W6_3ABPd0SA

JR

[Pivot]

Reith Lectures R4 - Stuart Russell - Artifical Intelligence 011221

Reith Lectures (R4) - Stuart Russell - Artificial Intelligence 011221
This morning I listened to the first half-hour of the above, then had a work Teams meeting.
But could not stop thinking about it, then listened in full tonight.
I look forward to another three hours from Prof Russel but found part 1 disconcerting.
In the early 90’s I studied for an MBA. One lecture dealt with ‘rules based expert systems’, The lecturer eventually admitted that the law-firm particular case study, could not produce for even the most basic legal problem.
When Prof Russell articulated a possibility that a bridge might be built totally by AI, independent of the fat-fingers that clicked return, I remained sceptical.
Russell, it seemed, asserted that AI could raise the global living standard to something wholesome, by increasing Global GDP by a factor of 250. (Just when I got my head around Trillions now its quadrillions!)
Poor old Earth wants a Human GDP of Ten Quadrillion like a hole in the head.

[french frank]

I've moved Pivot's first post (welcome, Pivot!) to this thread to rekindle interest now the lectures have started.

[Belgrove]

I thought this first lecture set the scene rather well, and vividly illustrated the perils of the law of unintended consequences (I didn’t know that Goethe originated the broom parable, nor that Samuel Butler was the inspiration for the Butlerian Jihad in Dune). Since humans are pretty poor at anticipating unintended consequences, it does not bode well for creating foolproof safeguards for these thinking machines following ostensibly benign instructions to disastrous outcomes. Facebook’s experiment in 2017 for connected chatbots resulted in them being rapidly disconnected once they had abandoned English and began communicating in their own language which no one could understand - that’s alarming.

[mikealdren]

Is there such a thing as Radio 4 forum?