felly sicrhau yw ydy'r unig yn odda amser, bod nid oedd i'r hadd, felly'n gallu ar y dw i'n gallu arog ar y diogel, i ni'n gallu ei gynch i ddifuits i ddylai ymwylliant i ddifufio'r unig yn enw i'r ddigital. Llywedig i chi'n ddigitwch i chi, sy'n byw'i ddifusio'r ddigital o'r ddulloweth o fy mod i'n ddifusio'r unig yn y cyfnod digidol, y cyfnod digidol yw'r proses yn ymdegwyd o'r ddweud sy'n ddweud bod ymdegwyd o'r ddweud ac ymdegwyd o'r ddweud o'r newydd ymdegwyd ymdegwyd ymdegwyd. Felly, yn ymdegwyd yma, rydyn ni'n dechrau'n gwneud ymdegwyd yn ymdegwyd ymdegwyd, rydyn ni'n ddweud, rydyn ni'n ddweud. Ac rydyn ni'n ddylo'n digidol ychydig yng Nghymru o'r ddwell i ffrindio'r amser dros badafu. Yn mynd o'r ddengymell o'r ddweud o'r credit ymddeg, rydyn ni'n ddweud ymdegwyd, o'r ddweud o'r busgr yn y system yma, o'r cyflym o'r cyflym o'r ddweud o'r cyflym o'r ddweud o'r ddweud ymdegwyd, o'r dangos o'r ddweud o'r ddweud. I want to suggest that increasingly our lives and our life chances are becoming ever more entangled with the adjudications of algorithms. Now, of course, you might say, well, these are very different aspects of our lives, policing, borders and immigration, the health system, and you might wish to say that machine learning is acting ethically in some aspects of our lives and not in others. That might be the direction we might want to go in as a society. So when an oncologist who's specialised in a rare form of head and neck cancer told me that his deep neural networks that he felt he was collaborating with, he said they're making possible vast improvements in detection and treatment. And we might say, well, look, here is the good. Here is the ethical use of machine learning for a responsible society. But what I want to get us to begin to think about this evening is how one might begin to draw that line between the good and the bad or what we think of as the unethical and the ethical in relation to machine learning algorithms. So a team of computer scientists that I followed throughout 2017 had been working precisely on new methods for tumour recognition and for the targeting of particular treatments for specific tumours. We might again say, here is the good use of machine learning. But they had developed their expertise as a team also in the detection of what they called problem gambling. You can see a short extract from my interview with them there. So the online gambling company Betfair had asked them to use machine learning to detect the patterns of online gambling and detect what the anomalies might be. They had also worked for two years on object recognition from the video stream data of drone footage for a major military company. In each case, as they described it to me, they said, the fundamental thing is we know what good looks like. We know what good looks like. And they said, because they'd clustered the data in a way that would show them what normal or good looked like, that then they could detect anomalies. So for them, in a sense, the problem space was the same across all of those different domains of society. They were telling me, we know what a dicted play online or diseased tissue in the MRI scans of the human body or a civilian vehicle through the video lens of the drone looks like. We know what good looks like. So I want to propose to you this evening that this designation of the good and the bad, which so many societies are feeling they have to respond to, you know, how do we embrace forms of machine learning for the good of society? This designation of the good, the bad, the ethical, the unethical, or even human versus machine decisions is not at all a straightforward matter when it comes to our lives with algorithms. So notwithstanding the widespread public claims that the black box of the algorithm should be opened up, that we should make sense of it, that algorithms must be made accountable for their actions, I want to say instead the prime question should not be how should algorithms be arranged for the good of society because their arrangements are changing the paradigm of what good means in society. We know what good looks like. So rather than beginning with that question of how to make them good or normal, I want to say instead, oppose a different question, how are algorithmic arrangements generating ideas of the good, the normal, the transgressive and the risky? So it seems to me that in our contemporary moment when targeting and deciding is taking place increasingly in collaboration with machine learning algorithms, that the reflex response, public response, is often to say, well these are autonomous technologies and they are unaccountable. They are machines, if you like, making decisions beyond the human capacity for scrutiny. In the terms of your themes, we cannot make sense of them, that they are somehow concealed from us. But to draw to a close, I want to suggest that actually the harm done is not primarily the seeding of human control to machine decision. Now the principal harm, I think, is a specific threat to the notion that we live together and we decide, uncertainly in the face of difficult and intractable dilemmas. And that is politics, I think, that is political life. So the claim to secure against uncertain futures with algorithms forecloses other potential futures, even where the neural net itself, as I've described, embodies a teeming multiplicity of pathways that were not taken. So when the algorithm condenses a single actionable output, I would like us always to remember that this output signal lies behind actions like risk scoring at borders or the potential future of a child in relation to social services. Increasingly in the UK this is being used to make differentiations between different levels of at risk children in society. Decisions on detention, on immigration or on the dangers of a gathered protest on a city street. So for me there can be no algorithmic accountability in the enlightenment traditions of transparency or clear-sighted account. That means no way of having a code of ethics that we might say all algorithm developers and designers should sign up to. No opening of the black box. Instead, I think we could demand that algorithms give a necessarily partial account of themselves. It seems to me that this is not a new problem in a sense. The impossibility of giving an account is the precondition of politics of the difficulty of decision. Philosophers and political theorists have been talking about that for a very long time, the impossibility of that clear-sighted account. So in some ways, algorithms don't pose a new problem, but they do expose very vividly a persistent problem of grounding ethics and responsibility in ideas of objective sight and knowledge. As the philosopher Judith Butler reminds us, we did not reach the limits of ethics at the edge of intelligibility where we can no longer make sense. On the contrary, she says, it's at the limits of what can be rendered intelligible or known that ethics becomes most crucial. So in your terms, perhaps ethics begins with sense-making, with imagining different ways of sense-making. So at the heart of my call for a different mode of ethics that in my new book I call a cloud ethics, there are three proposals of a kind and I'm going to conclude by just mapping what they are. So first, I'm proposing we must rethink what ethics means in relation to algorithms so that it is no longer a question of imagining that we stand outside and adjudicate on their behaviour. The philosopher Michel Foucault, in common with many other political theorists, distinguishes different forms of ethics and so on the one hand he talked about the code that determines which acts are permitted and which forbidden. For me that could almost describe this sense that there's a Silicon Valley problem and if we could just delineate what could be forbidden and what could be permitted that we would make some kind of progress. And I think that his sense that this is a limited form of ethics perhaps comes from his own work on the governing of norms in relation to sexuality. So he distinguishes that from a different kind of ethics. He describes as the inescapably political formation of the relation of oneself to oneself and to others. So the inescapably political formation. And this distinction I think could be crucial because which acts are permitted and which are forbidden I think is a sheltered form of ethics in which we will be continually trying to adjudicate on when algorithms step over the line. Perhaps we might talk about that some more in questions. But actually what are they doing in terms of what I've described tonight? They're functioning precisely through a reorientation of selves to selves and others through this inescapably political formation. And I think that's what I want to try to work with this sense that algorithms mean that we are still struggling with this sense of a political formation and what might it mean in the context of machine learning. So then second I would like to think that we could reconsider the output and what it means in our world. That we might be able to reflect on it differently so that the output of the algorithm is never understood as determining a decision. And so I would like us to think instead of thinking of outputs I would like us to think about something like an aperture. So for those of us who are working on notions of aperture from the arts or photography the aperture is always both a closure, a reduction in the closure but also an opening. So it might be able to open out and think about what were the other alternative ways of reasoning that might have been present before that closing down took place. We should make some trouble I think at the aperture as the feminist Donna Haraway suggests we should stay with the trouble and as she describes it, follow the threads in the dark. So even in the face of reduced outputs I think we could consider the traces of rejected alternatives. And for me this has been a kind of thought experiment I've tried to exercise it in relation to facial recognition biometrics for example. So you might know that in April a brown university student in the US who has Sri Lankan parents Amara Majid was identified, misidentified by the Sri Lankan authorities as having a link to these Sri Lankan bombings. And the apology that was issued by the Sri Lankan authorities said the facial recognition system misidentified her by which point of course she had death threats in her inbox. Now I think if we see only that the output of the algorithm as being a mistake or misrecognition we might then lose sight of what I think could have been going on in the aperture which is that when she was a teenager she wrote an open letter to Donald Trump expressing her concern about the targeting of Muslims. She also has a project called the Hijab Project. There are multiple other forms and lines of narrative and story that make that designation of her as a risky person not a mistake or an error at all. Does that make sense? So if we think with the aperture we don't say it's just made an error, a mistake, it can be fixed, we can modify. Instead we say actually what were those other potential links and correlations that it was working with. So that would mean if we were to go with this thought experiment that every time we're confronted with something like an algorithm that says here is an optimised output, this is optimisation, that our first thought would be yes and what were the rejected alternatives, what other forms of connection and being together that are not already explained might be present? How could the output have been otherwise? What are the bifocated pathways that continue to run beneath the surface of an optimised solution? And finally, the weights. I wish to make the weights in the deep learning algorithms a lot heavier and more burdensome. And a few generous computer science friends of mine have urged me not to pursue this and have said that this is not something that we should do. So they have described it to me and said, look the adjustment of weights is an impenetrable process that retains its opacity even to those who are undertaking it. So one of them said to me, you cannot make the weights political Louise because they're not really a thing. We don't know how they work, we are just messing around with them. But it's exactly, I think they didn't realise at the time, I think how this was music to my ears that it was something that was opaque and that they were messing around with them because it's exactly this kind of opaque, messy and embodied experimental relation to the algorithm and its data that interests me. As Butler says, a certain opacity persists. So when the judge, the oncologist, the clinician or the border guard decides with algorithms, I think they also necessarily don't know how they work. They are just messing around with them. So some of the most fundamental political and crucial decisions of our times are being made, I think through this modified and fungible notion of what can come to matter. And so there it is, I think, our lives with algorithms, the inescapably political formation of relations to ourselves and to others. Thank you.


He has a reputation of standing up to power, and his explosive deposition before the Nanavati Shah Commission resulted in him being hounded by the state for many years. He later became an advocate and now he is joining politics. Mr. Rahul Verma, welcome to Newskit. Thank you. So you are currently practicing as a lawyer? In Gujarat High Court, in the Gujarat. So you have literally traversed from bureaucracy to judiciary and now you are entering the third pillar of... I began as an engineer. So you have seen how all three have been connected at one level. What is the one, the most common string in all three sections of governance? It is the people, the people of India. Whether I am a police officer or whether I am a social worker or whether I am in politics, at the heart of all this are the people of India. Rahul, you are floating a party called smart party. Can you tell us what is so smart about the smart party? First it is smart. And why is it smart? Because it is honest. One of the fundamental pillars of my party, of our party. In fact, there are so many people who have joined us. Is that we will not be hypocritical in our promises or in our actions? But you know one would argue that another person started with this promise of honesty and transparency in Delhi with the India against corruption movement as in Kejriwal. And right now there has been a lot of mud slinging from all sides and the reputation of the party one would argue is not that clean anymore. So if you look at history, how will you do things differently? You know the arm are the party professes the same thing that it promised. Where it erred was basically in the structural organization of the party. That is my opinion. I will not like to get into this at this moment because I am a very, very new nesting party. I can have my own problems. But I will not attribute this blame, the failure of arm are the party. If you can count it as a failure as something to do with the number one of that party, Mr. Kejriwal. Not necessarily. All said and done, it has made its presence felt in Punjab. That we cannot deny. As a new party, what are the pitfalls that you will avoid? What are the lessons you have learned from other parties and what will you do differently? You expect that there will be a number of internal forces working at cross purposes. And it is these forces that actually implode the party from within. Which is what has happened? To arm are the arm are. Therefore, you should have appropriate structures in place will take care of this. We have a design scheme in mind. I have a design in mind which will prevent that. I will not like to elaborate on that because some more thought is to go into that. You know everybody in a new party with people filled with zeal and enthusiasm. Everybody feels that this is the last word on any show. But when you form a party, then it is the duty of every individual to forge his thoughts into the overall thoughts and process and goals of the party. What are the basic tenets of the philosophy of your party? And in practice, what are the things that you would like to change? What are the major policy issues that you would like to attack? One of the most radical view is on the view on prohibition. My party feels, our party feels that prohibition is actually an ethical fraud, an ethical scam. In today's scenario, in today's Gujarat, you can get liquor of any brand at any time and at any place. But being a dry state, we are losing so much on revenue. I did check up India Today's data on the internet once and close to 30,000 crores for Tamil Nadu from revenue earnings from liquor, alcohol. Haryana was close to 20,000 crores. Even if you make a very conservative estimate for Gujarat, Gujarat is a fairly large state. Even if we get 20,000 crore rupees of revenue from relaxation of prohibition, which we can put into development and other issues. That money today is being pocketed by bootleggers, politicians and current policemen and maybe the other bureaucratic setup also. This is only the white aspect of it. Don't discount that the liquor that you get today in the market will be at a premium, 20%, 30%. So if you count that, that is the figure is much higher. I am just taking into account the revenue earning possibilities from liquor. That is one thing. The second thing is, if we have say 20,000 crore rupees in a hand, what are my priorities? My priority will be every student who has completed 12 standard, giving 5000 rupees per month, per head for 5 years. The reason is this, that the challenges of life begin after you have crossed 12. You need to plan out your career. If you are in medicine, if you are in engineering, if you are in commerce, if you are in the general stream, there is that poor boy, poor girl in the rural areas whose parents think whether he should continue any further education or not. If I am not good in academics, but I have completed 12 standard, maybe with 5000 rupees a month I can start a small business, maybe a chai kalari. You know, it is basically a support system to find out employment either through academics or through any other business interest or any other commercial interest that you may have. Now this 5000 rupees per head, per month, for 5 years is irrespective of your economic background. So you are talking about directing the funds that will be generated from alcohol sale to education. That we will be spending about 12,000 crore rupees in that, behind that. But the money going into the pockets of the bootleggers and policemen and bureaucrats and politicians, compare that to going to our children. But Mr. Rama, one would argue that this is even though very interesting, a very unpopular and a very taboo topic in Gujarat right now, even talking about liquor. You are very right, but we dare to talk. We dare to talk and we dare to change. Let people try it or what is there? If it does not work out, position does not work out. Let us see. But what is the harm in giving it a try? The other part is that people are generally conscious what will happen to domestic violence, to public ruckus and to drunken driving. But public ruckus, domestic violence, drunken driving will even otherwise remain a crime. Liquor or no liquor, alcohol or no liquor, alcohol. So that is well covered. That is taken care of. But if somebody wants to consume a peg of alcohol in the quiet and the peace of his home, what is the man's problem on the road streets? We want to have a very democratic state, a very democratic country, where everybody is right to choose. Choose, make a choice on anything. At the same time, we make a prescription of do's and don'ts. If he creates a scene on the public states, haul him up. If he creates domestic violence, haul him up.  Who stops you? What gives you the confidence that the people of Gujarat at this point, reeling with the BJP versus the rest of the opposition divide? What makes you think that the people of Gujarat will go for such a debate at this point? You know, if you have been to the villages of Gujarat at 45 degree centigrade, you will see our women folks carrying pots of water in tears from 2 to 3 kilometers. This is the truth of rural Gujarat. Ask them whether they like pipe water at their homes. It is their choice. Would you want to be a flag bearer of a prohibition, of a field prohibition policy? Or would you like to have savior hours standing in the sun and getting water right at your home doorstep? It is anybody's choice. Apart from prohibition, is there any other policy issue that you are challenging right now? Not challenging right now, but we will certainly have very, very people oriented policies, especially in respect to agriculture, industry. We are working on it. It is still not, we are working on it. For example, I read somewhere on the internet that China's agricultural productivity was 5 times ours. Can we increase our productivity? What are those reforms, agrarian reforms that are required to do that? Is it water, fertilizer, loan, subsidy, seeds? So, if we gave them a better, better option, like there is a demand of implementing the MS Swaminathan report. I have read a bit of MS Swaminathan report and it is basically, I will divide the two parts. One is a short term, the other is a long term. Long term means canal irrigation, etc., etc. And short term is loans and subsidies and this and that. If it requires to be modified to suit Gujarat conditions, we will do that. But we will try to implement the MS Swaminathan report. Are you in the process of developing a manifesto? We will. Can you spell out briefly the key points in that manifesto that you have already zeroed in on? One is this prohibition that will be a prominent tab. MS Swaminathan report probably, maybe we will need some modification here or there, but it will be implemented. Tourism and consequent employment generation. It will be a priority sector first and with the relaxation of prohibition policy, we will probably make inroads into this. Primary education. Water. Water will be one of the top most priorities. Drinking water. Afforestation is very important on our list. Basically, it will be a government in true spirit for the people, by the people of the people. Where do you see smart parties stand in terms of the religious and the nationalistic debate going on in the country right now? Will you sit on the left, the right or the centre? I will be left of centre. My personal views. My party, of course, will also decide on this. And it's not that I'll be detailing down, but I think the general spirit is left of centre. Which I think is the most suited for India's socio-economic educational environment. And what about the whole question of secularism in politics? It goes without you. I'm saying of the people, by the people, for the people. When I say for the people, I'm not saying for ABCD caste, ABCD religion or ABCD language or ABCD religion. The rule of law shall prevail and only the rule of law shall prevail. The people who are so deeply engaged with talking about things like the army and Pakistan and Kashmir and language and nationalism and religion, you think they will engage with something as challenging and radical as drinking alcohol, being able to drink alcohol openly. You think the state is ready for that? You know, when I think of alcoholism and a drinking habit, is it an addiction or a crime? I view it as an addiction. And if it is an addiction, then its treatment lies not in somebody that person to jail, in a set of rehabilitation centres. People say that it is against Gandhi's principles. When did Gandhi say that make it a crime? So, will you fight all the seats in this election? We will fight all the seats. We are serious about it. We are absolutely serious about it and we will be fighting in all sincerity. We are hunting for the best of candidates, preferably local candidates irrespective of caste, religion. It is not important. And what is the smartness criteria? Smartness criteria you should be honest yourself to begin with and you should have a level of commitment to the country. My party is probably the only party which says that after two terms you are elected. There is no third term. After two terms, for the next two terms your children will not be able to contest. So, don't know. People say that you were one of the brains behind the Una movement. What do you think is the direction in which Dalit politics in Gujarat is going towards? It was so provocative, the beating that it disturbed their conscience. What am I doing? You don't beat up somebody for two to three hours in that manner, tying them behind the jeep and parading them half naked through the streets of Una. After Una, they have successfully launched separate movements at a local level for allotment and allocation of land. In some places they have succeeded. I think Dhodaka, Taluka, I am forgetting the name of the village, they have succeeded. Surin Nagar, they are on the verge of success. Rashti Dalit Kartikar Manch has had its success and given that the resources are very scarce for it. Even today it is very scarce. I think they have done a very good job. The weakness of the RDM is that they are not built an organization around themselves. So, when you have an organization, it takes of those moments where there is science of fatigue. If they organize themselves, they can become a very strong force. You know, this time we were also covering the Dalit movement, the Azadi Kuch March. And we saw that there was a semblance of unity amongst different factions. Would you say that now the goal of the Dalit movement, which actually started against lynching and then moved on to the demand for land, is now moving on to a larger or rather a short term goal to defeat the BJP in Gujarat and to rally all kinds of forces from progressive and social movements to be able to do that? Even if they do not mean to attack the BJP, the BJP will come under attack because that has been power for the past 22 years. And with this new breed of extremely exciting and energetic leaders who are emerging, you mentioned Jignesh, then Kaniya, Alpesh Thakur, then Hardik Patel, they are all very bright boys, very energetic. This could have a larger impact in terms of more votes actually going towards being siphoned towards the Congress. If the BJP has been in power in the state for the past 22 years, it will not be without a reason. It is a very strong organization. Don't underestimate that. There are a lot of resources, a very strong leader. The leader is sitting in Delhi. But he envelopes everybody. You have to accept those two. Would the smart party get into coalition with any other party at all? No, definitely because I don't think any of the mainstream parties will like to address the prohibition issue. I have invited anybody and everybody for a public debate on this. Let us debate it. I don't think they will come forth. And even if they do, they will be in the opposition to this concept. Realistically speaking, Mr. Sharma, what do you think is the future of the smart party in the upcoming Gujarat elections? How much of a dent you think will you be able to make? I am confident. Even though people say that odds are against me, but I am confident. I am confident that I will be able to deliver the message. I am confident that I can generate funds for in support of a party. I am confident that the people rally behind us. Are you confident of winning seats? Yes, I am. Is there a number you can give us? No, not right now. It's too early. It's too early for any party to make such a prediction. All the best to you, Mr. Sharma, and to the smart party. And thank you very much for joining us.