Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2018-19/Evidence in driverless cars

This page was added as a part of the University College London 'Approaches to Knowledge' course. The aim of the page is to analyse how evidence is being evaluated by humans, machines and artificial intelligence focusing on a case study of development and implementation of self-driving cars. The analysis is carried out from an interdisciplinary perspective. --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added my first draft on how the policy-makers deal with uncertainty of evidence, giving an example of precautionary principle and how it can be applied to driverless cars. Still rough and needs refinement. Looking at what we have till now, my first impression is that the relation between evidence and decision-making regarding different issues in self-driving cars is the core of 3 sections. This applies to algorithms, policy-making, ethics. So, maybe could be a good theme to bind all the parts. --144.82.8.36 (discuss) 13:31, 26 November 2018 --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Bartekmik

Looking at the policy-making paragraph I think we should try to find a opposing view, meaning a theory that would suggest based on the evidence presented that it would be a good idea to implement driverless cars.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Tried to make it more balanced. But the sections' aim is to analyse risk assessment, so risks might be in majority.--Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with what Bartek said about the common threat of decision-making and evidence as it seems to reoccur with regards to algorithms, policy-making and perception of safety driverless vs. humans (I will add to this paragraph soon), just from slightly different angles.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Bartek for creating the page! Do we think we should make the policy paragraph slightly snappier and shorter by dividing some of it into the definition and opening section? It seems quite dense, but really informative! We should look at what images and visual aids to add in too. Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 19:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC) Ellie

Updated it. Think it's more precise now. --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've just realised that a definition at the beginning may be redundant as it fits better into Bartek's section. I do feel we need an opening though... thoughts? Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree we need an opening, perhaps just a brief introduction into what self-driving cars are? and perhaps where it was first produced, developed and tested? thoughts? Ceceliu17 (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we should definitely keep in mind though that the section is about issues with evidence shown using driver-less cars as an example, so I do think we should maybe introduce it with a summary of the issues(s) of evidence we are looking at and how they relate to driverless cars?Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 20:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I just added a few first ideas about how evidence is related to people`s opinion, but I realize that the link between the availability of evidence and the way this evidence is considered regarding existing emotions around the topic to form an opinion has not become sufficiently clear yet.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Me and Kristina are in the common room and have agreed we need to focus on the principles of evidence, even if we venture into abstract territory. we will see you guys soon!! Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that Kristina's thought "These fears might lead to a pessimistic judgement of the consequences of the technology." could be implemented into the first section Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ellie, Bartek and I have talked about restructuring the book and giving it more structure regarding issues with evidence illustrated with self-driving cars; a overall title might also be appropriate. Evaluation of evidence: how the car evaluates the evidence, how evidence is evaluated in policy-making and with that how people evaluate evidence.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The ethics section can be viewed as "how evidence is used to make ethical decisions regarding trolley-problem etc."Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

in this line of thought, I have changed the title to encompass these three mediums: within the car, around the car (to improve its safety in practice) and then the effects of their use. Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Goal for this week: everybody work on their paragraphs to bring the discussed structure to it, make the evidence issue (evaluation) clear, meet next week to bring it all together and then to edit each other`s paragraphsKristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I have just updated the opening paragraph so that evidence 'within' driverless cars is a continuous line of consideration and focus throughout. I hope that this is clearer for the reader? Please let me know. I slightly touched on public perception on the technology, it was hard not to do so, but can happily get rid of this. See you all tomorrow! Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 09:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

How is everyone's work going? Hopefully we can have a clearer product before we meet Manuela on Monday. Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Ellie, I have just read the changes you made with the idea to make the evidence "within" clearer. Maybe consider making a stronger connection regarding how exactly evidence relates to the algorithm (the algorithm as the central point with elaborations on how it gathers the evidence and how it evaluates it to make a decision)? But that is just an idea and yes, it is clearer than before I think.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Kristina regarding the need of a bit more clarity in connection to the algorithm point. Also, I was thinking that the 'breadth' and 'depth' you mention might need one sentence more explanation? Just a suggestion. --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've rebuild the 'surrounding' section in order to stress more on evaluation of evidence, clarify some points and bring some interdisciplinarity perspective. Also, added a proposal for short intro to the article --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

We need to update all references to Vancouver style. Updated mine. The once which are still not updated are up from 'bibliography' heading. --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 20:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi everyone!! I have slightly rearranged the structure of the paragraph, you were right that there needed to be more clarification on the link between algorithm and evidence. I hope I have made it clearer. Ellie 144.82.8.98 (discuss) 12:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC) 144.82.9.180 (discuss) 17:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bartek, I really like the interdisciplinary link in your section. Although, I feel that the introduction could be implemented into the section itself, as it doesn't say much that is different from the content that follows. It probably doesn't need to be as long either- just reflecting on the word count. It is really clear though I really like it!!! Ellie 144.82.8.98 (discuss) 12:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)144.82.9.180 (discuss) 17:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Just created a conclusion; I put down some of the disciplines we are looking at but please have a look to refine that list.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I slightly shortened the introduction, keeping the word count in mind. Also clarified and refined the first section. Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I think in tomorrow's seminar we should discuss further whether we are going to condense the sections into two or leave it how it is. Personally, I think it flows quite nicely in its current structure; I know we have said how policy-making links to ethics which links to the trust in the technology, but honestly the connections are endless. There are so many links that the page could merge into one long paragraph, so perhaps it is better to remain clear and concise in each section and let the reader understand the connections, as one naturally does in reading the article. Although, two sections could also work if we are specific with what is added to each. Like Kristina said, we should all think about what should be the final remark in the conclusion. See you all tomorrow! Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that we should reconsider moving the sections but I do feel like mine would make more sense, especially in Bartek`s section.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Bartek, could we maybe change the title of the second section and remove the word "uncertain" so it incorporates my addition better?Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 18:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure :) --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Each of us needs to make sure each of our sections is as condensed as possible because at the moment we are still over the word limit Ceceliu17 (discuss • contribs) 13:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

My section is 392 words; I'll see if I can cut any words from any of the other sections. Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I have cut bits down, added hyperlinks and a picture. I think its really clear and looking good now. Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We are still a lot over the word limit so we need to keep reducing that; also the references are not all in the same Vancouver convention.Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC) I am also not sure if we are properly linked to the book so we should probably check that!Kristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The page is linked nowKristina.funk (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

On my sandbox: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User:Bartekmik/sandbox together with Kristina.funk we have worked on integrating our paragraphs for the 'surrounding' section in order to make it more concise and clear and match the word count. --Bartekmik (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have decreased the word count number to 273 now Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

We are under the word count of 1,200 words so I think it is best if we all read through the article from a reader's perspective to agree if this is the finished product. If we all agree it flows nicely, I think we should submit it! Elliecolenso1 (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)