Welcome to Futuremakers from the University of Oxford, where our academics debate key issues for the future of society. Season Three: The History of Pandemics (Starting 01 Dec 2020) - Returning for its third series, the University of Oxford's Futuremakers podcast follows host, Professor Peter Millican, as he talks to researchers from around the world about some of the devastating pandemics humanity has experienced. Peter and his colleagues look at ten major outbreaks: from the Plague of Athens to the West African Ebola outbreak, via the Black Death, Cholera and Smallpox, and ask how these outbreaks have shaped society, what we may be able to learn from them today, and where we might be heading? Season Two: Climate Change - Conversations on how we respond to a changing climate, and how humanity will cope and thrive in an uncertain future, with some of the world’s leading thinkers. (28 Oct 2019 - 20 Dec 2019) Special episode: Could quantum computing change the world? (11 Apr 2019) Season One: Artificial Intelligence (16 Oct 2018 - 08 Jan 2019)
Should nuclear power be part of our energy system?
Should nuclear power be part of our energy system? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with experts from Oxford. Nuclear energy is still a controversial idea for many people, with dangerous accidents and destructive bombs being at the top of their minds when they hear the words, yet other renewable energy sources are not without their critics, and arguably are not yet at a place where they can entirely replace our current energy systems. So what role can, or should, nuclear be playing in the UK energy sector as we move towards a sustainable future? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Professor Nick Eyre, Director of the Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions, who in 1997 wrote the first published study on how the then Government’s 20% carbon emission reduction target might be achieved; Dr Sarah Darby, Acting Leader of the Energy Programme at Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute, who has a particular interest in how energy systems might develop in more environmentally and socially-benign ways; and James Marrow, James Martin Professor of Energy Materials, whose work is focussed on the degradation of structural materials.
What did the Paris Climate Agreement change?
What did the Paris 2015 Climate Agreement change? what did the politicians at Paris actually achieve? On the 12th December 2015, at the 21st COP in Paris, representatives of 196 states reached an agreement to combat climate change that was celebrated around the world. With the long-term goal of keeping global temperature to below two degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels, and covering areas such as nationally determined contributions and global stocktakes, Paris was heralded as a huge break-through. But four years on, and against the backdrop of the United States announcing its intention to withdraw from the agreement, what did the politicians at Paris actually achieve? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Fredi Otto, Acting Director of Oxford’s Environmental Change Institute and a lead scientist on the World Weather Attribution project; Richard Miller, a Senior Analyst for the Committee on Climate Change, whose research spans the physical and economic consequences of climate policy; and Sugandha Srivastav, a researcher on the post carbon transition, who’s previously worked at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations.
Climate change: do individual actions matter?
Is there still potential for actions on an individual level to shape the future of the planet? With a lot of Government work relying on geo-political understanding between nation states and large multinational corporations, is there still potential for actions on an individual level to shape the future of the planet? Do actions such as changing our diets, varying how we commute or even joining in with mass demonstrations, have the possibility of being anywhere near as effective as changes that can be made on an international level? Can one person save the planet? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Professor Susan Jebb, a nutrition scientist who is co-director of the Livestock, Environment and People (or LEAP) project, Dr Tina Fawcett, a senior researcher at the Environmental Change Institute, who works on the ECI’s energy programme, and Tristram Walsh, President of the Oxford Climate Society, a student society dedicated to developing informed climate leaders.
How do you build a greener country?
What does the current infrastructure in the UK look like, and how far is it from where we need to be to meet our international commitments? What does the current infrastructure in the UK look like, and how far is it from where we need to be to meet our international commitments, or even our own challenge to be Net Zero by 2050? How much do our working practices and lives contribute to how ‘green’ the country is, and how can we promote and preserve biodiversity across the globe? How do we compare to other countries, and what can we learn from them? Finally, how do you build a ‘greener’ country? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Professor Cameron Hepburn, Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, who has provided advice on climate policy to a number of governments; Alison Smith, a senior researcher at the Environmental Change Institute, who’s worked on a number of EU climate projects and is the author of ‘The Climate Bonus: co-benefits of climate policy’; and April Burt, who has spent the past eight years working in conservation management in the western Indian ocean and is now part of Oxford’s Environmental Research team. Find out more about Oxford’s climate research at http://po.st/true_planet
Climate change and politics - why haven’t we done more?
With the IPCC warning that policymakers have limited time to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5° C - why haven’t we done more? With the IPCC warning that policymakers have limited time to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5° C, beyond which the climate-related risks to humans and natural systems rise quickly, it’s clear that we need to act sooner rather than later. This may be why we’re seeing increasing public action from the likes of Extinction Rebellion and the Youth Strikes for Climate, but what action have we seen from governments in the UK and beyond since this stark warning was delivered? What confidence can we have in our leaders to bring about the changes we need over the next decade? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Caroline Lucas MP, Green Party politician and Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion, Dr Ryan Rafaty, a political scientist at the University of Oxford working with our Climate Econometrics project, and Tristram Walsh, President of the
Twelve years to climate disaster?
The IPCC’s 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C broke into the public consciousness through media reporting that we only had twelve years to limit climate change catastrophe. The IPCC’s 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C broke into the public consciousness through media reporting that we only had twelve years to limit climate change catastrophe. But was this really the conclusion of the report? If it was, do we really only have twelve years to fix our climate, and if not, how soon should we take action? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Professor Myles Allen, Coordinating Lead Author on the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 degrees, Professor Helen Johnson from Oxford’s Earth Sciences Department, whose work focuses on understanding ocean circulation and the role in plays in the climate system; and Dr James Painter from the Reuters Institute at Oxford, who focuses on the portrayals of climate change in online and offline media. Find out more out Oxford’s climate research at http://po.st/true_planet
Could quantum computing change the world?
Peter Millican tries to discover the truth about a global race to develop the world’s first scalable quantum. Once we believed that the world around us behaved according to the laws of classical mechanics, and it took us hundreds of years to work out that actually something else was going on. Quantum computing offers what we believe to be the best way to process information based on the laws of physics as we now know them. But how did we discover that quantum mechanics could offer such developments in computing? And why did this realm remain hidden for so long? For this special episode of Futuremakers, Peter Millican, Professor of Philosophy, set out to discover the truth about a global race to develop the world’s first scalable quantum computer. He met a diverse range of researchers, who gave him their thoughts on the powerful next realm of computation their work opens up, via the fundamental building blocks, to the ultimate goal of a truly universal quantum computer. Keep listening to find out why there's a race to create this technology, if Oxford's researchers believe we'll ever achieve our goal, and what it could mean for society if we did.
Season Finale: AI selection box
In the final episode of our series, we’re looking back at the themes we’ve discussed so far, and forward into the likely development of AI. Professor Peter Millican will be joined by Professor Gil McVean, to further investigate how big data is transforming healthcare, by Dr Sandra Wachter, to discuss her recent work on the need for a legal framework around AI, and also by Professor Sir Nigel Shadbolt on where the field of artificial intelligence research has come from, and where it’s going. To conclude, Peter will be sharing some of his views on where humanity is heading with AI, when you’ll also hear from his final guest, Azeem Azhar, host of the Exponential View podcast. Futuremakers will be taking a short break now, but we’ll be back with series two in the new year, when we’ll be taking on another of society’s grand challenges: building a sustainable future. Before then we’ll also be publishing a special one-off episode on Quantum Computing, and the global opportunities, and risks, it could present. To read more about some of the key themes in this episode, you can find Sandra Wachter’s recent papers - 1) A Right to Reasonable Inferences: Re-Thinking Data Protection Law in the Age of Big Data and AI - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3248829 2) Explaining Explanations in AI - https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3278331 3) Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: automated decisions and the GDPR - https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v31/Counterfactual-Explanations-without-Opening-the-Black-Box-Sandra-Wachter-et-al.pdf
Is China leading the way in AI?
In the penultimate episode of series one of Futuremakers, we’re looking at the development of AI across the globe. China has set itself the challenge of being the world’s primary innovation centre by 2030, a move forecast to generate a 26% boost in GDP from AI related benefits alone, and some claim they’re already leading the way in many areas. But how realistic is this aim when compared to AI research and development across the world? And if China could dominate this field, what are the best, and worse, case scenarios for both it, AI technology, and the rest of the planet? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Mike Wooldridge, Head of Oxford’s Department of Computer Science; Xiaorong Ding, a post-doctoral researcher who’s studied and worked several of China’s leading universities and companies; and Sophie-Charlotte Fischer, a visiting researcher at the Future of Humanity Institute, and a PhD Candidate whose dissertation project focusses on the development of AI in China and the US.
What does AI mean for the future of humanity
Join our host, philosopher Professor Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with three experts from Oxford University. So far in the series, we’ve heard that artificial intelligence is becoming ubiquitous and is already changing our lives in many ways, from how we search for and receive information, to how it is used to improve our health and the nature of the ways we work. We’ve already taken a step into the past and explored the history of AI, but now it’s time to look forward. Many philosophers and writers over the centuries have discussed the difficult ethical choices that arise in our lives. As we hand some of these choices over to machines, are we confident they will reach conclusions that we can accept? Can, or should, a human always be in control of an artificial intelligence? Can we train automated systems to avoid catastrophic failures, that humans might avoid instinctively? Could artificial intelligence present an extreme, or even an existential threat to our future? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Allan Dafoe, Director of the Centre for the Governance of AI at the Future of Humanity Institute; Mike Osborne, co-director of the Oxford Martin programme on Technology and Employment, who joined us previously to discuss how AI might change how we work; and Jade Leung, Head of Partnerships and researcher with the Centre for the Governance of AI.
Has AI changed the way we find the truth?
Around the world, automated bot accounts have enabled some government agencies and political parties to exploit online platforms in dispersing fake messages. Around the world, automated bot accounts have enabled some government agencies and political parties to exploit online platforms in dispersing messages, using keywords to game algorithms, and discrediting legitimate information on a mass scale. Through this they can spread junk news and disinformation; exercise censorship and control; and undermine trust in the media, public institutions and science. But is this form of propaganda really new? If so, what effect is it having on society? And is the worst yet to come as AI develops? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Rasmus Nielsen, Director of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism; Vidya Narayanan, post-doctoral researcher in Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Project; and Mimie Liotsiou, also a post-doctoral researcher on the Computational Propaganda project who works on online social influence.
From Ada Lovelace to Alan Turing, the birth of AI?
Many developments in science are achieved through people being able to ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ and in the history of AI two giants in particular stand out. Ada Lovelace, who inspired visions of computer creativity, and Alan Turing, who conceived machines which could do anything a human could do. So where do their stories, along with those of calculating engines, punched card machines and cybernetics fit into where artificial intelligence is today? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Ursula Martin, Professor at the University of Edinburgh and a member of Oxford's Mathematical Institute, Andrew Hodges, Emeritus Fellow at Wadham College, who tutors for a wide range of courses in pure and applied mathematics, and Jacob Ward, a historian of science, technology, and modern Britain and a Postdoctoral Researcher in the History of Computing.
Does AI have a gender?
Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores the topics of gender and AI. As chatbots and virtual assistants become an ever-present part of our world, and algorithms increasingly support decision-making, people working in this field are asking questions about the bias and balance of power in AI. With the make-up of teams designing technology still far from diverse, is this being reflected in how we humanise technology? Who are the people behind the design of algorithms and are they re-enforcing society’s prejudices through the systems they create? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Gina Neff, Senior Research Fellow and Associate Professor at the Oxford Internet Institute, Carissa Veliz, a Research Fellow at the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics and the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, and Sian Brooke, a DPhil student at the Oxford Internet Institute focussed on construction of gendered identity on the pseudonymous web.
Is AI good for our health?
Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores the topic "Is AI good for our health?" With AI algorithms now able to mine enormous databases and assimilate information far quicker than humans can, we’re able to spot subtle effects in health data that could otherwise have been easily overlooked. So how are these tools being developed and used? What does this mean for medical professionals and patients? And how do we decide whether these algorithms are making things better or worse? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Alison Noble, Technikos Professor of Biomedical Engineering in the Department of Engineering Science, Paul Leeson, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the University of Oxford, and a Consultant Cardiologist at the John Radcliffe Hospital, and Jessica Morley, a Technology Advisor to the Department of Health, leading on policy relating to the Prime Minister's Artificial Intelligence Mission.
Is the banking sector about to change for ever?
AI is already playing a role in the finance sector, from fraud detection, to algorithmic trading, to customer service, and many within the industry believe this role will develop rapidly within the next few years. So what does this mean for both the people that work in this sector, and for the role banking and finance plays in society? Join our host, philosopher Peter Millican, as he explores this topic with Professor Stephen Roberts, Royal Academy of Engineering and Man Group Professor of Machine Learning, Professor Nir Vulkan, a leading authority on e-commerce and market design, and on applied research and teaching on hedge funds, and Jannes Klaas, author of 'Machine Learning for Finance: Data algorithms for the markets and deep learning from the ground up for financial experts and economics'.