41 research outputs found
Ethics Presentation: Ethics in the Age of Cyber and Autonomy
No full textSpeaker: Col. Linell Letendre, USAF, Head, Department of Law, U.S. Air Force Academ
Recommended from our members
Guardians of Code and Conscience: Exploring Legal and Ethical Frontiers of Generative AI
No full textIntroduction: Maj Gen Charlie Dunlap, USAF (Ret.), LENS Executive Director
Speaker: Brig Gen Linell Letendre, USAF, Dean of the Faculty, U.S. Air Force Academ
Guardians of Code and Conscience: Exploring Legal and Ethical Frontiers of Generative AI
No full textIntroduction: Maj Gen Charlie Dunlap, USAF (Ret.), LENS Executive Director
Speaker: Brig Gen Linell Letendre, USAF, Dean of the Faculty, U.S. Air Force Academ
Guardians of Code and Conscience: Exploring Legal and Ethical Frontiers of Generative AI
No full textIntroduction: Maj Gen Charlie Dunlap, USAF (Ret.), LENS Executive Director
Speaker: Brig Gen Linell Letendre, USAF, Dean of the Faculty, U.S. Air Force Academ
Negotiating Social Change: Backstory Behind the Repeal of Don\u27t Ask, Don\u27t Tell
No full textThis Article is about negotiating social change in the largest U.S. institution, the Military and its five Services. Inducing social change in any institution and society is notoriously difficult when change requires overcoming clashing personal values among stakeholders. And, in this negotiation over the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), clashing values over open service by gays and lesbians were central to the conflict. In response to President Obama’s call to repeal DADT, the Secretary of Defense selected a Working Group to undertake studies, surveys and focus groups to inform the debate. During the nine-month process of gathering a massive amount of information, the Working Group did much more than inform. Its process cultivated buy-in by resistant Service members to the largest shift in social values in the military since racial integration in 1948. This study examines how the Pentagon’s Working Group process contributed to the change and prepared stakeholders for implementation in an Article jointly written by Brigadier General Letendre, Dean of the Faculty at U.S. Air Force Academy, who served as the legal advisor to the Co-Chair of the Working Group, and Professor Hal Abramson, an academic and practitioner in the field of dispute resolution who is an award-winning author. The authors use theoretical negotiation benchmarks to explain and examine choices made by the Working Group while assessing the process against the same benchmarks. While this Article is joint, it is enriched by short commentaries by each author, in which Brigadier General Letendre offers an insider’s view at key points while Professor Abramson offers his observations on key choices. Ultimately this Article is a case study of a complex multiparty process with lessons on negotiating social change
Negotiating Social Change: Backstory Behind the Repeal of Don\u27t Ask, Don\u27t Tell
No full textThis Article is about negotiating social change in the largest U.S. institution, the Military and its five Services. Inducing social change in any institution and society is notoriously difficult when change requires overcoming clashing personal values among stakeholders. And, in this negotiation over the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), clashing values over open service by gays and lesbians were central to the conflict. In response to President Obama’s call to repeal DADT, the Secretary of Defense selected a Working Group to undertake studies, surveys and focus groups to inform the debate. During the nine-month process of gathering a massive amount of information, the Working Group did much more than inform. Its process cultivated buy-in by resistant Service members to the largest shift in social values in the military since racial integration in 1948. This study examines how the Pentagon’s Working Group process contributed to the change and prepared stakeholders for implementation in an Article jointly written by Brigadier General Letendre, Dean of the Faculty at U.S. Air Force Academy, who served as the legal advisor to the Co-Chair of the Working Group, and Professor Hal Abramson, an academic and practitioner in the field of dispute resolution who is an award-winning author. The authors use theoretical negotiation benchmarks to explain and examine choices made by the Working Group while assessing the process against the same benchmarks. While this Article is joint, it is enriched by short commentaries by each author, in which Brigadier General Letendre offers an insider’s view at key points while Professor Abramson offers his observations on key choices. Ultimately this Article is a case study of a complex multiparty process with lessons on negotiating social change
Negotiating Social Change: Backstory Behind the Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
No full textThis Article is about negotiating social change in the largest U.S.institution, the Military and its five Services. Inducing social change in any institution and society is notoriously difficult when change requires overcoming clashing personal values among stakeholders. And, in this negotiation over the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT), clashing values over open service by gays and lesbians were central to the conflict.
In response to President Obama’s call to repeal DADT, the Secretary of Defense selected a Working Group to undertake studies, surveys and focus groups to inform the debate. During the nine-month process of gathering a massive amount of information, the Working Group did much more than inform. Its process cultivated buy-in by resistant Service members to the largest shift in social values in the military since racial integration in 1948.
This study examines how the Pentagon’s Working Group process contributed to the change and prepared stakeholders for implementation in an Article jointly written by Brigadier General Letendre, Dean of the Faculty at U.S. Air Force Academy, who served as the legal advisor to the Co-Chair of the Working Group, and Professor Hal Abramson, an academic and practitioner in the field of dispute resolution who is an award-winning author.
The authors use theoretical negotiation benchmarks to explain and examine choices made by the Working Group while assessing the process against the same benchmarks. While this Article is joint, it is enriched by short commentaries by each author, in which Brigadier General Letendre offers an insider’s view at key points while Professor Abramson offers his observations on key choices. Ultimately this Article is a case study of a complex multiparty process with lessons on negotiating social change
Languaging in real life : an introduction to dialogical perspectives on language, thinking and communication
No full textThis book is a comprehensive introduction to a dialogical perspective on language, languaging, thinking, communication and culture. It builds upon social psychology, social and dialogical philosophy (phenomenology), interactional linguistics, and humanistic ideas of thinking and communication. Dialogical terms comprise, for example, dialogue, dialectics, dynamics, extended dialogism, external dialogue, partial holism, situations, contexts and activities, partial and partially shared understandings, participation, appropriation, and meaning-making, interpenetrations of concepts, e.g. persons and culture. According to dialogical theory, a great deal revolves around the assumption that the making of meaning and social order in human activities and cultures is usually and initially built on interactions and relations between Self and Others. Basic properties of contributions to external dialogues are relations between initiatives and responses. Categories of responsive actions include minimal, short (“elliptical”) and expanded (“full”) responses. An important distinction is that between situated and sociohistorical contexts; we can talk about “double dialogicality” (situated vs. sociohistorical). An explanatory context theory must also distinguish between co-textual, other situation-based, and cultural (non-local) types. Pragma-semantic categories are linguistic means and situated (“participants’”) meanings; a parallel distinction is that between meaning potentials (of words and constructions) and message potentialities. (of situated utterances). Communication comprises cognitive, emotional and volitional aspects, and involves partial (and partially shared) understandings, and relations of power and respect. Utterances are characterised by responsivity, addressivity, incrementation, and relatively frequent re(tro)constructions of ongoing processes. The book includes separate sections on evolution and ontogenesis, dialogue and thinking, individual and collective aspects of language and languaging, activity types, multimodality of utterances, conditions production, reception and understanding of utterances, and also some traditional – but partially misguided – ideas in the theorisation of language and communication. This includes a discussion of the “written language bias in linguistics” which is a historical feature of the language sciences despite their shift from “practical” to “theoretical” concerns. All chapters are designed to highlight dialogical aspects. The last two chapters contain a discussions of general dialogical ideas as well as of phenomenology as an overarching framework. The differences between natural-science and humanistic approaches to the mind and mental capacities of man conclude the book. Several arguments build upon earlier work by the author, such as Linell (1998, 2005, 2009) and numerous papers such as Linell & Marková (1993) and Linell (2016, 2020a, 2021a). A list of major sources of inspiration is given in Appendix 1.Granskning:Författaren har själv skickat utkastet på extern granskning.</p
Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems: Translating Geek Speak for Lawyers
No full textThis article provides an overview of robotics and autonomous systems so that attorneys can better understand the systems and design principles of lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) that may be used in an armed conflict. Using the lens of establishing a common language between engineers and attorneys, the article introduces the basics of robotics terminology, explores how autonomous systems work by explaining control systems and control architecture, and examines how autonomous systems learn and reason. It also suggests a number of questions attorneys should ask engineers during the design process in order to ensure autonomous systems are designed in a way that comply with the laws of armed conflict
