Martin Gibert
MontréalHere we look at the career of Martin Gibert, a researcher in the ethics of artificial intelligence at the Université de Montréal...
Studies, readings, projects... Here's what he has to say!
Can you introduce yourself? What are you currently doing?
I am a researcher in the ethics of artificial intelligence at the Université de Montréal. More specifically, I'm affiliated with the Centre de Recherche en Éthique (CRÉ) and the Institut de valorisation des données (IVADO). Sometimes I think I've found the dream job for a philosopher: artificial intelligence really is a mine of new questions and concepts to explore. So, basically, I'm getting paid to think about this. Well, that's not entirely true: I also have to answer emails, go to meetings and check my Facebook notifications.
When Facebook (and LibGen) didn't yet exist, I studied philosophy in France; in Clermont-Ferrand, Toulouse and Paris. As I had passed the CAPES, I was lucky enough to be a national service volunteer in the two French lycées in Montreal. I then taught for a year in Tunisia as a 'resident' before taking a leave of absence from the Éducation Nationale and moving to Canada for good. It was here that I undertook a PhD in moral psychology under the supervision of Christine Tappolet, a specialist in emotions and metaethics. In my thesis, I argued that imagination has an epistemic function: it enriches our moral knowledge, particularly through perspective-taking, seeing-as and metaphors or counterfactual thinking. This became a book, L'imagination en morale (Hermann 2014).
I then did a postdoc at McGill University - I never wanted to leave Montreal! - with some inclinations towards experimental philosophy. I also took advantage of this period to apply my analyses of moral perception to the field of animal ethics. In Voir son steak comme animal mort : veganisme et psychologie morale (Lux 2015), a book more for the general public than the previous one, I try in particular to understand why people find it so hard to boycott animal exploitation when they generally agree on the substance: we shouldn't unnecessarily inflict suffering or death on sentient beings.
I am also intellectually committed to the vegan/anti-speciesist movement. After being editor-in-chief of the short-lived Véganes magazine, I am now co-editor-in-chief of l'Amorce, revue contre le spécisme. This is a privileged position from which to see a new moral and political field being formed "live": there are a number of fascinating debates and problems revealed by antispeciesism and the stakes are high since we are talking about the living and dying conditions of hundreds of billions of individuals.
As for teaching, I give a course in Critical Thinking and Dialogue at the Université du Québec à Montréal. I like it. It's an area that philosophy teachers should take on more: they're probably the best equipped for this type of course. Finally, I'm collaborating as co-editor of the "morality" section of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy online, a fine project that's starting to be well supplied.
What do you remember about your studies?
I have pretty good memories of my studies in France. Now I can compare it with Canada. For example, I think it's a shame that it's the agrégation syllabus (the French Championship!) that most often dictates university teaching. I get the impression that it perpetuates a fairly conservative approach to philosophy.
What also strikes me is how much the "competition and hierarchy" aspect is present at university - and at lycée, and on France culture, pretty much everywhere in fact. In North America, things seem much more horizontal. Doctoral students are regarded as colleagues by other researchers. Professors don't look down on you. In short, it's nicer.
And as long as I had to cross the Atlantic, I decided to go and see the dark side of the force. In two words: it's better. With the analytical approach, I realised that you could try to solve philosophical problems seriously. This is a far cry from the artistic, solitary philosophers à la Deleuze who don't provide any arguments to support their theses. With hindsight, I regret not having been in contact with the analytic tradition earlier.
Which philosophy book have you been particularly passionate about?
I have always preferred contemporary thought to the history of philosophy. When I was younger, I read a lot of Deleuze, I loved his humour, his intelligence and his ideas machine side. Then, when I discovered ethics, several books by Peter Singer and Ruwen Ogien made an impact on me. Having said that, on a day-to-day basis, I mostly read articles that are a bit boring (but reasonable and rigorous) that are inserted into fairly technical debates.
At the moment, I'd say that the philosophers who interest me most are generally from my generation and that they are often involved in the anti-speciesist movement: I'm thinking in particular of the animal ethics specialist Valéry Giroux, the ecofeminist Christiane Bailey or the theorist of black veganism, Syl Ko.
What are your projects, your research work?
I'm trying to feed an AI ethics blog, the fourth wound. I give talks at Cégeps (the equivalent of high schools) and collaborate on educational missions and research projects. These days, I'm working on an article with a colleague on the moral status of AIs and finishing an introductory book on the ethics of AI centred on the question of artificial moral agents. It should be out in spring 2020 in Quebec - nothing has yet been decided for France. Finally you can find my articles on my site.
Thank you Martin, for this testimonial!
> Discover other philosophical journeys in the agora...