Assessing and Suing an Algorithm

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Elina Treyger, Jirka Taylor, Daniel Kim, and Maynard A. Holliday: “Artificial intelligence algorithms are permeating nearly every domain of human activity, including processes that make decisions about interests central to individual welfare and well-being. How do public perceptions of algorithmic decisionmaking in these domains compare with perceptions of traditional human decisionmaking? What kinds of judgments about the shortcomings of algorithmic decisionmaking processes underlie these perceptions? Will individuals be willing to hold algorithms accountable through legal channels for unfair, incorrect, or otherwise problematic decisions?

Answers to these questions matter at several levels. In a democratic society, a degree of public acceptance is needed for algorithms to become successfully integrated into decisionmaking processes. And public perceptions will shape how the harms and wrongs caused by algorithmic decisionmaking are handled. This report shares the results of a survey experiment designed to contribute to researchers’ understanding of how U.S. public perceptions are evolving in these respects in one high-stakes setting: decisions related to employment and unemployment…(More)”.

Can Large Language Models Capture Public Opinion about Global Warming? An Empirical Assessment of Algorithmic Fidelity and Bias

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by S. Lee et all: “Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential in social science research by emulating human perceptions and behaviors, a concept referred to as algorithmic fidelity. This study assesses the algorithmic fidelity and bias of LLMs by utilizing two nationally representative climate change surveys. The LLMs were conditioned on demographics and/or psychological covariates to simulate survey responses. The findings indicate that LLMs can effectively capture presidential voting behaviors but encounter challenges in accurately representing global warming perspectives when relevant covariates are not included. GPT-4 exhibits improved performance when conditioned on both demographics and covariates. However, disparities emerge in LLM estimations of the views of certain groups, with LLMs tending to underestimate worry about global warming among Black Americans. While highlighting the potential of LLMs to aid social science research, these results underscore the importance of meticulous conditioning, model selection, survey question format, and bias assessment when employing LLMs for survey simulation. Further investigation into prompt engineering and algorithm auditing is essential to harness the power of LLMs while addressing their inherent limitations…(More)”.

Unintended Consequences of Data-driven public participation: How Low-Traffic Neighborhood planning became polarized

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Alison Powell: “This paper examines how data-driven consultation contributes to dynamics of political polarization, using the case of ‘Low-Traffic Neighborhoods’ in London, UK. It explores how data-driven consultation can facilitate participation, including ‘agonistic data practices” (Crooks and Currie, 2022) that challenge the dominant interpretations of digital data. The paper adds empirical detail to previous studies of agonistic data practices, concluding that agonistic data practices require certain normative conditions to be met, otherwise dissenting data practices can contribute to dynamics of polarization. The results of this paper draw on empirical insights from the political context of the UK to explain how ostensibly democratic processes including data-driven consultation establish some kinds of knowledge as more legitimate than others. Apparently ‘objective’ knowledge, or calculable data, is attributed greater legitimacy than strong feelings or affective narratives. This can displace affective responses to policy decisions into insular social media spaces where polarizing dynamics are at play. Affective polarization, where political difference is solidified through appeals to feeling, creates political distance and the dehumanization of ‘others’. This can help to amplify conspiracy theories that pose risks to democracy and to the overall legitimacy of media environments. These tendencies are exacerbated when processes of consultation prescribe narrow or specific contributions, valorize quantifiable or objective data and create limited room for dissent…(More)”

AI and Democracy’s Digital Identity Crisis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Shrey Jain, Connor Spelliscy, Samuel Vance-Law and Scott Moore: “AI-enabled tools have become sophisticated enough to allow a small number of individuals to run disinformation campaigns of an unprecedented scale. Privacy-preserving identity attestations can drastically reduce instances of impersonation and make disinformation easy to identify and potentially hinder. By understanding how identity attestations are positioned across the spectrum of decentralization, we can gain a better understanding of the costs and benefits of various attestations. In this paper, we discuss attestation types, including governmental, biometric, federated, and web of trust-based, and include examples such as e-Estonia, China’s social credit system, Worldcoin, OAuth, X (formerly Twitter), Gitcoin Passport, and EAS. We believe that the most resilient systems create an identity that evolves and is connected to a network of similarly evolving identities that verify one another. In this type of system, each entity contributes its respective credibility to the attestation process, creating a larger, more comprehensive set of attestations. We believe these systems could be the best approach to authenticating identity and protecting against some of the threats to democracy that AI can pose in the hands of malicious actors. However, governments will likely attempt to mitigate these risks by implementing centralized identity authentication systems; these centralized systems could themselves pose risks to the democratic processes they are built to defend. We therefore recommend that policymakers support the development of standards-setting organizations for identity, provide legal clarity for builders of decentralized tooling, and fund research critical to effective identity authentication systems…(More)”

Networked Press Freedom

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Mike Ananny: “…offers a new way to think about freedom of the press in a time when media systems are in fundamental flux. Ananny challenges the idea that press freedom comes only from heroic, lone journalists who speak truth to power. Instead, drawing on journalism studies, institutional sociology, political theory, science and technology studies, and an analysis of ten years of journalism discourse about news and technology, he argues that press freedom emerges from social, technological, institutional, and normative forces that vie for power and fight for visions of democratic life. He shows how dominant, historical ideals of professionalized press freedom often mistook journalistic freedom from constraints for the public’s freedom to encounter the rich mix of people and ideas that self-governance requires. Ananny’s notion of press freedom ensures not only an individual right to speak, but also a public right to hear.

Seeing press freedom as essential for democratic self-governance, Ananny explores what publics need, what kind of free press they should demand, and how today’s press freedom emerges from intertwined collections of humans and machines. If someone says, “The public needs a free press,” Ananny urges us to ask in response, “What kind of public, what kind of freedom, and what kind of press?” Answering these questions shows what robust, self-governing publics need to demand of technologists and journalists alike…(More)”.

The Bletchley Declaration

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Declaration by Countries Attending the AI Safety Summit, 1-2 November 2023: “In the context of our cooperation, and to inform action at the national and international levels, our agenda for addressing frontier AI risk will focus on:

  • identifying AI safety risks of shared concern, building a shared scientific and evidence-based understanding of these risks, and sustaining that understanding as capabilities continue to increase, in the context of a wider global approach to understanding the impact of AI in our societies.
  • building respective risk-based policies across our countries to ensure safety in light of such risks, collaborating as appropriate while recognising our approaches may differ based on national circumstances and applicable legal frameworks. This includes, alongside increased transparency by private actors developing frontier AI capabilities, appropriate evaluation metrics, tools for safety testing, and developing relevant public sector capability and scientific research.

In furtherance of this agenda, we resolve to support an internationally inclusive network of scientific research on frontier AI safety that encompasses and complements existing and new multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral collaboration, including through existing international fora and other relevant initiatives, to facilitate the provision of the best science available for policy making and the public good.

In recognition of the transformative positive potential of AI, and as part of ensuring wider international cooperation on AI, we resolve to sustain an inclusive global dialogue that engages existing international fora and other relevant initiatives and contributes in an open manner to broader international discussions, and to continue research on frontier AI safety to ensure that the benefits of the technology can be harnessed responsibly for good and for all. We look forward to meeting again in 2024…(More)”.

Markets and the Good

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to Special Issue by Jay Tolson: “How, then, do we think beyond what has come to be the tyranny of economics—or perhaps more accurately, how do we put economics in its proper place? Coming at these questions from different angles and different first principles, our authors variously dissect formative economic doctrines (see Kyle Edward Williams, “The Myth of the Friedman Doctrine”) and propose restoring the genius of the American system of capitalism (Jacob Soll, “Hamilton’s System”) or revising the purpose and priorities of the corporation (Michael Lind, “Profit, Power, and Purpose”). Others, in turn, prescribe restraints for the excesses of liberalism (Deirdre Nansen McCloskey “An Economic Theology of Liberalism”) or even an alternative to it, in the restoration of “common good” thinking associated with subsidiarity (Andrew Willard Jones, “Friendship and the Common Good”). Yet others examine how “burnout” and “emotional labor” became status markers and signs of virtue that weaken solidarity among workers of all kinds (Jonathan Malesic, “How We Obscure the Common Plight of Workers”) or the subtle ways in which we have reduced ourselves to cogs in our economic system (Sarah M. Brownsberger, “Name Your Industry—Or Else!”). Collectively, our authors suggest, the reluctance to question and rethink our fundamental economic assumptions and institutions—and their relation to other goods—may pose the greatest threat to real prosperity and human flourishing…(More)”.

Enterprise Value and the Value of Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Dan Ciuriak: “Data is often said to be the most valuable commodity of our age. It is a curiosity, therefore, that it remains largely invisible on the balance sheets of companies and largely unmeasured in our national economic accounts. This paper comments on the problems of using cost-based or transactions-based methods to establish value for a nation’s data in the system of national accounts and suggests that this should be complemented with value of economic rents attributable to data. This rent is part of enterprise value; accordingly, an indicator is required as an instrumental variable for the use of data for value creation within firms. The paper argues that traditional accounting looks through the firm to its tangible (and certain intangible) assets; that may no longer be feasible in measuring and understanding the data-driven economy…(More)”

Does the sun rise for ChatGPT? Scientific discovery in the age of generative AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by David Leslie: “In the current hype-laden climate surrounding the rapid proliferation of foundation models and generative AI systems like ChatGPT, it is becoming increasingly important for societal stakeholders to reach sound understandings of their limitations and potential transformative effects. This is especially true in the natural and applied sciences, where magical thinking among some scientists about the take-off of “artificial general intelligence” has arisen simultaneously as the growing use of these technologies is putting longstanding norms, policies, and standards of good research practice under pressure. In this analysis, I argue that a deflationary understanding of foundation models and generative AI systems can help us sense check our expectations of what role they can play in processes of scientific exploration, sense-making, and discovery. I claim that a more sober, tool-based understanding of generative AI systems as computational instruments embedded in warm-blooded research processes can serve several salutary functions. It can play a crucial bubble-bursting role that mitigates some of the most serious threats to the ethos of modern science posed by an unreflective overreliance on these technologies. It can also strengthen the epistemic and normative footing of contemporary science by helping researchers circumscribe the part to be played by machine-led prediction in communicative contexts of scientific discovery while concurrently prodding them to recognise that such contexts are principal sites for human empowerment, democratic agency, and creativity. Finally, it can help spur ever richer approaches to collaborative experimental design, theory-construction, and scientific world-making by encouraging researchers to deploy these kinds of computational tools to heuristically probe unbounded search spaces and patterns in high-dimensional biophysical data that would otherwise be inaccessible to human-scale examination and inference…(More)”.

The UN Hired an AI Company to Untangle the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by David Gilbert: “…The application of artificial intelligence technologies to conflict situations has been around since at least 1996, with machine learning being used to predict where conflicts may occur. The use of AI in this area has expanded in the intervening years, being used to improve logistics, training, and other aspects of peacekeeping missions. Lane and Shults believe they could use artificial intelligence to dig deeper and find the root causes of conflicts.

Their idea for an AI program that models the belief systems that drive human behavior first began when Lane moved to Northern Ireland a decade ago to study whether computation modeling and cognition could be used to understand issues around religious violence.

In Belfast, Lane figured out that by modeling aspects of identity and social cohesion, and identifying the factors that make people motivated to fight and die for a particular cause, he could accurately predict what was going to happen next.

“We set out to try and come up with something that could help us better understand what it is about human nature that sometimes results in conflict, and then how can we use that tool to try and get a better handle or understanding on these deeper, more psychological issues at really large scales,” Lane says.

The result of their work was a study published in 2018 in The Journal for Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, which found that people are typically peaceful but will engage in violence when an outside group threatens the core principles of their religious identity.

A year later, Lane wrote that the model he had developed predicted that measures introduced by Brexit—the UK’s departure from the European Union that included the introduction of a hard border in the Irish Sea between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK—would result in a rise in paramilitary activity. Months later, the model was proved right.

The multi-agent model developed by Lane and Shults relied on distilling more than 50 million articles from GDelt, a project that ​​monitors “the world’s broadcast, print, and web news from nearly every corner of every country in over 100 languages.” But feeding the AI millions of articles and documents was not enough, the researchers realized. In order to fully understand what was driving the people of Northern Ireland to engage in violence against their neighbors, they would need to conduct their own research…(More)”.