Paper by C. Huang & L. Soete: “In history, open science has been effective in facilitating knowledge sharing and promoting and diffusing innovations. However, as a result of geopolitical tensions, technological sovereignty has recently been increasingly emphasized in various countries’ science and technology policy making, posing a challenge to open science policy. In this paper, we argue that the European Union significantly benefits from and contributes to open science and should continue to support it. Similarly, China embraced foreign technologies and engaged in open science as its economy developed rapidly in the last 40 years. Today both economies could learn from each other in finding the right balance between open science and technological sovereignty particularly given the very different policy experience and the urgency of implementing new technologies addressing the grand challenges such as climate change faced by mankind…(More)”.
Disinformation: Definitions and examples
Explainer by Perthusasia Centre: “Disinformation has been a tool of manipulation and control for centuries, from ancient military strategies to Cold War propaganda. With the rapid advancement of technology,
it has evolved into a sophisticated and pervasive security threat that transcends traditional boundaries.
This explainer takes the definitions and examples from our recent Indo-Pacific Analysis Brief, Disinformation and cognitive warfare by Senior Fellow Alana Ford, and creates an simple, standalone guide for quick reference…(More)”.
Diversifying Professional Roles in Data Science
Policy Briefing by Emma Karoune and Malvika Sharan: The interdisciplinary nature of the data science workforce extends beyond the traditional notion of a “data scientist.” A successful data science team requires a wide range of technical expertise, domain knowledge and leadership capabilities. To strengthen such a team-based approach, this note recommends that institutions, funders and policymakers invest in developing and professionalising diverse roles, fostering a resilient data science ecosystem for the future.
By recognising the diverse specialist roles that collaborate within interdisciplinary teams, organisations can leverage deep expertise across multiple skill sets, enhancing responsible decision-making and fostering innovation at all levels. Ultimately, this note seeks to shift the perception of data science professionals from the conventional view of individual data scientists to a competency-based model of specialist roles within a team, each essential to the success of data science initiatives…(More)”.
Future of AI Research
Report by the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence: “As AI capabilities evolve rapidly, AI research is also undergoing a fast and significant transformation along many dimensions, including its topics, its methods, the research community, and the working environment. Topics such as AI reasoning and agentic AI have been studied for decades but now have an expanded scope in light of current AI capabilities and limitations. AI ethics and safety, AI for social good, and sustainable AI have become central themes in all major AI conferences. Moreover, research on AI algorithms and software systems is becoming increasingly tied to substantial amounts of dedicated AI hardware, notably GPUs, which leads to AI architecture co-creation, in a way that is more prominent now than over the last 3 decades. Related to this shift, more and more AI researchers work in corporate environments, where the necessary hardware and other resources are more easily available, compared to academia, questioning the roles of academic AI research, student retention, and faculty recruiting. The pervasive use of AI in our daily lives and its impact on people, society, and the environment makes AI a socio-technical field of study, thus highlighting the need for AI researchers to work with experts from other disciplines, such as psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, and economists. The growing focus on emergent AI behaviors rather than on designed and validated properties of AI systems renders principled empirical evaluation more important than ever. Hence the need arises for well-designed benchmarks, test methodologies, and sound processes to infer conclusions from the results of computational experiments. The exponentially increasing quantity of AI research publications and the speed of AI innovation are testing the resilience of the peer-review system, with the immediate release of papers without peer-review evaluation having become widely accepted across many areas of AI research. Legacy and social media increasingly cover AI research advancements, often with contradictory statements that confuse the readers and blur the line between reality and perception of AI capabilities. All this is happening in a geo-political environment, in which companies and countries compete fiercely and globally to lead the AI race. This rivalry may impact access to research results and infrastructure as well as global governance efforts, underscoring the need for international cooperation in AI research and innovation.
In this overwhelming multi-dimensional and very dynamic scenario, it is important to be able to clearly identify the trajectory of AI research in a structured way. Such an effort can define the current trends and the research challenges still ahead of us to make AI more capable and reliable, so we can safely use it in mundane but also, most importantly, in high-stake scenarios.
This study aims to do this by including 17 topics related to AI research, covering most of the transformations mentioned above. Each chapter of the study is devoted to one of these topics, sketching its history, current trends and open challenges…(More)”.
Bayes is not a phase
Blog by dynomight: “Because everyone uses Bayesian reasoning all the time, even if they don’t think of it that way. Arguably, we’re born Bayesian and do it instinctively. It’s normal and natural and—I daresay—almost boring. “Bayesian reasoning” is just a slight formalization of everyday thought.
It’s not a trend. It’s forever. But it’s forever like arithmetic is forever: Strange to be obsessed with it, but really strange to make fun of someone for using it.
Here, I’ll explain what Bayesian reasoning is, why it’s so fundamental, why people argue about it, and why much of that controversy is ultimately a boring semantic debate of no interest to an enlightened person like yourself. Then, for the haters, I’ll give some actually good reasons to be skeptical about how useful it is in practice.
I won’t use any equations. That’s not because I don’t think you can take it, but Bayesian reasoning isn’t math. It’s a concept. The typical explanations use lots of math and kind of gesture around the concept, but never seem to get to the core of it, which I think leads people to miss the forest for the trees…(More)”.
Why these scientists devote time to editing and updating Wikipedia
Article by Christine Ro: “…A 2018 survey of more than 4,000 Wikipedians (as the site’s editors are called) found that 12% had a doctorate. Scientists made up one-third of the Wikimedia Foundation’s 16 trustees, according to Doronina.
Although Wikipedia is the best-known project under the Wikimedia umbrella, there are other ways for scientists to contribute besides editing Wikipedia pages. For example, an entomologist could upload photos of little-known insect species to Wikimedia Commons, a collection of images and other media. A computer scientist could add a self-published book to the digital textbook site Wikibooks. Or a linguist could explain etymology on the collaborative dictionary Wiktionary. All of these are open access, a key part of Wikimedia’s mission.
Although Wikipedia’s structure might seem daunting for new editors, there are parallels with academic documents.
For instance, Jess Wade, a physicist at Imperial College London, who focuses on creating and improving biographies of female scientists and scientists from low- and middle-income countries, says that the talk page, which is the behind-the-scenes portion of a Wikipedia page on which editors discuss how to improve it, is almost like the peer-review file of an academic paper…However, scientists have their own biases about aspects such as how to classify certain topics. This matters, Harrison says, because “Wikipedia is intended to be a general-purpose encyclopaedia instead of a scientific encyclopaedia.”
One example is a long-standing battle over Wikipedia pages on cryptids and folklore creatures such as Bigfoot. Labels such as ‘pseudoscience’ have angered cryptid enthusiasts and raised questions about different types of knowledge. One suggestion is for the pages to feature a disclaimer that says that a topic is not accepted by mainstream science.
Wade raises a point about resourcing, saying it’s especially difficult for the platform to retain academics who might be enthusiastic about editing Wikipedia initially, but then drop off. One reason is time. For full-time researchers, Wikipedia editing could be an activity best left to evenings, weekends and holidays…(More)”.
Social Informatics
Book edited by Noriko Hara, and Pnina Fichman: “Social informatics examines how society is influenced by digital technologies and how digital technologies are shaped by political, economic, and socio-cultural forces. The chapters in this edited volume use social informatics approaches to analyze recent issues in our increasingly data-intensive society.
Taking a social informatics perspective, this edited volume investigates the interaction between society and digital technologies and includes research that examines individuals, groups, organizations, and nations, as well as their complex relationships with pervasive mobile and wearable devices, social media platforms, artificial intelligence, and big data. This volume’s contributors range from seasoned and renowned researchers to upcoming researchers in social informatics. The readers of the book will understand theoretical frameworks of social informatics; gain insights into recent empirical studies of social informatics in specific areas such as big data and its effects on privacy, ethical issues related to digital technologies, and the implications of digital technologies for daily practices; and learn how the social informatics perspective informs research and practice…(More)”.
Randomize NIH grant giving
Article by Vinay Prasad: “A pause in NIH study sections has been met with fear and anxiety from researchers. At many universities, including mine, professors live on soft money. No grants? If you are assistant professor, you can be asked to pack your desk. If you are a full professor, the university slowly cuts your pay until you see yourself out. Everyone talks about you afterwards, calling you a failed researcher. They laugh, a little too long, and then blink back tears as they wonder if they are next. Of course, your salary doubles in the new job and you are happier, but you are still bitter and gossiped about.
In order to apply for NIH grants, you have to write a lot of bullshit. You write specific aims and methods, collect bios from faculty and more. There is a section where you talk about how great your department and team is— this is the pinnacle of the proverbial expression, ‘to polish a turd.’ You invite people to work on your grant if they have a lot of papers or grants or both, and they agree to be on your grant even though they don’t want to talk to you ever again.
You submit your grant and they hire someone to handle your section. They find three people to review it. Ideally, they pick people who have no idea what you are doing or why it is important, and are not as successful as you, so they can hate read your proposal. If, despite that, they give you a good score, you might be discussed at study section.
The study section assembles scientists to discuss your grant. As kids who were picked last in kindergarten basketball, they focus on the minutiae. They love to nitpick small things. If someone on study section doesn’t like you, they can tank you. In contrast, if someone loves you, they can’t really single handedly fund you.
You might wonder if study section leaders are the best scientists. Rest assured. They aren’t. They are typically mid career, mediocre scientists. (This is not just a joke, data support this claim see www.drvinayprasad.com). They rarely have written extremely influential papers.
Finally, your proposal gets a percentile score. Here is the chance of funding by percentile. You might get a chance to revise your grant if you just fall short….Given that the current system is onerous and likely flawed, you would imagine that NIH leadership has repeatedly tested whether the current method is superior than say a modified lottery, aka having an initial screen and then randomly giving out the money.
Of course not. Self important people giving out someone else’s money rarely study their own processes. If study sections are no better than lottery, that would mean a lot of NIH study section officers would no longer need to work hard from home half the day, freeing up money for one more grant.
Let’s say we take $200 million and randomize it. Half of it is allocated to being given out in the traditional method, and the other half is allocated to a modified lottery. If an application is from a US University and passes a minimum screen, it is enrolled in the lottery.
Then we follow these two arms into the future. We measure publications, citations, h index, the average impact factor of journals in which the papers are published, and more. We even take a subset of the projects and blind reviewers to score the output. Can they tell which came from study section?…(More)”.
The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Societies
Book edited by Christian Montag and Raian Ali: “This book presents a recent framework proposed to understand how attitudes towards artificial intelligence are formed. It describes how the interplay between different variables, such as the modality of AI interaction, the user personality and culture, the type of AI applications (e.g. in the realm of education, medicine, transportation, among others), and the transparency and explainability of AI systems contributes to understand how user’s acceptance or a negative attitude towards AI develops. Gathering chapters from leading researchers with different backgrounds, this book offers a timely snapshot on factors that will be influencing the impact of artificial intelligence on societies…(More)”.
Developing a public-interest training commons of books
Article by Authors Alliance: “…is pleased to announce a new project, supported by the Mellon Foundation, to develop an actionable plan for a public-interest book training commons for artificial intelligence. Northeastern University Library will be supporting this project and helping to coordinate its progress.
Access to books will play an essential role in how artificial intelligence develops. AI’s Large Language Models (LLMs) have a voracious appetite for text, and there are good reasons to think that these data sets should include books and lots of them. Over the last 500 years, human authors have written over 129 million books. These volumes, preserved for future generations in some of our most treasured research libraries, are perhaps the best and most sophisticated reflection of all human thinking. Their high editorial quality, breadth, and diversity of content, as well as the unique way they employ long-form narratives to communicate sophisticated and nuanced arguments and ideas make them ideal training data sources for AI.
These collections and the text embedded in them should be made available under ethical and fair rules as the raw material that will enable the computationally intense analysis needed to inform new AI models, algorithms, and applications imagined by a wide range of organizations and individuals for the benefit of humanity…(More)”