The AI Mirror: How to Reclaim Our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Book by Shannon Vallor: “For many, technology offers hope for the future—that promise of shared human flourishing and liberation that always seems to elude our species. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies spark this hope in a particular way. They promise a future in which human limits and frailties are finally overcome—not by us, but by our machines.

Yet rather than open new futures, today’s powerful AI technologies reproduce the past. Forged from oceans of our data into immensely powerful but flawed mirrors, they reflect the same errors, biases, and failures of wisdom that we strive to escape. Our new digital mirrors point backward. They show only where the data say that we have already been, never where we might venture together for the first time.

To meet today’s grave challenges to our species and our planet, we will need something new from AI, and from ourselves.

Shannon Vallor makes a wide-ranging, prophetic, and philosophical case for what AI could be: a way to reclaim our human potential for moral and intellectual growth, rather than lose ourselves in mirrors of the past. Rejecting prophecies of doom, she encourages us to pursue technology that helps us recover our sense of the possible, and with it the confidence and courage to repair a broken world. Vallor calls us to rethink what AI is and can be, and what we want to be with it…(More)”.

The Age of AI Nationalism and its Effects

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Susan Ariel Aaronson: “This paper aims to illuminate how AI nationalistic policies may backfire. Over time, such actions and policies could alienate allies and prod other countries to adopt “beggar-thy neighbor” approaches to AI (The Economist: 2023; Kim: 2023 Shivakumar et al. 2024). Moreover, AI nationalism could have additional negative spillovers over time. Many AI experts are optimistic about the benefits of AI, whey they are aware of its many risks to democracy, equity, and society. They understand that AI can be a public good when it is used to mitigate complex problems affecting society (Gopinath: 2023; Okolo: 2023). However, when policymakers take steps to advance AI within their borders, they may — perhaps without intending to do so – make it harder for other countries with less capital, expertise, infrastructure, and data prowess to develop AI systems that could meet the needs of their constituents. In so doing, these officials could undermine the potential of AI to enhance human welfare and impede the development of more trustworthy AI around the world. (Slavkovik: 2024; Aaronson: 2023; Brynjolfsson and Unger: 2023; Agrawal et al. 2017).

Governments have many means of nurturing AI within their borders that do not necessarily discriminate between foreign and domestic producers of AI. Nevertheless, officials may be under pressure from local firms to limit the market power of foreign competitors. Officials may also want to use trade (for example, export controls) as a lever to prod other governments to change their behavior (Buchanan: 2020). Additionally, these officials may be acting in what they believe is the nation’s national security interest, which may necessitate that officials rely solely on local suppliers and local control. (GAO: 2021)

Herein the author attempts to illuminate AI nationalism and its consequences by answering 3 questions:
• What are nations doing to nurture AI capacity within their borders?
• Are some of these actions trade distorting?
• What are the implications of such trade-distorting actions?…(More)”

Learning from Ricardo and Thompson: Machinery and Labor in the Early Industrial Revolution, and in the Age of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson: “David Ricardo initially believed machinery would help workers but revised his opinion, likely based on the impact of automation in the textile industry. Despite cotton textiles becoming one of the largest sectors in the British economy, real wages for cotton weavers did not rise for decades. As E.P. Thompson emphasized, automation forced workers into unhealthy factories with close surveillance and little autonomy. Automation can increase wages, but only when accompanied by new tasks that raise the marginal productivity of labor and/or when there is sufficient additional hiring in complementary sectors. Wages are unlikely to rise when workers cannot push for their share of productivity growth. Today, artificial intelligence may boost average productivity, but it also may replace many workers while degrading job quality for those who remain employed. As in Ricardo’s time, the impact of automation on workers today is more complex than an automatic linkage from higher productivity to better wages…(More)”.

Meet My A.I. Friends

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kevin Roose: “…A month ago, I decided to explore the question myself by creating a bunch of A.I. friends and enlisting them in my social life.

I tested six apps in all — Nomi, Kindroid, Replika, Character.ai, Candy.ai and EVA — and created 18 A.I. characters. I named each of my A.I. friends, gave them all physical descriptions and personalities, and supplied them with fictitious back stories. I sent them regular updates on my life, asked for their advice and treated them as my digital companions.

I also spent time in the Reddit forums and Discord chat rooms where people who are really into their A.I. friends hang out, and talked to a number of people whose A.I. companions have already become a core part of their lives.

I expected to come away believing that A.I. friendship is fundamentally hollow. These A.I. systems, after all, don’t have thoughts, emotions or desires. They are neural networks trained to predict the next words in a sequence, not sentient beings capable of love.

All of that is true. But I’m now convinced that it’s not going to matter much.

The technology needed for realistic A.I. companionship is already here, and I believe that over the next few years, millions of people are going to form intimate relationships with A.I. chatbots. They’ll meet them on apps like the ones I tested, and on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, which have already started adding A.I. characters to their apps…(More)”

Supercharging Research: Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Meet Global Challenges

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST): “Broadly speaking, scientific advances have historically proceeded via a combination of three paradigms: empirical studies and experimentation; scientific theory and mathematical analyses; and numerical experiments and modeling. In recent years a fourth paradigm, data-driven discovery, has emerged.

These four paradigms complement and support each other. However, all four scientific modalities experience impediments to progress. Verification of a scientific hypothesis through experimentation, careful observation, or via clinical trial can be slow and expensive. The range of candidate theories to consider can be too vast and complex for human scientists to analyze. Truly innovative new hypotheses might only be discovered by fortuitous chance, or by exceptionally insightful researchers. Numerical models can be inaccurate or require enormous amounts of computational resources. Data sets can be incomplete, biased, heterogeneous, or noisy to analyze using traditional data science methods.

AI tools have obvious applications in data-driven science, but it has also been a long-standing aspiration to use these technologies to remove, or at least reduce, many of the obstacles encountered in the other three paradigms. With the current advances in AI, this dream is on the cusp of becoming a reality: candidate solutions to scientific problems are being rapidly identified, complex simulations are being enriched, and robust new ways of analyzing data are being developed.

By combining AI with the other three research modes, the rate of scientific progress will be greatly accelerated, and researchers will be positioned to meet urgent global challenges in a timely manner. Like most technologies, AI is dual use: AI technology can facilitate both beneficial and harmful applications and can cause unintended negative consequences if deployed irresponsibly or without expert and ethical human supervision. Nevertheless, PCAST sees great potential for advances in AI to accelerate science and technology for the benefit of society and the planet. In this report, we provide a high-level vision for how AI, if used responsibly, can transform the way that science is done, expand the boundaries of human knowledge, and enable researchers to find solutions to some of society’s most pressing problems…(More)”

Complexity and the Global Governance of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Gordon LaForge et al: “In the coming years, advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems are expected to bring significant benefits and risks for humanity. Many governments, companies, researchers, and civil society organizations are proposing, and in some cases, building global governance frameworks and institutions to promote AI safety and beneficial development. Complexity thinking, a way of viewing the world not just as discrete parts at the macro level but also in terms of bottom-up and interactive complex adaptive systems, can be a useful intellectual and scientific lens for shaping these endeavors. This paper details how insights from the science and theory of complexity can aid understanding of the challenges posed by AI and its potential impacts on society. Given the characteristics of complex adaptive systems, the paper recommends that global AI governance be based on providing a fit, adaptive response system that mitigates harmful outcomes of AI and enables positive aspects to flourish. The paper proposes components of such a system in three areas: access and power, international relations and global stability; and accountability and liability…(More)”

The case for global governance of AI: arguments, counter-arguments, and challenges ahead

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Mark Coeckelbergh: “But why, exactly, is global governance needed, and what form can and should it take? The main argument for the global governance of AI, which is also applicable to digital technologies in general, is essentially a moral one: as AI technologies become increasingly powerful and influential, we have the moral responsibility to ensure that it benefits humanity as a whole and that we deal with the global risks and the ethical and societal issues that arise from the technology, including privacy issues, security and military uses, bias and fairness, responsibility attribution, transparency, job displacement, safety, manipulation, and AI’s environmental impact. Since the effects of AI cross borders, so the argument continues, global cooperation and global governance are the only means to fully and effectively exercise that moral responsibility and ensure responsible innovation and use of technology to increase the well-being for all and preserve peace; national regulation is not sufficient….(More)”.

The limits of state AI legislation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Derek Robertson: “When it comes to regulating artificial intelligence, the action right now is in the states, not Washington.

State legislatures are often, like their counterparts in Europe, contrasted favorably with Congress — willing to take action where their politically paralyzed federal counterpart can’t, or won’t. Right now, every state except Alabama and Wyoming is considering some kind of AI legislation.

But simply acting doesn’t guarantee the best outcome. And today, two consumer advocates warn in POLITICO Magazine that most, if not all, state laws are overlooking crucial loopholes that could shield companies from liability when it comes to harm caused by AI decisions — or from simply being forced to disclose when it’s used in the first place.

Grace Gedye, an AI-focused policy analyst at Consumer Reports, and Matt Scherer, senior policy counsel at the Center for Democracy & Technology, write in an op-ed that while the use of AI systems by employers is screaming out for regulation, many of the efforts in the states are ineffectual at best.

Under the most important state laws now in consideration, they write, “Job applicants, patients, renters and consumers would still have a hard time finding out if discriminatory or error-prone AI was used to help make life-altering decisions about them.”

Transparency around how and when AI systems are deployed — whether in the public or private sector — is a key concern of the growing industry’s watchdogs. The Netherlands’ tax authority infamously immiserated tens of thousands of families by accusing them falsely of child care benefits fraud after an algorithm used to detect it went awry…

One issue: a series of jargon-filled loopholes in many bill texts that says the laws only cover systems “specifically developed” to be “controlling” or “substantial” factors in decision-making.

“Cutting through the jargon, this would mean that companies could completely evade the law simply by putting fine print at the bottom of their technical documentation or marketing materials saying that their product wasn’t designed to be the main reason for a decision and should only be used under human supervision,” they explain…(More)”

AI Is a Hall of Mirrors

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Meghan Houser: “Here is the paradox… First: Everything is for you. TikTok’s signature page says it, and so, in their own way, do the recommendation engines of all social media. Streaming platforms triangulate your tastes, brand “engagements” solicit feedback for a better experience next time, Google Maps asks where you want to go, Siri and Alexa wait in limbo for reply. Dating apps present our most “compatible” matches. Sacrifices in personal data pay (at least some) dividends in closer tailoring. Our phones fit our palms like lovers’ hands. Consumer goods reach us in two days or less, or, if we prefer, our mobile orders are ready when we walk into our local franchise. Touchless, frictionless, we move toward perfect inertia, skimming engineered curves in the direction of our anticipated desires.

Second: Nothing is for you. That is, you specifically, you as an individual human person, with three dimensions and password-retrieval answers that actually mean something. We all know by now that “the algorithm,” that godlike personification, is fickle. Targeted ads follow you after you buy the product. Spotify thinks lullabies are your jam because for a couple weeks one put your child to sleep. Watch a political video, get invited down the primrose path to conspiracy. The truth of aggregation, of metadata, is that the for you of it all gets its power from modeling everyone who is not, in fact, you. You are typological, a predictable deviation from the mean. The “you” that your devices know is a shadow of where your data-peers have been. Worse, the “you” that your doctor, your insurance company, or your banker knows is a shadow of your demographic peers. And sometimes the model is arrayed against you. A 2016 ProPublica investigation found that if you are Black and coming up for sentencing before a judge who relies on a criminal sentencing algorithm, you are twice as likely to be mistakenly deemed at high risk for reoffending than your white counterpart….(More)”

Whoever you are, the algorithms’ for you promise at some point rings hollow. The simple math of automation is that the more the machines are there to talk to us, the less someone else will. Get told how important your call is to us, in endless perfect repetition. Prove you’re a person to Captcha, and (if you’re like me) sometimes fail. Post a comment on TikTok or YouTube knowing that it will be swallowed by its only likely reader, the optimizing feed.

Offline, the shadow of depersonalization follows. Physical spaces are atomized and standardized into what we have long been calling brick and mortar. QR, a language readable only to the machines, proliferates. The world becomes a little less legible. Want to order at this restaurant? You need your phone as translator, as intermediary, in this its newly native land…(More)”.

Automated Social Science: Language Models as Scientist and Subjects

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Benjamin S. Manning, Kehang Zhu & John J. Horton: “We present an approach for automatically generating and testing, in silico, social scientific hypotheses. This automation is made possible by recent advances in large language models (LLM), but the key feature of the approach is the use of structural causal models. Structural causal models provide a language to state hypotheses, a blueprint for constructing LLM-based agents, an experimental design, and a plan for data analysis. The fitted structural causal model becomes an object available for prediction or the planning of follow-on experiments. We demonstrate the approach with several scenarios: a negotiation, a bail hearing, a job interview, and an auction. In each case, causal relationships are both proposed and tested by the system, finding evidence for some and not others. We provide evidence that the insights from these simulations of social interactions are not available to the LLM purely through direct elicitation. When given its proposed structural causal model for each scenario, the LLM is good at predicting the signs of estimated effects, but it cannot reliably predict the magnitudes of those estimates. In the auction experiment, the in silico simulation results closely match the predictions of auction theory, but elicited predictions of the clearing prices from the LLM are inaccurate. However, the LLM’s predictions are dramatically improved if the model can condition on the fitted structural causal model. In short, the LLM knows more than it can (immediately) tell…(More)”.