Paper by Seth Lazar and Lorenzo Manuali: “LLMs are among the most advanced tools ever devised for analysing and generating linguistic content. Democratic deliberation and decision-making involve, at several distinct stages, the production and analysis of language. So it is natural to ask whether our best tools for manipulating language might prove instrumental to one of our most important linguistic tasks. Researchers and practitioners have recently asked whether LLMs can support democratic deliberation by leveraging abilities to summarise content, as well as to aggregate opinion over summarised content, and indeed to represent voters by predicting their preferences over unseen choices. In this paper, we assess whether using LLMs to perform these and related functions really advances the democratic values that inspire these experiments. We suggest that the record is decidedly mixed. In the presence of background inequality of power and resources, as well as deep moral and political disagreement, we should be careful not to use LLMs in ways that automate non-instrumentally valuable components of the democratic process, or else threaten to supplant fair and transparent decision-making procedures that are necessary to reconcile competing interests and values. However, while we argue that LLMs should be kept well clear of formal democratic decision-making processes, we think that they can be put to good use in strengthening the informal public sphere: the arena that mediates between democratic governments and the polities that they serve, in which political communities seek information, form civic publics, and hold their leaders to account…(More)”.
AI-accelerated Nazca survey nearly doubles the number of known figurative geoglyphs and sheds light on their purpose
Paper by Masato Sakai, Akihisa Sakurai, Siyuan Lu, and Marcus Freitag: “It took nearly a century to discover a total of 430 figurative Nazca geoglyphs, which offer significant insights into the ancient cultures at the Nazca Pampa. Here, we report the deployment of an AI system to the entire Nazca region, a UNESCO World Heritage site, leading to the discovery of 303 new figurative geoglyphs within only 6 mo of field survey, nearly doubling the number of known figurative geoglyphs. Even with limited training examples, the developed AI approach is demonstrated to be effective in detecting the smaller relief-type geoglyphs, which unlike the giant line-type geoglyphs are very difficult to discern. The improved account of figurative geoglyphs enables us to analyze their motifs and distribution across the Nazca Pampa. We find that relief-type geoglyphs depict mainly human motifs or motifs of things modified by humans, such as domesticated animals and decapitated heads (81.6%). They are typically located within viewing distance (on average 43 m) of ancient trails that crisscross the Nazca Pampa and were most likely built and viewed at the individual or small-group level. On the other hand, the giant line-type figurative geoglyphs mainly depict wild animals (64%). They are found an average of 34 m from the elaborate linear/trapezoidal network of geoglyphs, which suggests that they were probably built and used on a community level for ritual activities…(More)”
The Age of AI Nationalism and Its Effects
Paper by Susan Ariel Aaronson: “Policy makers in many countries are determined to develop artificial intelligence (AI) within their borders because they view AI as essential to both national security and economic growth. Some countries have proposed adopting AI sovereignty, where the nation develops AI for its people, by its people and within its borders. In this paper, the author makes a distinction between policies designed to advance domestic AI and policies that, with or without direct intent, hamper the production or trade of foreign-produced AI (known as “AI nationalism”). AI nationalist policies in one country can make it harder for firms in another country to develop AI. If officials can limit access to key components of the AI supply chain, such as data, capital, expertise or computing power, they may be able to limit the AI prowess of competitors in country Y and/or Z. Moreover, if policy makers can shape regulations in ways that benefit local AI competitors, they may also impede the competitiveness of other nations’ AI developers. AI nationalism may seem appropriate given the import of AI, but this paper aims to illuminate how AI nationalistic policies may backfire and could divide the world into AI haves and have nots…(More)”.
We are Developing AI at the Detriment of the Global South — How a Focus on Responsible Data Re-use Can Make a Difference
Article by Stefaan Verhulst and Peter Addo: “…At the root of this debate runs a frequent concern with how data is collected, stored, used — and responsibly reused for other purposes that initially collected for…
In this article, we propose that promoting responsible reuse of data requires addressing the power imbalances inherent in the data ecology. These imbalances disempower key stakeholders, thereby undermining trust in data management practices. As we recently argued in a report on “responsible data reuse in developing countries,” prepared for Agence Française de Development (AFD), power imbalences may be particularly pernicious when considering the use of data in the Global South. Addressing these requires broadening notions of consent, beyond current highly individualized approaches, in favor of what we instead term a social license for reuse.
In what follows, we explain what a social license means, and propose three steps to help achieve that goal. We conclude by calling for a new research agenda — one that would stretch existing disciplinary and conceptual boundaries — to reimagine what social licenses might mean, and how they could be operationalized…(More)”.
The ABC’s of Who Benefits from Working with AI: Ability, Beliefs, and Calibration
Paper by Andrew Caplin: “We use a controlled experiment to show that ability and belief calibration jointly determine the benefits of working with Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI improves performance more for people with low baseline ability. However, holding ability constant, AI assistance is more valuable for people who are calibrated, meaning they have accurate beliefs about their own ability. People who know they have low ability gain the most from working with AI. In a counterfactual analysis, we show that eliminating miscalibration would cause AI to reduce performance inequality nearly twice as much as it already does…(More)”.
As AI-powered health care expands, experts warn of biases
Article by Marta Biino: “Google’s DeepMind artificial intelligence research laboratory and German pharma company BioNTech are both building AI-powered lab assistants to help scientists conduct experiments and perform tasks, the Financial Times reported.
It’s the latest example of how developments in artificial intelligence are revolutionizing a number of fields, including medicine. While AI has long been used in radiology, for image analysis, or oncology to classify skin lesions for example, as the technology continues to advance its applications are growing.
OpenAI’s GPT models have outperformed humans in making cancer diagnoses based on MRI reports and beat PhD-holders in standardized science tests, to name a few.
However, as AI’s use in health care expands, some fear the notoriously biased technology could carry negative repercussions for patients…(More)”.
How The New York Times incorporates editorial judgment in algorithms to curate its home page
Article by Zhen Yang: “Whether on the web or the app, the home page of The New York Times is a crucial gateway, setting the stage for readers’ experiences and guiding them to the most important news of the day. The Times publishes over 250 stories daily, far more than the 50 to 60 stories that can be featured on the home page at a given time. Traditionally, editors have manually selected and programmed which stories appear, when and where, multiple times daily. This manual process presents challenges:
- How can we provide readers a relevant, useful, and fresh experience each time they visit the home page?
- How can we make our editorial curation process more efficient and scalable?
- How do we maximize the reach of each story and expose more stories to our readers?
To address these challenges, the Times has been actively developing and testing editorially driven algorithms to assist in curating home page content. These algorithms are editorially driven in that a human editor’s judgment or input is incorporated into every aspect of the algorithm — including deciding where on the home page the stories are placed, informing the rankings, and potentially influencing and overriding algorithmic outputs when necessary. From the get-go, we’ve designed algorithmic programming to elevate human curation, not to replace it…
The Times began using algorithms for content recommendations in 2011 but only recently started applying them to home page modules. For years, we only had one algorithmically-powered module, “Smarter Living,” on the home page, and later, “Popular in The Times.” Both were positioned relatively low on the page.
Three years ago, the formation of a cross-functional team — including newsroom editors, product managers, data scientists, data analysts, and engineers — brought the momentum needed to advance our responsible use of algorithms. Today, nearly half of the home page is programmed with assistance from algorithms that help promote news, features, and sub-brand content, such as The Athletic and Wirecutter. Some of these modules, such as the features module located at the top right of the home page on the web version, are in highly visible locations. During major news moments, editors can also deploy algorithmic modules to display additional coverage to complement a main module of stories near the top of the page. (The topmost news package of Figure 1 is an example of this in action.)…(More)”
How is editorial judgment incorporated into algorithmic programming?
From Bits to Biology: A New Era of Biological Renaissance powered by AI
Article by Milad Alucozai: “…A new wave of platforms is emerging to address these limitations. Designed with the modern scientist in mind, these platforms prioritize intuitive interfaces, enabling researchers with diverse computational backgrounds to easily navigate and analyze data. They emphasize collaboration, allowing teams to share data and insights seamlessly. And they increasingly incorporate artificial intelligence, offering powerful tools for accelerating analysis and discovery. This shift marks a move towards more user-centric, efficient, and collaborative computational biology, empowering researchers to tackle increasingly complex biological questions.
Emerging Platforms:
- Seqera Labs: Spearheading a movement towards efficient and reproducible research, Seqera Labs provides a suite of tools, including the popular open-source workflow language Nextflow. Their platform empowers researchers to design scalable and reproducible data analysis pipelines, particularly for cloud environments. Seqera streamlines complex computational workflows across diverse biological disciplines by emphasizing automation and flexibility, making data-intensive research scalable, flexible, and collaborative.
- Form Bio: Aimed at democratizing access to computational biology, Form Bio provides a comprehensive tech suite built to enable accelerated cell and gene therapy development and computational biology at scale. Its emphasis on collaboration and intuitive design fosters a more inclusive research environment to help organizations streamline therapeutic development and reduce time-to-market.
- Code Ocean: Addressing the critical need for reproducibility in research, Code Ocean provides a unique platform for sharing and executing research code, data, and computational environments. By encapsulating these elements in a portable and reproducible format, Code Ocean promotes transparency and facilitates the reuse of research methods, ultimately accelerating scientific discovery.
- Pluto Biosciences: Championing a collaborative approach to biological discovery, Pluto Biosciences offers an interactive platform for visualizing and analyzing complex biological data. Its intuitive tools empower researchers to explore data, generate insights, and seamlessly share findings with collaborators. This fosters a more dynamic and interactive research process, facilitating knowledge sharing and accelerating breakthroughs.
Open Source Platform:
- Galaxy: A widely used open-source platform for bioinformatics analysis. It provides a user-friendly web interface and a vast collection of tools for various tasks, from sequence analysis to data visualization. Its open-source nature fosters community development and customization, making it a versatile tool for diverse research needs.
- Bioconductor is a prominent open-source platform for bioinformatics analysis, akin to Galaxy’s commitment to accessibility and community-driven development. It leverages the power of the R programming language, providing a wealth of packages for tasks ranging from genomic data analysis to statistical modeling. Its open-source nature fosters a collaborative environment where researchers can freely access, utilize, and contribute to a growing collection of tools…(More)”
Who Owns AI?
Paper by Amy Whitaker: “While artificial intelligence (AI) stands to transform artistic practice and creative industries, little has been theorized about who owns AI for creative work. Lawsuits brought against AI companies such as OpenAI and Meta under copyright law invite novel reconsideration of the value of creative work. This paper synthesizes across copyright, hybrid practice, and cooperative governance to work toward collective ownership and decision-making. This paper adds to research in arts entrepreneurship because copyright and shared value is so vital to the livelihood of working artists, including writers, filmmakers, and others in the creative industries. Sarah Silverman’s lawsuit against OpenAI is used as the main case study. The conceptual framework of material and machine, one and many, offers a lens onto value creation and shared ownership of AI. The framework includes a reinterpretation of the fourth factor of fair use under U.S. copyright law to refocus on the doctrinal language of value. AI uses the entirety of creative work in a way that is overlooked because of the small scale of one whole work relative to the overall size of the AI model. Yet a theory of value for creative work gives it dignity in its smallness, the way that one vote still has dignity in a national election of millions. As we navigate these frontiers of AI, experimental models pioneered by artists may be instructive far outside the arts…(More)”.
The Deletion Remedy
Paper by Daniel Wilf-Townsend: “A new remedy has emerged in the world of technology governance. Where someone has wrongfully obtained or used data, this remedy requires them to delete not only that data, but also to delete tools such as machine learning models that they have created using the data. Model deletion, also called algorithmic disgorgement or algorithmic destruction, has been increasingly sought in both private litigation and public enforcement actions. As its proponents note, model deletion can improve the regulation of privacy, intellectual property, and artificial intelligence by providing more effective deterrence and better management of ongoing harms
But, this article argues, model deletion has a serious flaw. In its current form, it has the possibility of being a grossly disproportionate penalty. Model deletion requires the destruction of models whose training included illicit data in any degree, with no consideration of how much (or even whether) that data contributed to any wrongful gains or ongoing harms. Model deletion could thereby cause unjust losses in litigation and chill useful technologies.
This article works toward a well-balanced doctrine of model deletion by building on the remedy’s equitable origins. It identifies how traditional considerations in equity—such as a defendant’s knowledge and culpability, the balance of the hardships, and the availability of more tailored alternatives—can be applied in model deletion cases to mitigate problems of disproportionality. By accounting for proportionality, courts and agencies can develop a doctrine of model deletion that takes advantage of its benefits while limiting its potential excesses…(More)”.