What AI Can Do for Your Country

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jylana L. Sheats: “..Although most discussions of artificial intelligence focus on its impacts on business and research, AI is also poised to transform government in the United States and beyond. AI-guided disaster response is just one piece of the picture. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has an experimental AI program to diagnose COVID-19 and flu cases by analyzing the sound of patients coughing into their smartphones. The Department of Justice uses AI algorithms to help prioritize which tips in the FBI’s Threat Intake Processing System to act on first. Other proposals, still at the concept stage, aim to extend the applications of AI to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of nearly every aspect of public services. 

The early applications illustrate the potential for AI to make government operations more effective and responsive. They illustrate the looming challenges, too. The federal government will have to recruit, train, and retain skilled workers capable of managing the new technology, competing with the private sector for top talent. The government also faces a daunting task ensuring the ethical and equitable use of AI. Relying on algorithms to direct disaster relief or to flag high-priority crimes raises immediate concerns: What if biases built into the AI overlook some of the groups that most need assistance, or unfairly target certain populations? As AI becomes embedded into more government operations, the opportunities for misuse and unintended consequences will only expand…(More)”.

Use of large language models as a scalable approach to understanding public health discourse

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Laura Espinosa and Marcel Salathé: “Online public health discourse is becoming more and more important in shaping public health dynamics. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a scalable solution for analysing the vast amounts of unstructured text found on online platforms. Here, we explore the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT models and open-source alternatives, for extracting public stances towards vaccination from social media posts. Using an expert-annotated dataset of social media posts related to vaccination, we applied various LLMs and a rule-based sentiment analysis tool to classify the stance towards vaccination. We assessed the accuracy of these methods through comparisons with expert annotations and annotations obtained through crowdsourcing. Our results demonstrate that few-shot prompting of best-in-class LLMs are the best performing methods, and that all alternatives have significant risks of substantial misclassification. The study highlights the potential of LLMs as a scalable tool for public health professionals to quickly gauge public opinion on health policies and interventions, offering an efficient alternative to traditional data analysis methods. With the continuous advancement in LLM development, the integration of these models into public health surveillance systems could substantially improve our ability to monitor and respond to changing public health attitudes…(More)”.

Deliberative Technology: Designing AI and Computational Democracy for Peacebuilding in Highly-Polarized Contexts

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by Lisa Schirch: “This is a report on an international workshop for 45 peacebuilders, co-hosted by Toda Peace Institute and the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies in June 2024.  Emphasizing citizen participation and collective intelligence, the workshop explored the intersection of digital democracy and algorithmic technologies designed to enhance democratic processes. Central to the discussions were deliberative technologies, a new class of tools that facilitate collective discussion and decision-making by incorporating both qualitative and quantitative inputs, supported by bridging algorithms and AI. The workshop provided a comprehensive overview of how these innovative approaches and technologies can contribute to more inclusive and effective democratic processes, particularly in contexts marked by polarization and conflict…(More)”

Can LLMs advance democratic values?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

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?