Paper by Stefan Schmager, Samrat Gupta, Ilias Pappas & Polyxeni Vassilakopoulou: “Enhancing transparency in AI enabled public services has the potential to improve their adoption and service delivery. Hence, it is important to identify effective design strategies for AI transparency in public services. To this end, we conduct this empirical qualitative study providing insights for responsible deployment of AI in practice by public organizations. We design an interactive prototype for a Norwegian public welfare service organization which aims to use AI to support sick leaves related services. Qualitative analysis of citizens’ data collected through survey, think-aloud interactions with the prototype, and open-ended questions revealed three key themes related to: articulating information in written form, representing information in graphical form, and establishing the appropriate level of information detail for improving AI transparency in public service delivery. This study advances research pertaining to design of public service portals and has implications for AI implementation in the public sector…(More)”.
What does it mean to be good? The normative and metaethical problem with ‘AI for good’
Article by Tom Stenson: “Using AI for good is an imperative for its development and regulation, but what exactly does it mean? This article contends that ‘AI for good’ is a powerful normative concept and is problematic for the ethics of AI because it oversimplifies complex philosophical questions in defining good and assumes a level of moral knowledge and certainty that may not be justified. ‘AI for good’ expresses a value judgement on what AI should be and its role in society, thereby functioning as a normative concept in AI ethics. As a moral statement, AI for good makes two things implicit: i) we know what a good outcome is and ii) we know the process by which to achieve it. By examining these two claims, this article will articulate the thesis that ‘AI for good’ should be examined as a normative and metaethical problem for AI ethics. Furthermore, it argues that we need to pay more attention to our relationship with normativity and how it guides what we believe the ‘work’ of ethical AI should be…(More)”.
Using ChatGPT for analytics
Paper by Aleksei Turobov et al: “The utilisation of AI-driven tools, notably ChatGPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformer), within academic research is increasingly debated from several perspectives including ease of implementation, and potential enhancements in research efficiency, as against ethical concerns and risks such as biases and unexplained AI operations. This paper explores the use of the GPT model for initial coding in qualitative thematic analysis using a sample of United Nations (UN) policy documents. The primary aim of this study is to contribute to the methodological discussion regarding the integration of AI tools, offering a practical guide to validation for using GPT as a collaborative research assistant. The paper outlines the advantages and limitations of this methodology and suggests strategies to mitigate risks. Emphasising the importance of transparency and reliability in employing GPT within research methodologies, this paper argues for a balanced use of AI in supported thematic analysis, highlighting its potential to elevate research efficacy and outcomes…(More)”.
Seeing Like a Data Structure
Essay by Barath Raghavan and Bruce Schneier: “Technology was once simply a tool—and a small one at that—used to amplify human intent and capacity. That was the story of the industrial revolution: we could control nature and build large, complex human societies, and the more we employed and mastered technology, the better things got. We don’t live in that world anymore. Not only has technology become entangled with the structure of society, but we also can no longer see the world around us without it. The separation is gone, and the control we thought we once had has revealed itself as a mirage. We’re in a transitional period of history right now.
We tell ourselves stories about technology and society every day. Those stories shape how we use and develop new technologies as well as the new stories and uses that will come with it. They determine who’s in charge, who benefits, who’s to blame, and what it all means.
Some people are excited about the emerging technologies poised to remake society. Others are hoping for us to see this as folly and adopt simpler, less tech-centric ways of living. And many feel that they have little understanding of what is happening and even less say in the matter.
But we never had total control of technology in the first place, nor is there a pretechnological golden age to which we can return. The truth is that our data-centric way of seeing the world isn’t serving us well. We need to tease out a third option. To do so, we first need to understand how we got here…(More)”
“The Death of Wikipedia?” — Exploring the Impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia Engagement
Paper by Neal Reeves, Wenjie Yin, Elena Simperl: “Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites in the world, serving as a major source of information and learning resource for millions of users worldwide. While motivations for its usage vary, prior research suggests shallow information gathering — looking up facts and information or answering questions — dominates over more in-depth usage. On the 22nd of November 2022, ChatGPT was released to the public and has quickly become a popular source of information, serving as an effective question-answering and knowledge gathering resource. Early indications have suggested that it may be drawing users away from traditional question answering services such as Stack Overflow, raising the question of how it may have impacted Wikipedia. In this paper, we explore Wikipedia user metrics across four areas: page views, unique visitor numbers, edit counts and editor numbers within twelve language instances of Wikipedia. We perform pairwise comparisons of these metrics before and after the release of ChatGPT and implement a panel regression model to observe and quantify longer-term trends. We find no evidence of a fall in engagement across any of the four metrics, instead observing that page views and visitor numbers increased in the period following ChatGPT’s launch. However, we observe a lower increase in languages where ChatGPT was available than in languages where it was not, which may suggest ChatGPT’s availability limited growth in those languages. Our results contribute to the understanding of how emerging generative AI tools are disrupting the Web ecosystem…(More)”. See also: Are we entering a Data Winter? On the urgent need to preserve data access for the public interest.
AI Chatbot Credited With Preventing Suicide. Should It Be?
Article by Samantha Cole: “A recent Stanford study lauds AI companion app Replika for “halting suicidal ideation” for several people who said they felt suicidal. But the study glosses over years of reporting that Replika has also been blamed for throwing users into mental health crises, to the point that its community of users needed to share suicide prevention resources with each other.
The researchers sent a survey of 13 open-response questions to 1006 Replika users who were 18 years or older and students, and who’d been using the app for at least one month. The survey asked about their lives, their beliefs about Replika and their connections to the chatbot, and how they felt about what Replika does for them. Participants were recruited “randomly via email from a list of app users,” according to the study. On Reddit, a Replika user posted a notice they received directly from Replika itself, with an invitation to take part in “an amazing study about humans and artificial intelligence.”
Almost all of the participants reported being lonely, and nearly half were severely lonely. “It is not clear whether this increased loneliness was the cause of their initial interest in Replika,” the researchers wrote.
The surveys revealed that 30 people credited Replika with saving them from acting on suicidal ideation: “Thirty participants, without solicitation, stated that Replika stopped them from attempting suicide,” the paper said. One participant wrote in their survey: “My Replika has almost certainly on at least one if not more occasions been solely responsible for me not taking my own life.” …(More)”.
Science in the age of AI
Report by the Royal Society: “The unprecedented speed and scale of progress with artificial intelligence (AI) in recent years suggests society may be living through an inflection point. With the growing availability of large datasets, new algorithmic techniques and increased computing power, AI is becoming an established tool used by researchers across scientific fields who seek novel solutions to age-old problems. Now more than ever, we need to understand the extent of the transformative impact of AI on science and what scientific communities need to do to fully harness its benefits.
This report, Science in the age of AI (PDF), explores how AI technologies, such as deep learning or large language models, are transforming the nature and methods of scientific inquiry. It also explores how notions of research integrity; research skills or research ethics are inevitably changing, and what the implications are for the future of science and scientists.
The report addresses the following questions:
- How are AI-driven technologies transforming the methods and nature of scientific research?
- What are the opportunities, limitations, and risks of these technologies for scientific research?
- How can relevant stakeholders (governments, universities, industry, research funders, etc) best support the development, adoption, and uses of AI-driven technologies in scientific research?
In answering these questions, the report integrates evidence from a range of sources, including research activities with more than 100 scientists and the advisement of an expert Working group, as well as a taxonomy of AI in science (PDF), a historical review (PDF) on the role of disruptive technologies in transforming science and society, and a patent landscape review (PDF) of artificial intelligence related inventions, which are available to download…(More)”
The Simple Macroeconomics of AI
Paper by Daron Acemoglu: “This paper evaluates claims about large macroeconomic implications of new advances in AI. It starts from a task-based model of AI’s effects, working through automation and task complementarities. So long as AI’s microeconomic effects are driven by cost savings/productivity improvements at the task level, its macroeconomic consequences will be given by a version of Hulten’s theorem: GDP and aggregate productivity gains can be estimated by what fraction of tasks are impacted and average task-level cost savings. Using existing estimates on exposure to AI and productivity improvements at the task level, these macroeconomic effects appear nontrivial but modest—no more than a 0.66% increase in total factor productivity (TFP) over 10 years. The paper then argues that even these estimates could be exaggerated, because early evidence is from easy-to-learn tasks, whereas some of the future effects will come from hard-to-learn tasks, where there are many context-dependent factors affecting decision-making and no objective outcome measures from which to learn successful performance. Consequently, predicted TFP gains over the next 10 years are even more modest and are predicted to be less than 0.53%. I also explore AI’s wage and inequality effects. I show theoretically that even when AI improves the productivity of low-skill workers in certain tasks (without creating new tasks for them), this may increase rather than reduce inequality. Empirically, I find that AI advances are unlikely to increase inequality as much as previous automation technologies because their impact is more equally distributed across demographic groups, but there is also no evidence that AI will reduce labor income inequality. Instead, AI is predicted to widen the gap between capital and labor income. Finally, some of the new tasks created by AI may have negative social value (such as design of algorithms for online manipulation), and I discuss how to incorporate the macroeconomic effects of new tasks that may have negative social value…(More)”.
Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance
Paper by Mark Coeckelbergh: “There is a broad consensus that artificial intelligence should contribute to the common good, but it is not clear what is meant by that. This paper discusses this issue and uses it as a lens for analysing what it calls the “democracy deficit” in current AI governance, which includes a tendency to deny the inherently political character of the issue and to take a technocratic shortcut. It indicates what we may agree on and what is and should be up to (further) deliberation when it comes to AI ethics and AI governance. Inspired by the republican tradition in political theory, it also argues for a more active role of citizens and (end-)users: not only as participants in deliberation but also in ensuring, creatively and communicatively, that AI contributes to the common good…(More)”.
Toward a Polycentric or Distributed Approach to Artificial Intelligence & Science
Article by Stefaan Verhulst: “Even as enthusiasm grows over the potential of artificial intelligence (AI), concerns have arisen in equal measure about a possible domination of the field by Big Tech. Such an outcome would replicate many of the mistakes of preceding decades, when a handful of companies accumulated unprecedented market power and often acted as de facto regulators in the global digital ecosystem. In response, the European Group of Chief Scientific Advisors has recently proposed establishing a “state-of-the-art facility for academic research,” to be called the European Distributed Institute for AI in Science (EDIRAS). According to the Group, the facility would be modeled on Geneva’s high-energy physics lab, CERN, with the goal of creating a “CERN for AI” to counterbalance the growing AI prowess of the US and China.
While the comparison to CERN is flawed in some respects–see below–the overall emphasis on a distributed, decentralized approach to AI is highly commendable. In what follows, we outline three key areas where such an approach can help advance the field. These areas–access to computational resources, access to high quality data, and access to purposeful modeling–represent three current pain points (“friction”) in the AI ecosystem. Addressing them through a distributed approach can not only help address the immediate challenges, but more generally advance the cause of open science and ensure that AI and data serve the broader public interest…(More)”.