The Case Against AI Everything, Everywhere, All at Once

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Judy Estrin: “The very fact that the evolution of technology feels so inevitable is evidence of an act of manipulation, an authoritarian use of narrative brilliantly described by historian Timothy Snyder. He calls out the politics of inevitability “...a sense that the future is just more of the present, … that there are no alternatives, and therefore nothing really to be done.” There is no discussion of underlying values. Facts that don’t fit the narrative are disregarded.

Here in Silicon Valley, this top-down authoritarian technique is amplified by a bottom-up culture of inevitability. An orchestrated frenzy begins when the next big thing to fuel the Valley’s economic and innovation ecosystem is heralded by companies, investors, media, and influencers.

They surround us with language coopted from common values—democratization, creativity, open, safe. In behavioral psych classes, product designers are taught to eliminate friction—removing any resistance to us to acting on impulse.

The promise of short-term efficiency, convenience, and productivity lures us. Any semblance of pushback is decried as ignorance, or a threat to global competition. No one wants to be called a Luddite. Tech leaders, seeking to look concerned about the public interest, call for limited, friendly regulation, and the process moves forward until the tech is fully enmeshed in our society.

We bought into this narrative before, when social media, smartphones and cloud computing came on the scene. We didn’t question whether the only way to build community, find like-minded people, or be heard, was through one enormous “town square,” rife with behavioral manipulation, pernicious algorithmic feeds, amplification of pre-existing bias, and the pursuit of likes and follows.

It’s now obvious that it was a path towards polarization, toxicity of conversation, and societal disruption. Big Tech was the main beneficiary as industries and institutions jumped on board, accelerating their own disruption, and civic leaders were focused on how to use these new tools to grow their brands and not on helping us understand the risks.

We are at the same juncture now with AI…(More)”.

AI By the People, For the People

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Billy Perrigo/Karnataka: “…To create an effective English-speaking AI, it is enough to simply collect data from where it has already accumulated. But for languages like Kannada, you need to go out and find more.

This has created huge demand for datasets—collections of text or voice data—in languages spoken by some of the poorest people in the world. Part of that demand comes from tech companies seeking to build out their AI tools. Another big chunk comes from academia and governments, especially in India, where English and Hindi have long held outsize precedence in a nation of some 1.4 billion people with 22 official languages and at least 780 more indigenous ones. This rising demand means that hundreds of millions of Indians are suddenly in control of a scarce and newly-valuable asset: their mother tongue.

Data work—creating or refining the raw material at the heart of AI— is not new in India. The economy that did so much to turn call centers and garment factories into engines of productivity at the end of the 20th century has quietly been doing the same with data work in the 21st. And, like its predecessors, the industry is once again dominated by labor arbitrage companies, which pay wages close to the legal minimum even as they sell data to foreign clients for a hefty mark-up. The AI data sector, worth over $2 billion globally in 2022, is projected to rise in value to $17 billion by 2030. Little of that money has flowed down to data workers in India, Kenya, and the Philippines.

These conditions may cause harms far beyond the lives of individual workers. “We’re talking about systems that are impacting our whole society, and workers who make those systems more reliable and less biased,” says Jonas Valente, an expert in digital work platforms at Oxford University’s Internet Institute. “If you have workers with basic rights who are more empowered, I believe that the outcome—the technological system—will have a better quality as well.”

In the neighboring villages of Alahalli and Chilukavadi, one Indian startup is testing a new model. Chandrika works for Karya, a nonprofit launched in 2021 in Bengaluru (formerly Bangalore) that bills itself as “the world’s first ethical data company.” Like its competitors, it sells data to big tech companies and other clients at the market rate. But instead of keeping much of that cash as profit, it covers its costs and funnels the rest toward the rural poor in India. (Karya partners with local NGOs to ensure access to its jobs go first to the poorest of the poor, as well as historically marginalized communities.) In addition to its $5 hourly minimum, Karya gives workers de-facto ownership of the data they create on the job, so whenever it is resold, the workers receive the proceeds on top of their past wages. It’s a model that doesn’t exist anywhere else in the industry…(More)”.

Corporate Responsibility in the Age of AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Maria Eitel: “In the past year, a cacophony of conversations about artificial intelligence has erupted. Depending on whom you listen to, AI is either carrying us into a shiny new world of endless possibilities or propelling us toward a grim dystopia. Call them the Barbie and Oppenheimer scenarios – as attention-grabbing and different as the Hollywood blockbusters of the summer. But one conversation is getting far too little attention: the one about corporate responsibility.

I joined Nike as its first Vice President of Corporate Responsibility in 1998, landing right in the middle of the hyper-globalization era’s biggest corporate crisis: the iconic sports and fitness company had become the face of labor exploitation in developing countries. In dealing with that crisis and setting up corporate responsibility for Nike, we learned hard-earned lessons, which can now help guide our efforts to navigate the AI revolution.

There is a key difference today. Taking place in the late 1990s, the Nike drama played out relatively slowly. When it comes to AI, however, we don’t have the luxury of time. This time last year, most people had not heard about generative AI. The technology entered our collective awareness like a lightning strike in late 2022, and we have been trying to make sense of it ever since…

Our collective future now hinges on whether companies – in the privacy of their board rooms, executive meetings, and closed-door strategy sessions – decide to do what is right. Companies need a clear North Star to which they can always refer as they pursue innovation. Google had it right in its early days, when its corporate credo was, “Don’t Be Evil.” No corporation should knowingly harm people in the pursuit of profit.

It will not be enough for companies simply to say that they have hired former regulators and propose possible solutions. Companies must devise credible and effective AI action plans that answer five key questions:

  • What are the potential unanticipated consequences of AI?
  • How are you mitigating each identified risk?
  • What measures can regulators use to monitor companies’ efforts to mitigate potential dangers and hold them accountable?
  • What resources do regulators need to carry out this task?
  • How will we know that the guardrails are working?

The AI challenge needs to be treated like any other corporate sprint. Requiring companies to commit to an action plan in 90 days is reasonable and realistic. No excuses. Missed deadlines should result in painful fines. The plan doesn’t have to be perfect – and it will likely need to be adapted as we continue to learn – but committing to it is essential…(More)”.

The GPTJudge: Justice in a Generative AI World

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Grossman, Maura and Grimm, Paul and Brown, Dan and Xu, Molly: “Generative AI (“GenAI”) systems such as ChatGPT recently have developed to the point where they are capable of producing computer-generated text and images that are difficult to differentiate from human-generated text and images. Similarly, evidentiary materials such as documents, videos and audio recordings that are AI-generated are becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from those that are not AI-generated. These technological advancements present significant challenges to parties, their counsel, and the courts in determining whether evidence is authentic or fake. Moreover, the explosive proliferation and use of GenAI applications raises concerns about whether litigation costs will dramatically increase as parties are forced to hire forensic experts to address AI- generated evidence, the ability of juries to discern authentic from fake evidence, and whether GenAI will overwhelm the courts with AI-generated lawsuits, whether vexatious or otherwise. GenAI systems have the potential to challenge existing substantive intellectual property (“IP”) law by producing content that is machine, not human, generated, but that also relies on human-generated content in potentially infringing ways. Finally, GenAI threatens to alter the way in which lawyers litigate and judges decide cases.

This article discusses these issues, and offers a comprehensive, yet understandable, explanation of what GenAI is and how it functions. It explores evidentiary issues that must be addressed by the bench and bar to determine whether actual or asserted (i.e., deepfake) GenAI output should be admitted as evidence in civil and criminal trials. Importantly, it offers practical, step-by- step recommendations for courts and attorneys to follow in meeting the evidentiary challenges posed by GenAI. Finally, it highlights additional impacts that GenAI evidence may have on the development of substantive IP law, and its potential impact on what the future may hold for litigating cases in a GenAI world…(More)”.

Why This AI Moment May Be the Real Deal

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Ari Schulman: “For many years, those in the know in the tech world have known that “artificial intelligence” is a scam. It’s been true for so long in Silicon Valley that it was true before there even was a Silicon Valley.

That’s not to say that AI hadn’t done impressive things, solved real problems, generated real wealth and worthy endowed professorships. But peek under the hood of Tesla’s “Autopilot” mode and you would find odd glitches, frustrated promise, and, well, still quite a lot of people hidden away in backrooms manually plugging gaps in the system, often in real time. Study Deep Blue’s 1997 defeat of world chess champion Garry Kasparov, and your excitement about how quickly this technology would take over other cognitive work would wane as you learned just how much brute human force went into fine-tuning the software specifically to beat Kasparov. Read press release after press release of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube promising to use more machine learning to fight hate speech and save democracy — and then find out that the new thing was mostly a handmaid to armies of human grunts, and for many years relied on a technological paradigm that was decades old.

Call it AI’s man-behind-the-curtain effect: What appear at first to be dazzling new achievements in artificial intelligence routinely lose their luster and seem limited, one-off, jerry-rigged, with nothing all that impressive happening behind the scenes aside from sweat and tears, certainly nothing that deserves the name “intelligence” even by loose analogy.

So what’s different now? What follows in this essay is an attempt to contrast some of the most notable features of the new transformer paradigm (the T in ChatGPT) with what came before. It is an attempt to articulate why the new AIs that have garnered so much attention over the past year seem to defy some of the major lines of skepticism that have rightly applied to past eras — why this AI moment might, just might, be the real deal…(More)”.

A Comparative Perspective on AI Regulation

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Itsiq Benizri, Arianna Evers, Shannon Togawa Mercer, Ali A. Jessani: “The question isn’t whether AI will be regulated, but how. Both the European Union and the United Kingdom have stepped up to the AI regulation plate with enthusiasm but have taken different approaches: The EU has put forth a broad and prescriptive proposal in the AI Act, which aims to regulate AI by adopting a risk-based approach that increases the compliance obligations depending on the specific use case. The U.K., in turn, has committed to abstaining from new legislation for the time being, relying instead on existing regulations and regulators with an AI-specific overlay. The United States, meanwhile, has pushed for national AI standards through the executive branch but also has adopted some AI-specific rules at the state level (both through comprehensive privacy legislation and for specific AI-related use cases). Between these three jurisdictions, there are multiple approaches to AI regulation that can help strike the balance between developing AI technology and ensuring that there is a framework in place to account for potential harms to consumers and others. Given the explosive popularity and development of AI in recent months, there is likely to be a strong push by companies, entrepreneurs, and tech leaders in the near future for additional clarity on AI. Regulators will have to answer these calls. Despite not knowing what AI regulation in the United States will look like in one year (let alone five), savvy AI users and developers should examine these early regulatory approaches to try and chart a thoughtful approach to AI…(More)”

‘Not for Machines to Harvest’: Data Revolts Break Out Against A.I.

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sheera Frenkel, and Stuart A. Thompson: “Fan fiction writers are just one group now staging revolts against A.I. systems as a fever over the technology has gripped Silicon Valley and the world. In recent months, social media companies such as Reddit and Twitter, news organizations including The New York Times and NBC News, authors such as Paul Tremblay and the actress Sarah Silverman have all taken a position against A.I. sucking up their data without permission.

Their protests have taken different forms. Writers and artists are locking their files to protect their work or are boycotting certain websites that publish A.I.-generated content, while companies like Reddit want to charge for access to their data. At least 10 lawsuits have been filed this year against A.I. companies, accusing them of training their systems on artists’ creative work without consent. This past week, Ms. Silverman and the authors Christopher Golden and Richard Kadrey sued OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, and others over A.I.’s use of their work.

At the heart of the rebellions is a newfound understanding that online information — stories, artwork, news articles, message board posts and photos — may have significant untapped value.

The new wave of A.I. — known as “generative A.I.” for the text, images and other content it generates — is built atop complex systems such as large language models, which are capable of producing humanlike prose. These models are trained on hoards of all kinds of data so they can answer people’s questions, mimic writing styles or churn out comedy and poetry.

That has set off a hunt by tech companies for even more data to feed their A.I. systems. Google, Meta and OpenAI have essentially used information from all over the internet, including large databases of fan fiction, troves of news articles and collections of books, much of which was available free online. In tech industry parlance, this was known as “scraping” the internet…(More)”.

How do we know how smart AI systems are?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Melanie Mitchell: “In 1967, Marvin Minksy, a founder of the field of artificial intelligence (AI), made a bold prediction: “Within a generation…the problem of creating ‘artificial intelligence’ will be substantially solved.” Assuming that a generation is about 30 years, Minsky was clearly overoptimistic. But now, nearly two generations later, how close are we to the original goal of human-level (or greater) intelligence in machines?

Some leading AI researchers would answer that we are quite close. Earlier this year, deep-learning pioneer and Turing Award winner Geoffrey Hinton told Technology Review, “I have suddenly switched my views on whether these things are going to be more intelligent than us. I think they’re very close to it now and they will be much more intelligent than us in the future.” His fellow Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio voiced a similar opinion in a recent blog post: “The recent advances suggest that even the future where we know how to build superintelligent AIs (smarter than humans across the board) is closer than most people expected just a year ago.”

These are extraordinary claims that, as the saying goes, require extraordinary evidence. However, it turns out that assessing the intelligence—or more concretely, the general capabilities—of AI systems is fraught with pitfalls. Anyone who has interacted with ChatGPT or other large language models knows that these systems can appear quite intelligent. They converse with us in fluent natural language, and in many cases seem to reason, to make analogies, and to grasp the motivations behind our questions. Despite their well-known unhumanlike failings, it’s hard to escape the impression that behind all that confident and articulate language there must be genuine understanding…(More)”.

AI tools are designing entirely new proteins that could transform medicine

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Ewen Callaway: “OK. Here we go.” David Juergens, a computational chemist at the University of Washington (UW) in Seattle, is about to design a protein that, in 3-billion-plus years of tinkering, evolution has never produced.

On a video call, Juergens opens a cloud-based version of an artificial intelligence (AI) tool he helped to develop, called RFdiffusion. This neural network, and others like it, are helping to bring the creation of custom proteins — until recently a highly technical and often unsuccessful pursuit — to mainstream science.

These proteins could form the basis for vaccines, therapeutics and biomaterials. “It’s been a completely transformative moment,” says Gevorg Grigoryan, the co-founder and chief technical officer of Generate Biomedicines in Somerville, Massachusetts, a biotechnology company applying protein design to drug development.

The tools are inspired by AI software that synthesizes realistic images, such as the Midjourney software that, this year, was famously used to produce a viral image of Pope Francis wearing a designer white puffer jacket. A similar conceptual approach, researchers have found, can churn out realistic protein shapes to criteria that designers specify — meaning, for instance, that it’s possible to speedily draw up new proteins that should bind tightly to another biomolecule. And early experiments show that when researchers manufacture these proteins, a useful fraction do perform as the software suggests.

The tools have revolutionized the process of designing proteins in the past year, researchers say. “It is an explosion in capabilities,” says Mohammed AlQuraishi, a computational biologist at Columbia University in New York City, whose team has developed one such tool for protein design. “You can now create designs that have sought-after qualities.”

“You’re building a protein structure customized for a problem,” says David Baker, a computational biophysicist at UW whose group, which includes Juergens, developed RFdiffusion. The team released the software in March 2023, and a paper describing the neural network appears this week in Nature1. (A preprint version was released in late 2022, at around the same time that several other teams, including AlQuraishi’s2 and Grigoryan’s3, reported similar neural networks)…(More)”.

Combining Human Expertise with Artificial Intelligence: Experimental Evidence from Radiology

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Nikhil Agarwal, Alex Moehring, Pranav Rajpurkar & Tobias Salz: “While Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms have achieved performance levels comparable to human experts on various predictive tasks, human experts can still access valuable contextual information not yet incorporated into AI predictions. Humans assisted by AI predictions could outperform both human-alone or AI-alone. We conduct an experiment with professional radiologists that varies the availability of AI assistance and contextual information to study the effectiveness of human-AI collaboration and to investigate how to optimize it. Our findings reveal that (i) providing AI predictions does not uniformly increase diagnostic quality, and (ii) providing contextual information does increase quality. Radiologists do not fully capitalize on the potential gains from AI assistance because of large deviations from the benchmark Bayesian model with correct belief updating. The observed errors in belief updating can be explained by radiologists’ partially underweighting the AI’s information relative to their own and not accounting for the correlation between their own information and AI predictions. In light of these biases, we design a collaborative system between radiologists and AI. Our results demonstrate that, unless the documented mistakes can be corrected, the optimal solution involves assigning cases either to humans or to AI, but rarely to a human assisted by AI…(More)”.