The world of tomorrow

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Virginia Postrel: “When the future arrived, it felt… ordinary. What happened to the glamour of tomorrow?

Progress used to be glamorous. For the first two thirds of the twentieth-century, the terms modern, future, and world of tomorrow shimmered with promise.

Glamour is more than a synonym for fashion or celebrity, although these things can certainly be glamorous. So can a holiday resort, a city, or a career. The military can be glamorous, as can technology, science, or the religious life. It all depends on the audience. Glamour is a form of communication that, like humor, we recognize by its characteristic effect. Something is glamorous when it inspires a sense of projection and longing: if only . . .

Whatever its incarnation, glamour offers a promise of escape and transformation. It focuses deep, often unarticulated longings on an image or idea that makes them feel attainable. Both the longings – for wealth, happiness, security, comfort, recognition, adventure, love, tranquility, freedom, or respect – and the objects that represent them vary from person to person, culture to culture, era to era. In the twentieth-century, ‘the future’ was a glamorous concept…

Much has been written about how and why culture and policy repudiated the visions of material progress that animated the first half of the twentieth-century, including a special issue of this magazine inspired by J Storrs Hall’s book Where Is My Flying Car? The subtitle of James Pethokoukis’s recent book The Conservative Futurist is ‘How to create the sci-fi world we were promised’. Like Peter Thiel’s famous complaint that ‘we wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters’, the phrase captures a sense of betrayal. Today’s techno-optimism is infused with nostalgia for the retro future.

But the most common explanations for the anti-Promethean backlash fall short. It’s true but incomplete to blame the environmental consciousness that spread in the late sixties…

How exactly today’s longings might manifest themselves, whether in glamorous imagery or real-life social evolution, is hard to predict. But one thing is clear: For progress to be appealing, it must offer room for diverse pursuits and identities, permitting communities with different commitments and values to enjoy a landscape of pluralism without devolving into mutually hostile tribes. The ideal of the one best way passed long ago. It was glamorous in its day but glamour is an illusion…(More)”.

The AI tool that can interpret any spreadsheet instantly

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Duncan C. McElfresh: “Say you run a hospital and you want to estimate which patients have the highest risk of deterioration so that your staff can prioritize their care1. You create a spreadsheet in which there is a row for each patient, and columns for relevant attributes, such as age or blood-oxygen level. The final column records whether the person deteriorated during their stay. You can then fit a mathematical model to these data to estimate an incoming patient’s deterioration risk. This is a classic example of tabular machine learning, a technique that uses tables of data to make inferences. This usually involves developing — and training — a bespoke model for each task. Writing in Nature, Hollmann et al.report a model that can perform tabular machine learning on any data set without being trained specifically to do so.

Tabular machine learning shares a rich history with statistics and data science. Its methods are foundational to modern artificial intelligence (AI) systems, including large language models (LLMs), and its influence cannot be overstated. Indeed, many online experiences are shaped by tabular machine-learning models, which recommend products, generate advertisements and moderate social-media content3. Essential industries such as healthcare and finance are also steadily, if cautiously, moving towards increasing their use of AI.

Despite the field’s maturity, Hollmann and colleagues’ advance could be revolutionary. The authors’ contribution is known as a foundation model, which is a general-purpose model that can be used in a range of settings. You might already have encountered foundation models, perhaps unknowingly, through AI tools, such as ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion. These models enable a single tool to offer varied capabilities, including text translation and image generation. So what does a foundation model for tabular machine learning look like?

Let’s return to the hospital example. With spreadsheet in hand, you choose a machine-learning model (such as a neural network) and train the model with your data, using an algorithm that adjusts the model’s parameters to optimize its predictive performance (Fig. 1a). Typically, you would train several such models before selecting one to use — a labour-intensive process that requires considerable time and expertise. And of course, this process must be repeated for each unique task.

Figure 1 | A foundation model for tabular machine learning. a, Conventional machine-learning models are trained on individual data sets using mathematical optimization algorithms. A different model needs to be developed and trained for each task, and for each data set. This practice takes years to learn and requires extensive time and computing resources. b, By contrast, a ‘foundation’ model could be used for any machine-learning task and is pre-trained on the types of data used to train conventional models. This type of model simply reads a data set and can immediately produce inferences about new data points. Hollmann et al. developed a foundation model for tabular machine learning, in which inferences are made on the basis of tables of data. Tabular machine learning is used for tasks as varied as social-media moderation and hospital decision-making, so the authors’ advance is expected to have a profound effect in many areas…(More)”

Government reform starts with data, evidence

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kshemendra Paul: “It’s time to strengthen the use of data, evidence and transparency to stop driving with mud on the windshield and to steer the government toward improving management of its programs and operations.

Existing Government Accountability Office and agency inspectors general reports identify thousands of specific evidence-based recommendations to improve efficiency, economy and effectiveness, and reduce fraud, waste and abuse. Many of these recommendations aim at program design and requirements, highlighting specific instances of overlap, redundancy and duplication. Others describe inadequate internal controls to balance program integrity with the experience of the customer, contractor or grantee. While progress is being reported in part due to stronger partnerships with IGs, much remains to be done. Indeed, GAO’s 2023 High Risk List, which it has produced going back to 1990, shows surprisingly slow progress of efforts to reduce risk to government programs and operations.

Here are a few examples:

  • GAO estimates recent annual fraud of between $233 billion to $521 billion, or about 3% to 7% of federal spending. On the other hand, identified fraud with high-risk Recovery Act spending was held under 1% using data, transparency and partnerships with Offices of Inspectors General.
  • GAO and IGs have collectively identified hundreds of billions in potential cost savings or improvements not yet addressed by federal agencies.
  • GAO has recently described shortcomings with the government’s efforts to build evidence. While federal policymakers need good information to inform their decisions, the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking previously said, “too little evidence is produced to meet this need.”

One of the main reasons for agency sluggishness is the lack of agency and governmentwide use of synchronized, authoritative and shared data to support how the government manages itself.

For example, the Energy Department IG found that, “[t]he department often lacks the data necessary to make critical decisions, evaluate and effectively manage risks, or gain visibility into program results.” It is past time for the government to commit itself to move away from its widespread use of data calls, the error-prone, costly and manual aggregation of data used to support policy analysis and decision-making. Efforts to embrace data-informed approaches to manage government programs and operations are stymied by lack of basic agency and governmentwide data hygiene. While bright pockets exist, management gaps, as DOE OIG stated, “create blind spots in the universe of data that, if captured, could be used to more efficiently identify, track and respond to risks…”

The proposed approach starts with current agency operating models, then drives into management process integration to tackle root causes of dysfunction from the bottom up. It recognizes that inefficiency, fraud and other challenges are diffused, deeply embedded and have non-obvious interrelationships within the federal complex…(More)”

Academic writing is getting harder to read—the humanities most of all

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

The Economist: “Academics have long been accused of jargon-filled writing that is impossible to understand. A recent cautionary tale was that of Ally Louks, a researcher who set off a social media storm with an innocuous post on X celebrating the completion of her PhD. If it was Ms Louks’s research topic (“olfactory ethics”—the politics of smell) that caught the attention of online critics, it was her verbose thesis abstract that further provoked their ire. In two weeks, the post received more than 21,000 retweets and 100m views.

Although the abuse directed at Ms Louks reeked of misogyny and anti-intellectualism—which she admirably shook off—the reaction was also a backlash against an academic use of language that is removed from normal life. Inaccessible writing is part of the problem. Research has become harder to read, especially in the humanities and social sciences. Though authors may argue that their work is written for expert audiences, much of the general public suspects that some academics use gobbledygook to disguise the fact that they have nothing useful to say. The trend towards more opaque prose hardly allays this suspicion…(More)”.

Once It Has Been Trained, Who Will Own My Digital Twin?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Todd Carpenter: “Presently, if one ignores the hype around Generative AI systems, we can recognize that software tools are not sentient. Nor can they (yet) overcome the problem of coming up with creative solutions to novel problems. They are limited in what they can do by the training data that they are supplied. They do hold the prospect for making us more efficient and productive, particularly for wrote tasks. But given enough training data, one could consider how much farther this could be taken. In preparation for that future, when it comes to the digital twins, the landscape of the ownership of the intellectual property (IP) behind them is already taking shape.

Several chatbots have been set up to replicate long-dead historical figures so that you can engage with them in their “voice”.  Hellohistory is an AI-driven chatbot that provides people the opportunity to, “have in-depth conversations with history’s greatest.” A different tool, Historical Figures Chat, was widely panned not long after its release in 2023, and especially by historians who strongly objected. There are several variations on this theme of varying quality. Of course, with all things GenAI, they will improve over time and many of the obvious and problematic issues will be resolved either by this generation of companies or the next. Whether there is real value and insight to be gained, apart from the novelty, of engaging with “real historical figures” is the multi-billion dollar question. Much like the World Wide Web in the 1990s, very likely there is value, but it will be years before it can be clearly discerned what that value is and how to capitalize upon it. In anticipation of that day, many organizations are positioning themselves to capture that value.

While many universities have taken a very liberal view of ownership of the intellectual property of their students and faculty — far more liberal than many corporations might — others are quite more restrictive…(More)”.

How Your Car Might Be Making Roads Safer

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Kashmir Hill: “Darcy Bullock, a civil engineering professor at Purdue University, turns to his computer screen to get information about how fast cars are traveling on Interstate 65, which runs 887 miles from Lake Michigan to the Gulf of Mexico. It’s midafternoon on a Monday, and his screen is mostly filled with green dots indicating that traffic is moving along nicely. But near an exit on the outskirts of Indianapolis, an angry red streak shows that cars have stopped moving.

A traffic camera nearby reveals the cause: A car has spun out, causing gridlock.

In recent years, vehicles that have wireless connectivity have become a critical source of information for transportation departments and for academics who study traffic patterns. The data these vehicles emit — including speed, how hard they brake and accelerate, and even if their windshield wipers are on — can offer insights into dangerous road conditions, congestion or poorly timed traffic signals.

“Our cars know more about our roads than agencies do,” said Dr. Bullock, who regularly works with the Indiana Department of Transportation to conduct studies on how to reduce traffic congestion and increase road safety. He credits connected-car data with detecting hazards that would have taken years — and many accidents — to find in the past.

The data comes primarily from commercial trucks and from cars made by General Motors that are enrolled in OnStar, G.M.’s internet-connected service. (Drivers know OnStar as the service that allows them to lock their vehicles from a smartphone app or find them if they have been stolen.) Federal safety guidelines require commercial truck drivers to be routinely monitored, but people driving G.M. vehicles may be surprised to know that their data is being collected, though it is indicated in the fine print of the company’s privacy policy…(More)”.

Philanthropy by the Numbers

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Aaron Horvath: “Foundations make grants conditional on demonstrable results. Charities tout the evidentiary basis of their work. And impact consultants play both sides: assisting funders in their pursuit of rational beneficence and helping grantees translate the jumble of reality into orderly, spreadsheet-ready metrics.

Measurable impact has crept into everyday understandings of charity as well. There’s the extensive (often fawning) news coverage of data-crazed billionaire philanthropists, so-called thought leaders exhorting followers to rethink their contributions to charity, and popular books counseling that intuition and sentiment are poor guides for making the world a better place. Putting ideas into action, charity evaluators promote research-backed listings of the most impactful nonprofits. Why give to your local food bank when there’s one in Somerville, Massachusetts, with a better rating?

Over the past thirty years, amid a larger crisis of civic engagement, social isolation, and political alienation, measurable impact has seeped into our civic imagination and become one of the guiding ideals for public-spirited beneficence. And while its proponents do not always agree on how best to achieve or measure the extent of that impact, they have collectively recast civic engagement as objective, pragmatic, and above the fray of politics—a triumph of the head over the heart. But how did we get here? And what happens to our capacity for meaningful collective action when we think of civic life in such depersonalized and quantified terms?…(More)”.

To Whom Does the World Belong?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Alexander Hartley: “For an idea of the scale of the prize, it’s worth remembering that 90 percent of recent U.S. economic growth, and 65 percent of the value of its largest 500 companies, is already accounted for by intellectual property. By any estimate, AI will vastly increase the speed and scale at which new intellectual products can be minted. The provision of AI services themselves is estimated to become a trillion-dollar market by 2032, but the value of the intellectual property created by those services—all the drug and technology patents; all the images, films, stories, virtual personalities—will eclipse that sum. It is possible that the products of AI may, within my lifetime, come to represent a substantial portion of all the world’s financial value.

In this light, the question of ownership takes on its true scale, revealing itself as a version of Bertolt Brecht’s famous query: To whom does the world belong?

Questions of AI authorship and ownership can be divided into two broad types. One concerns the vast troves of human-authored material fed into AI models as part of their “training” (the process by which their algorithms “learn” from data). The other concerns ownership of what AIs produce. Call these, respectively, the input and output problems.

So far, attention—and lawsuits—have clustered around the input problem. The basic business model for LLMs relies on the mass appropriation of human-written text, and there simply isn’t anywhere near enough in the public domain. OpenAI hasn’t been very forthcoming about its training data, but GPT-4 was reportedly trained on around thirteen trillion “tokens,” roughly the equivalent of ten trillion words. This text is drawn in large part from online repositories known as “crawls,” which scrape the internet for troves of text from news sites, forums, and other sources. Fully aware that vast data scraping is legally untested—to say the least—developers charged ahead anyway, resigning themselves to litigating the issue in retrospect. Lawyer Peter Schoppert has called the training of LLMs without permission the industry’s “original sin”—to be added, we might say, to the technology’s mind-boggling consumption of energy and water in an overheating planet. (In September, Bloomberg reported that plans for new gas-fired power plants have exploded as energy companies are “racing to meet a surge in demand from power-hungry AI data centers.”)…(More)”.

Beyond checking a box: how a social licence can help communities benefit from data reuse and AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Stefaan Verhulst and Peter Addo: “In theory, consent offers a mechanism to reduce power imbalances. In reality, existing consent mechanisms are limited and, in many respects, archaic, based on binary distinctions – typically presented in check-the-box forms that most websites use to ask you to register for marketing e-mails – that fail to appreciate the nuance and context-sensitive nature of data reuse. Consent today generally means individual consent, a notion that overlooks the broader needs of communities and groups.

While we understand the need to safeguard information about an individual such as, say, their health status, this information can help address or even prevent societal health crises. Individualised notions of consent fail to consider the potential public good of reusing individual data responsibly. This makes them particularly problematic in societies that have more collective orientations, where prioritising individual choices could disrupt the social fabric.

The notion of a social licence, which has its roots in the 1990s within the extractive industries, refers to the collective acceptance of an activity, such as data reuse, based on its perceived alignment with community values and interests. Social licences go beyond the priorities of individuals and help balance the risks of data misuse and missed use (for example, the risks of violating privacy vs. neglecting to use private data for public good). Social licences permit a broader notion of consent that is dynamic, multifaceted and context-sensitive.

Policymakers, citizens, health providers, think tanks, interest groups and private industry must accept the concept of a social licence before it can be established. The goal for all stakeholders is to establish widespread consensus on community norms and an acceptable balance of social risk and opportunity.

Community engagement can create a consensus-based foundation for preferences and expectations concerning data reuse. Engagement could take place via dedicated “data assemblies” or community deliberations about data reuse for particular purposes under particular conditions. The process would need to involve voices as representative as possible of the different parties involved, and include those that are traditionally marginalised or silenced…(More)”.

A linkless internet

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Collin Jennings: “..But now Google and other websites are moving away from relying on links in favour of artificial intelligence chatbots. Considered as preserved trails of connected ideas, links make sense as early victims of the AI revolution since large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini and others abstract the information represented online and present it in source-less summaries. We are at a moment in the history of the web in which the link itself – the countless connections made by website creators, the endless tapestry of ideas woven together throughout the web – is in danger of going extinct. So it’s pertinent to ask: how did links come to represent information in the first place? And what’s at stake in the movement away from links toward AI chat interfaces?

To answer these questions, we need to go back to the 17th century, when writers and philosophers developed the theory of mind that ultimately inspired early hypertext plans. In this era, prominent philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, debated the extent to which a person controls the succession of ideas that appears in her mind. They posited that the succession of ideas reflects the interaction between the data received from the senses and one’s mental faculties – reason and imagination. Subsequently, David Hume argued that all successive ideas are linked by association. He enumerated three kinds of associative connections among ideas: resemblance, contiguity, and cause and effect. In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748), Hume offers examples of each relationship:

A picture naturally leads our thoughts to the original: the mention of one apartment in a building naturally introduces an enquiry or discourse concerning the others: and if we think of a wound, we can scarcely forbear reflecting on the pain which follows it.

The mind follows connections found in the world. Locke and Hume believed that all human knowledge comes from experience, and so they had to explain how the mind receives, processes and stores external data. They often reached for media metaphors to describe the relationship between the mind and the world. Locke compared the mind to a blank tablet, a cabinet and a camera obscura. Hume relied on the language of printing to distinguish between the vivacity of impressions imprinted upon one’s senses and the ideas recalled in the mind…(More)”.