ChatGPT took people by surprise – here are four technologies that could make a difference next

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Fabian Stephany and Johann Laux: “…There are some AI technologies waiting on the sidelines right now that hold promise. The four we think are waiting in the wings are next-level GPT, humanoid robots, AI lawyers, and AI-driven science. Our choices appear ready from a technological point of view, but whether they satisfy all three of the criteria we’ve mentioned is another matter. We chose these four because they were the ones that kept coming up in our investigations into progress in AI technologies.

1. AI legal help

The startup company DoNotPay claims to have built a legal chatbot – built on LLM technology – that can advise defendants in court.

The company recently said it would let its AI system help two defendants fight speeding tickets in real-time. Connected via an earpiece, the AI can listen to proceedings and whisper legal arguments into the ear of the defendant, who then repeats them out loud to the judge.

After criticism and a lawsuit for practising law without a license, the startup postponed the AI’s courtroom debut. The potential for the technology will thus not be decided by technological or economic constraints, but by the authority of the legal system.

Lawyers are well-paid professionals and the costs of litigation are high, so the economic potential for automation is huge. However, the US legal system currently seems to oppose robots representing humans in court.

2. AI scientific support

Scientists are increasingly turning to AI for insights. Machine learning, where an AI system improves at what it does over time, is being employed to identify patterns in data. This enables the systems to propose novel scientific hypotheses – proposed explanations for phenomena in nature. These may even be capable of surpassing human assumptions and biases.

For example, researchers at the University of Liverpool used a machine learning system called a neural network to rank chemical combinations for battery materials, guiding their experiments and saving time.

The complexity of neural networks means that there are gaps in our understanding of how they actually make decisions – the so-called black box problem. Nevertheless, there are techniques that can shed light on the logic behind their answers and this can lead to unexpected discoveries.

While AI cannot currently formulate hypotheses independently, it can inspire scientists to approach problems from new perspectives…(More)”.

COVID-19 digital contact tracing worked — heed the lessons for future pandemics

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Marcel Salathé: “During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, around 50 countries deployed digital contact tracing. When someone tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, anyone who had been in close proximity to that person (usually for 15 minutes or more) would be notified as long as both individuals had installed the contact-tracing app on their devices.

Digital contact tracing received much media attention, and much criticism, in that first year. Many worried that the technology provided a way for governments and technology companies to have even more control over people’s lives than they already do. Others dismissed the apps as a failure, after public-health authorities hit problems in deploying them.

Three years on, the data tell a different story.

The United Kingdom successfully integrated a digital contact-tracing app with other public-health programmes and interventions, and collected data to assess the app’s effectiveness. Several analyses now show that, even with the challenges of introducing a new technology during an emergency, and despite relatively low uptake, the app saved thousands of lives. It has also become clearer that many of the problems encountered elsewhere were not to do with the technology itself, but with integrating a twenty-first-century technology into what are largely twentieth-century public-health infrastructures…(More)”.

How should a robot explore the Moon? A simple question shows the limits of current AI systems

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Sally Cripps, Edward Santow, Nicholas Davis, Alex Fischer and Hadi Mohasel Afshar: “..Ultimately, AI systems should help humans make better, more accurate decisions. Yet even the most impressive and flexible of today’s AI tools – such as the large language models behind the likes of ChatGPT – can have the opposite effect.

Why? They have two crucial weaknesses. They do not help decision-makers understand causation or uncertainty. And they create incentives to collect huge amounts of data and may encourage a lax attitude to privacy, legal and ethical questions and risks…

ChatGPT and other “foundation models” use an approach called deep learning to trawl through enormous datasets and identify associations between factors contained in that data, such as the patterns of language or links between images and descriptions. Consequently, they are great at interpolating – that is, predicting or filling in the gaps between known values.

Interpolation is not the same as creation. It does not generate knowledge, nor the insights necessary for decision-makers operating in complex environments.

However, these approaches require huge amounts of data. As a result, they encourage organisations to assemble enormous repositories of data – or trawl through existing datasets collected for other purposes. Dealing with “big data” brings considerable risks around security, privacy, legality and ethics.

In low-stakes situations, predictions based on “what the data suggest will happen” can be incredibly useful. But when the stakes are higher, there are two more questions we need to answer.

The first is about how the world works: “what is driving this outcome?” The second is about our knowledge of the world: “how confident are we about this?”…(More)”.

Assembly required

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Claudia Chwalsiz: “What is the role of political leadership in a new democratic paradigm defined by citizen participation, representation by lot and deliberation? What is or should be the role and relationship of politicians and political parties with citizens? What does a new approach to activating citizenship (in its broad sense) through practice and education entail? These are some questions that I am grappling with, having worked on democratic innovation and citizens’ assemblies for over a decade, with my views evolving greatly over time.

First, a definition. A citizens’ assembly is a bit like jury duty for policy. It is a broadly representative group of people selected by lottery (sortition) who meet for at least four to six days over a few months to learn about an issue, weigh trade-offs, listen to one another and find common ground on shared recommendations.

To take a recent example, the French Citizens’ Assembly on End of Life comprised 184 members, selected by lot, who deliberated for 27 days over the course of four months. Their mandate was to recommend whether, and if so how, existing legislation about assisted dying, euthanasia and related end-of-life matters should be amended. The assembly heard from more than 60 experts, deliberated with one another, and found 92% consensus on 67 recommendations, which they formulated and delivered to President Emmanuel Macron on 3 April 2023. As of November 2021, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has counted almost 600 citizens’ assemblies for public decision-making around the world, addressing complex issues from drug policy reform to biodiversity loss, urban planning decisions, climate change, infrastructure investment, constitutional issues such as abortion and more.

I believe citizens’ assemblies are a key part of the way forward. I believe the lack of agency people feel to be shaping their lives and their communities is at the root of the democratic crisis – leading to ever-growing numbers of people exiting the formal political system entirely, or else turning to extremes (they often have legitimate analysis of the problems we face, but are not offering genuine solutions, and are often dangerous in their perpetuation of divisiveness and sometimes even violence). This is also related to a feeling of a lack of dignity and belonging, perpetuated in a culture where people look down on others with moral superiority, and humiliation abounds, as Amanda Ripley explains in her work on ‘high conflict’. She distinguishes ‘high conflict’ from ‘good conflict’, which is respectful, necessary, and generative, and occurs in settings where there is openness and curiosity. In this context, our current democratic institutions are fuelling divisions, their legitimacy is weakened, and trust is faltering in all directions (of people in government, of government in people and of people in one another)…(More)”.

How to Regulate AI? Start With the Data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Susan Ariel Aaronson: “We live in an era of data dichotomy. On one hand, AI developers rely on large data sets to “train” their systems about the world and respond to user questions. These data troves have become increasingly valuable and visible. On the other hand, despite the import of data, U.S. policy makers don’t view data governance as a vehicle to regulate AI.  

U.S. policy makers should reconsider that perspective. As an example, the European Union, and more than 30 other countries, provide their citizens with a right not to be subject to automated decision making without explicit consent. Data governance is clearly an effective way to regulate AI.

Many AI developers treat data as an afterthought, but how AI firms collect and use data can tell you a lot about the quality of the AI services they produce. Firms and researchers struggle to collect, classify, and label data sets that are large enough to reflect the real world, but then don’t adequately clean (remove anomalies or problematic data) and check their data. Also, few AI developers and deployers divulge information about the data they use to train AI systems. As a result, we don’t know if the data that underlies many prominent AI systems is complete, consistent, or accurate. We also don’t know where that data comes from (its provenance). Without such information, users don’t know if they should trust the results they obtain from AI. 

The Washington Post set out to document this problem. It collaborated with the Allen Institute for AI to examine Google’s C4 data set, a widely used and large learning model built on data scraped by bots from 15 million websites. Google then filters the data, but it understandably can’t filter the entire data set.  

Hence, this data set provides sufficient training data, but it also presents major risks for those firms or researchers who rely on it. Web scraping is generally legal in most countries as long as the scraped data isn’t used to cause harm to society, a firm, or an individual. But the Post found that the data set contained swaths of data from sites that sell pirated or counterfeit data, which the Federal Trade Commission views as harmful. Moreover, to be legal, the scraped data should not include personal data obtained without user consent or proprietary data obtained without firm permission. Yet the Post found large amounts of personal data in the data sets as well as some 200 million instances of copyrighted data denoted with the copyright symbol.

Reliance on scraped data sets presents other risks. Without careful examination of the data sets, the firms relying on that data and their clients cannot know if it contains incomplete or inaccurate data, which in turn could lead to problems of bias, propaganda, and misinformation. But researchers cannot check data accuracy without information about data provenance. Consequently, the firms that rely on such unverified data are creating some of the AI risks regulators hope to avoid. 

It makes sense for Congress to start with data as it seeks to govern AI. There are several steps Congress could take…(More)”.

Harvard fraud claims fuel doubts over science of behaviour

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Andrew Hill and Andrew Jack: “Claims that fraudulent data was used in papers co-authored by a star Harvard Business School ethics expert have fuelled a growing controversy about the validity of behavioural science, whose findings are routinely taught in business schools and applied within companies.

While the professor has not yet responded to details of the claims, the episode is the latest blow to a field that has risen to prominence over the past 15 years and whose findings in areas such as decision-making and team-building are widely put into practice.

Companies from Coca-Cola to JPMorgan Chase have executives dedicated to behavioural science, while governments around the world have also embraced its findings. But well-known principles in the field such as “nudge theory” are now being called into question.

The Harvard episode “is topic number one in business school circles”, said André Spicer, executive dean of London’s Bayes Business School. “There has been a large-scale replication crisis in psychology — lots of the results can’t be reproduced and some of the underlying data has found to be faked.”…

That cast a shadow over the use of behavioural science by government-linked “nudge units” such as the UK’s Behavioural Insights Team, which was spun off into a company in 2014, and the US Office of Evaluation Sciences.

However, David Halpern, now president of BIT, countered that publication bias is not unique to the field. He said he and his peers use far larger-scale, more representative and robust testing than academic research.

Halpern argued that behavioural research can help to effectively deploy government budgets. “The dirty secret of most governments and organisations is that they spend a lot of money, but have no idea if they are spending in ways that make things better.”

Academics point out that testing others’ results is part of normal scientific practice. The difference with behavioural science is that initial results that have not yet been replicated are often quickly recycled into sensational headlines, popular self-help books and business practice.

“Scientists should be better at pointing out when non-scientists over-exaggerate these things and extrapolate, but they are worried that if they do this they will ruin the positive trend [towards their field],” said Pelle Guldborg Hansen, chief executive of iNudgeyou, a centre for applied behavioural research.

Many consultancies have sprung up to cater to corporate demand for behavioural insights. “What I found was that almost anyone who had read Nudge had a licence to set up as a behavioural scientist,” said Nuala Walsh, who formed the Global Association of Applied Behavioural Scientists in 2020 to try to set some standards…(More)”.

Health Care Data Is a Researcher’s Gold Mine

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by James O’Shaughnessy: “The UK’s National Health Service should aim to become the world’s leading platform for health research and development. We’ve seen some great examples of the potential we have for world-class research during the pandemic, with examples like the RECOVERY trial and the Covid vaccine platform, and since then through the partnerships with Moderna, Grail, and BioNTech. However, these examples of partnership with industry are often ad hoc arrangements. In general, funding and prestige are concentrated on research labs and early-phase trials, but when it comes to helping health care companies through the commercialization stages of their products, both public and private sector funding is much harder to access. This makes it hard for startups partnering with the NHS to scale their products and sell them on the domestic and international markets.

Instead, we need a systematic approach to leverage our strengths, such as the scale of the NHS, the diversity of our population, and the deep patient phenotyping that our data assets enable. That will give us the opportunity to generate vast amounts of real-world data about health care drugs and technologies—like pricing, performance, and safety—that can prepare companies to scale their innovations and go to market.

To achieve that, there are obstacles to overcome. For instance, setting up research projects is incredibly time-consuming. We have very bureaucratic processes that make the UK one of the slowest places in Europe to set up research studies.

Patients need more access to research. However, there’s really poor information at the moment about where clinical trials are taking place in the country and what kind of patients they are recruiting. We need a clinical clinicaltrials.gov.uk website to give that sort of information.

There’s a significant problem when it comes to the question of patient consent to participate in a R&D. Legally, unless patients have said explicitly that they want to be approached for a research project or a clinical trial, they can’t be contacted for that purpose. The catch-22 is that, of course, most patients are not aware of this, and you can’t legally contact them to inform them. We need to allow ethically approved researchers to proactively approach people to take part in studies which might be of benefit to them…(More)”.

How Leaders in Higher Education Can Embed Behavioral Science in Their Institutions

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Ross E. O’Hara: “…Once we view student success through a behavioral science lens and see the complex systems underlying student decision making, it becomes clear that behavioral scientists work best not as mechanics who repair broken systems, but as engineers who design better systems. Higher education, therefore, needs to diffuse those engineers throughout the organization.

To that end, Hallsworth recommends that organizations change their view of behavioral science “from projects to processes, from commissions to culture.” Only when behavioral science expertise is diffused across units and incorporated into all key organizational functions can a college become behaviorally enabled. So how might higher education go about this transformation?

1. Leverage the faculty

Leaders with deep expertise in behavioral science are likely already employed in social and behavioral sciences departments. Consider ways to focus their energy inward to tackle institutional challenges, perhaps using their own classrooms or departments as testing grounds. As they find promising solutions, build the infrastructure to disseminate and implement those ideas college and system wide. Unlike higher education’s normal approach—giving faculty additional unpaid and underappreciated committee work—provide funding and recognition that incentivizes faculty to make higher education policy an important piece of their academic portfolio.

2. Practice cross-functional training

I have spent the past several years providing colleges with behavioral science professional development, but too often this work is focused on a single functional unit, like academic advisors or faculty. Instead, create trainings that include representatives from across campus (e.g., enrollment; financial aid; registrar; student affairs). Not only will this diffuse behavioral science knowledge across the institution, but it will bring together the key players that impact student experience and make it easier for them to see the adaptive system that determines whether a student graduates or withdraws.

3. Let behavioral scientists be engineers

Whether you look for faculty or outside consultants, bring behavioral science experts into conversations early. From redesigning college-to-career pathways to building a new cafeteria, behavioral scientists can help gather and interpret student voices, foresee and circumvent behavioral challenges, and identify measurable and meaningful evaluation metrics. The impact of their expertise will be even greater when they work in an environment with a diffuse knowledge of behavioral science already in place…(More)”

Barred From Grocery Stores by Facial Recognition

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Adam Satariano and Kashmir Hill: “Simon Mackenzie, a security officer at the discount retailer QD Stores outside London, was short of breath. He had just chased after three shoplifters who had taken off with several packages of laundry soap. Before the police arrived, he sat at a back-room desk to do something important: Capture the culprits’ faces.

On an aging desktop computer, he pulled up security camera footage, pausing to zoom in and save a photo of each thief. He then logged in to a facial recognition program, Facewatch, which his store uses to identify shoplifters. The next time those people enter any shop within a few miles that uses Facewatch, store staff will receive an alert.

“It’s like having somebody with you saying, ‘That person you bagged last week just came back in,’” Mr. Mackenzie said.

Use of facial recognition technology by the police has been heavily scrutinized in recent years, but its application by private businesses has received less attention. Now, as the technology improves and its cost falls, the systems are reaching further into people’s lives. No longer just the purview of government agencies, facial recognition is increasingly being deployed to identify shoplifters, problematic customers and legal adversaries.

Facewatch, a British company, is used by retailers across the country frustrated by petty crime. For as little as 250 pounds a month, or roughly $320, Facewatch offers access to a customized watchlist that stores near one another share. When Facewatch spots a flagged face, an alert is sent to a smartphone at the shop, where employees decide whether to keep a close eye on the person or ask the person to leave…(More)”.

Gamifying medical data labeling to advance AI

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Zach Winn: “…Duhaime began exploring ways to leverage collective intelligence to improve medical diagnoses. In one experiment, he trained groups of lay people and medical school students that he describes as “semiexperts” to classify skin conditions, finding that by combining the opinions of the highest performers he could outperform professional dermatologists. He also found that by combining algorithms trained to detect skin cancer with the opinions of experts, he could outperform either method on its own….The DiagnosUs app, which Duhaime developed with Centaur co-founders Zach Rausnitz and Tom Gellatly, is designed to help users test and improve their skills. Duhaime says about half of users are medical school students and the other half are mostly doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals…

The approach stands in sharp contrast to traditional data labeling and AI content moderation, which are typically outsourced to low-resource countries.

Centaur’s approach produces accurate results, too. In a paper with researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), and Eindhoven University of Technology, Centaur showed its crowdsourced opinions labeled lung ultrasounds as reliably as experts did…

Centaur has found that the best performers come from surprising places. In 2021, to collect expert opinions on EEG patterns, researchers held a contest through the DiagnosUs app at a conference featuring about 50 epileptologists, each with more than 10 years of experience. The organizers made a custom shirt to give to the contest’s winner, who they assumed would be in attendance at the conference.

But when the results came in, a pair of medical students in Ghana, Jeffery Danquah and Andrews Gyabaah, had beaten everyone in attendance. The highest-ranked conference attendee had come in ninth…(More)”