Influencing

Explore resources related to influencing to help implement AI solutions for your business.

reddit

0

0

waveformula•This week

[R] "How is AI influencing business strategy?"

"How is AI influencing business strategy?" ...this is the central question of my MBA dissertation. Can you please help me answer it? Five minute academic survey... https://forms.office.com/e/4J3HY0NmMZ Thank you so much for your help! ​

#reddit#"how#influencing

reddit

0

1

Flaky_Suit_8665•This week

[D] The current and future state of AI/ML is shockingly demoralizing with little hope of redemption

I recently encountered the PaLM (Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways) paper from Google Research and it opened up a can of worms of ideas I’ve felt I’ve intuitively had for a while, but have been unable to express – and I know I can’t be the only one. Sometimes I wonder what the original pioneers of AI – Turing, Neumann, McCarthy, etc. – would think if they could see the state of AI that we’ve gotten ourselves into. 67 authors, 83 pages, 540B parameters in a model, the internals of which no one can say they comprehend with a straight face, 6144 TPUs in a commercial lab that no one has access to, on a rig that no one can afford, trained on a volume of data that a human couldn’t process in a lifetime, 1 page on ethics with the same ideas that have been rehashed over and over elsewhere with no attempt at a solution – bias, racism, malicious use, etc. – for purposes that who asked for? When I started my career as an AI/ML research engineer 2016, I was most interested in two types of tasks – 1.) those that most humans could do but that would universally be considered tedious and non-scalable. I’m talking image classification, sentiment analysis, even document summarization, etc. 2.) tasks that humans lack the capacity to perform as well as computers for various reasons – forecasting, risk analysis, game playing, and so forth. I still love my career, and I try to only work on projects in these areas, but it’s getting harder and harder. This is because, somewhere along the way, it became popular and unquestionably acceptable to push AI into domains that were originally uniquely human, those areas that sit at the top of Maslows’s hierarchy of needs in terms of self-actualization – art, music, writing, singing, programming, and so forth. These areas of endeavor have negative logarithmic ability curves – the vast majority of people cannot do them well at all, about 10% can do them decently, and 1% or less can do them extraordinarily. The little discussed problem with AI-generation is that, without extreme deterrence, we will sacrifice human achievement at the top percentile in the name of lowering the bar for a larger volume of people, until the AI ability range is the norm. This is because relative to humans, AI is cheap, fast, and infinite, to the extent that investments in human achievement will be watered down at the societal, educational, and individual level with each passing year. And unlike AI gameplay which superseded humans decades ago, we won’t be able to just disqualify the machines and continue to play as if they didn’t exist. Almost everywhere I go, even this forum, I encounter almost universal deference given to current SOTA AI generation systems like GPT-3, CODEX, DALL-E, etc., with almost no one extending their implications to its logical conclusion, which is long-term convergence to the mean, to mediocrity, in the fields they claim to address or even enhance. If you’re an artist or writer and you’re using DALL-E or GPT-3 to “enhance” your work, or if you’re a programmer saying, “GitHub Co-Pilot makes me a better programmer?”, then how could you possibly know? You’ve disrupted and bypassed your own creative process, which is thoughts -> (optionally words) -> actions -> feedback -> repeat, and instead seeded your canvas with ideas from a machine, the provenance of which you can’t understand, nor can the machine reliably explain. And the more you do this, the more you make your creative processes dependent on said machine, until you must question whether or not you could work at the same level without it. When I was a college student, I often dabbled with weed, LSD, and mushrooms, and for a while, I thought the ideas I was having while under the influence were revolutionary and groundbreaking – that is until took it upon myself to actually start writing down those ideas and then reviewing them while sober, when I realized they weren’t that special at all. What I eventually determined is that, under the influence, it was impossible for me to accurately evaluate the drug-induced ideas I was having because the influencing agent the generates the ideas themselves was disrupting the same frame of reference that is responsible evaluating said ideas. This is the same principle of – if you took a pill and it made you stupider, would even know it? I believe that, especially over the long-term timeframe that crosses generations, there’s significant risk that current AI-generation developments produces a similar effect on humanity, and we mostly won’t even realize it has happened, much like a frog in boiling water. If you have children like I do, how can you be aware of the the current SOTA in these areas, project that 20 to 30 years, and then and tell them with a straight face that it is worth them pursuing their talent in art, writing, or music? How can you be honest and still say that widespread implementation of auto-correction hasn’t made you and others worse and worse at spelling over the years (a task that even I believe most would agree is tedious and worth automating). Furthermore, I’ve yet to set anyone discuss the train – generate – train - generate feedback loop that long-term application of AI-generation systems imply. The first generations of these models were trained on wide swaths of web data generated by humans, but if these systems are permitted to continually spit out content without restriction or verification, especially to the extent that it reduces or eliminates development and investment in human talent over the long term, then what happens to the 4th or 5th generation of models? Eventually we encounter this situation where the AI is being trained almost exclusively on AI-generated content, and therefore with each generation, it settles more and more into the mean and mediocrity with no way out using current methods. By the time that happens, what will we have lost in terms of the creative capacity of people, and will we be able to get it back? By relentlessly pursuing this direction so enthusiastically, I’m convinced that we as AI/ML developers, companies, and nations are past the point of no return, and it mostly comes down the investments in time and money that we’ve made, as well as a prisoner’s dilemma with our competitors. As a society though, this direction we’ve chosen for short-term gains will almost certainly make humanity worse off, mostly for those who are powerless to do anything about it – our children, our grandchildren, and generations to come. If you’re an AI researcher or a data scientist like myself, how do you turn things back for yourself when you’ve spent years on years building your career in this direction? You’re likely making near or north of $200k annually TC and have a family to support, and so it’s too late, no matter how you feel about the direction the field has gone. If you’re a company, how do you standby and let your competitors aggressively push their AutoML solutions into more and more markets without putting out your own? Moreover, if you’re a manager or thought leader in this field like Jeff Dean how do you justify to your own boss and your shareholders your team’s billions of dollars in AI investment while simultaneously balancing ethical concerns? You can’t – the only answer is bigger and bigger models, more and more applications, more and more data, and more and more automation, and then automating that even further. If you’re a country like the US, how do responsibly develop AI while your competitors like China single-mindedly push full steam ahead without an iota of ethical concern to replace you in numerous areas in global power dynamics? Once again, failing to compete would be pre-emptively admitting defeat. Even assuming that none of what I’ve described here happens to such an extent, how are so few people not taking this seriously and discounting this possibility? If everything I’m saying is fear-mongering and non-sense, then I’d be interested in hearing what you think human-AI co-existence looks like in 20 to 30 years and why it isn’t as demoralizing as I’ve made it out to be. ​ EDIT: Day after posting this -- this post took off way more than I expected. Even if I received 20 - 25 comments, I would have considered that a success, but this went much further. Thank you to each one of you that has read this post, even more so if you left a comment, and triply so for those who gave awards! I've read almost every comment that has come in (even the troll ones), and am truly grateful for each one, including those in sharp disagreement. I've learned much more from this discussion with the sub than I could have imagined on this topic, from so many perspectives. While I will try to reply as many comments as I can, the sheer comment volume combined with limited free time between work and family unfortunately means that there are many that I likely won't be able to get to. That will invariably include some that I would love respond to under the assumption of infinite time, but I will do my best, even if the latency stretches into days. Thank you all once again!

#reddit#current#future

reddit

0

0.667

elehman839•This week

[D] AI regulation: a review of NTIA's "AI Accountability Policy" doc

How will governments respond to the rapid rise of AI? How can sensible regulation keep pace with AI technology? These questions interest many of us! One early US government response has come from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Specifically, the NTIA published an "AI Accountability Policy Request for Comment" on April 11, 2023. I read the NTIA document carefully, and I'm sharing my observations here for others interested in AI regulation. You can, of course, read the original materials and form your own opinions. Moreover, you can share those opinions not only on this post, but also with the NTIA itself until June 12, 2023. As background, the NTIA (homepage, Wikipedia) consists of a few hundred people within the Department of Commerce. The official mission of the NTIA is "advising the President on telecommunications and information policy issues". Topics covered by NTIA include broadband internet access, spectrum management, internet health, and now artificial intelligence. I do not know whether the NTIA will ultimately drive thinking around AI regulation in the United States or they are just a spunky lot who got something on paper early. The NTIA document is not a specific policy proposal, but rather a thoughtful discussion of AI regulation, followed by a long list of questions on which the NTIA seeks input. This format seems appropriate right now, as we're all trying to make sense of a fast-changing world. The NTIA document leans heavily on two others: the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights from the White House Office of Science and Technology and the AI Risk Management Framework from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Without going into these two in depth, even tiny snippets convey their differing audiences and flavors: White House Blueprint: "You should be protected from safe and ineffective systems." NIST Framework: "Risk refers to the composite measure of an event’s probability of occurring and the magnitude or degree of the consequences of the corresponding event." Now, turning back to the NTIA document itself, I'll comment on three aspects (1) scope, (2) problems addressed, and (3) solutions contemplated. Scope is critical to understanding the NTIA document, and is probably worth keeping in mind in all near-term discussion of AI regulation. Over the past several years, at least two different technologies have been called "AI". The document mentions both, but the emphasis is NOT on the one you're probably thinking about. In more detail: A few years ago, regulators began scrutinizing "automated decisions systems", which passed as "AI" in those ancient times. An example would be an ML model used by a bank to decide whether or not you get a loan. That model might take in all sorts of information about you, combine it in mysterious ML ways, and reject your loan request. Then you might wonder, "Did that system effectively use my address and name to deduce that I am black and then reject my loan request on the basis of race?" There is some evidence of that happening, and this seems like an injustice. So perhaps such systems should be audited and certified so people know this won't happen. This is the focus of the document. These days, AI more commonly refers to open-ended systems that can engage on a wide range of topics and approximate human intelligence. The document briefly mentions generative AI models, large language models, ChatGPT, and "foundational models" (sic), but this is not the focus. The passing mentions may obscure this, unfortunately. In my opinion, these two notions of "AI" are radically different, and many of the differences matter from a regulatory perspective. Yet NTIA lumps both under a sweeping definition of an "AI system" as "an engineered or machine-based system that can, for a given set of objectives, generate outputs such as predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments." (Hmm, this includes my Magic 8-Ball…) Keep scope in mind as we turn to the next aspect: the problems under discussion. Now, NTIA's goal is to solicit input, so considering a wide range of potential problems associated with AI makes sense. Consistent with that, the document refers to democratic values, civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. And citing the NIST doc, NTIA vaguely notes "a wide range of potential AI risks". Also, AI systems should be "valid and reliable, safe, secure and resilient, accountable and transparent, explainable and interpretable, privacy-enhanced, and fair with their harmful bias managed". And they should call their mothers \every\ week. (Okay, I made that one up.) A few comments on this formulation of the problem. First, these concerns feel more applicable to older-style AI. This includes automated decisions systems, like for a bank loan or for a prison parole recommendation. Sure, I believe such systems should operate in ways consistent with our consensus societal values, and further regulation may be needed to achieve that. But, hello! There's also another, newer class of AI that poses additional challenges. And I don't see those discussed in the NTIA document. Such challenges might include: People losing jobs because AI takes their work. Ensuring malicious people don't use AI tools to wreak havoc on the world. Sorting out intellectual property issues around AI to ensure both rapid progress in the field and respect for creators' rights. Ensuring laws appropriately assign culpability to humans when AIs cause harm. Planning for an incident analogous to the first internet worm, where an AI goes rogue, wreaks some havoc, and everyone is shocked (before it happens 28,385 more times). Bottom line: when I cntrl-F the doc for "robotic overlords", I get zero hits. ZERO. This is why I now believe scope is so important when considering efforts to regulate AI: are we talking about old-school AI or 2023-era AI or what? Because they are pretty different. The last aspect I'll address is the solutions contemplated. Again, NTIA's goal is to stimulate discussion, not propose something specific. Nevertheless, there is a strong push in one particular direction: unlike, "robotic overlord", the word "audit" appears more than 100 times along with many instances of "assessment" and "certification". On one hand, this approach makes sense. Suppose you want to ensure that a bank loan system is fair, that a social media platform isn't spreading misinformation, that a search engine is returning accurate results, etc. Then someone, somewhere has to assess or audit that system and look for problems. That audit might be done by the creator of the system or a third-party auditing agency. Such audits could be incentivized by mandates, prizes, or shiny gold stars. The government might help by fostering development of auditing tools and data. The NTIA is open to all such possibilities and seeks input on how to proceed. On the other hand, this seems like a tactic best suited to automated decision systems operated by financial institutions, government agencies, and the like. Such formal processes seem a poor fit for the current AI wave. For example: Auditing will take time and money. That's something a bank might pay for a system that will run for years. For something fine-tuned over the weekend at a startup or by some guy living in his mother's basement, that's probably not going to happen. Auditing a straightforward decision system seems far easier than assessing an open-ended AI. Beyond basic practicality, the AI could be taught to lie when it senses an audit. Also, auditing procedures (like the NTIA doc itself) will presumably be online, which means that AIs will read them and could potentially respond. Most current ML models fix parameters after training, but I think we'll soon see some models whose parameters evolve as they engage with the world. Auditing such a system that varies continuously over time seems especially difficult. Auditing a foundation model probably tells you little about derivative models. A sweet-hearted model can surely be made into monster with moderate additional training; you don't need to teach the model new cognitive skills, just repurpose existing ones to new ends. More generally, auditing doesn't address many of my concerns about AI regulation (see list above). For example, auditing sort of assumes a basically responsible actor (bank, government agency, big tech company), but AI could be misused by malicious people who, naturally, will not seek a responsible outside assessment. In any case, for both old-school and modern AI, auditing is only one line of defense, and that's not enough. You can audit until you're blue in the face, stuff will still get through, and AI systems will still cause some harm. So what's the next line of defense? For example, is our legal system ready to sensibly assign culpability to humans for AI-related incidents? In summary, the critical problem with the NTIA document is that it creates a largely false appearance of US government engagement with the new class of AI technology. As a result, people could wrongly believe that the US government is already responding to the rise of AI, and fail to advocate for actual, effective engagement. That said, the NTIA document does address important issues around a prominent technology sometimes (formerly?) called "AI". Even there, however, the proposed approach (auditing) seems like an overly-fragile, single line of defense.

#reddit#regulation:#review