Recently, many AI researchers and practitioners have embarked on research visions that involve doing AI for "Good". This is part of a general drive towards infusing AI research and practice with ethical thinking. One frequent theme in current ethical guidelines is the requirement that AI be good for all, or: contribute to the Common Good. But what is the Common Good, and is it enough to want to be good? Via four lead questions, I will illustrate challenges and pitfalls when determining, from an AI point of view, what the Common Good is and how it can be enhanced by AI. The questions are: What is the problem / What is a problem?, Who defines the problem?, What is the role of knowledge?, and What are important side effects and dynamics? The illustration will use an example from the domain of "AI for Social Good", more specifically "Data Science for Social Good". Even if the importance of these questions may be known at an abstract level, they do not get asked sufficiently in practice, as shown by an exploratory study of 99 contributions to recent conferences in the field. Turning these challenges and pitfalls into a positive recommendation, as a conclusion I will draw on another characteristic of computer-science thinking and practice to make these impediments visible and attenuate them: "attacks" as a method for improving design. This results in the proposal of ethics pen-testing as a method for helping AI designs to better contribute to the Common Good.

AI for the Common Good?! Pitfalls, challenges, and Ethics Pen-Testing
Bettina Berendt

Source: arxiv.org

Sensors can measure air quality, traffic congestion, and other aspects of urban environments. The fine-grained diagnostic information they provide could help urban managers to monitor a city’s health. Recently, a `drive-by’ paradigm has been proposed in which sensors are deployed on third-party vehicles, enabling wide coverage at low cost} Research on drive-by sensing has mostly focused on sensor engineering, but a key question remains unexplored: How many vehicles would be required to adequately scan a city? Here, we address this question by analyzing the sensing power of a taxi fleet. Taxis, being numerous in cities and typically equipped with some sensing technology (e.g. GPS), are natural hosts for the sensors. Our strategy is to view drive-by sensing as a spreading process, in which the area of sensed terrain expands as sensor-equipped taxis diffuse through a city’s streets. In tandem with a simple model for the movements of the taxis, this analogy lets us analytically determine the fraction of a city’s street network sensed by a fleet of taxis during a day. Our results agree with taxi data obtained from nine major cities, and reveal that a remarkably small number of taxis can scan a large number of streets. This finding appears to be universal, indicating its applicability to cities beyond those analyzed here. Moreover, because taxi motions combine randomness and regularity (passengers’ destinations being random, but the routes to them being deterministic), the spreading properties of taxi fleets are unusual; in stark contrast to random walks, the stationary densities of our taxi model obey Zipf’s law, consistent with the empirical taxi data. Our results have direct utility for town councilors, smart-city designers, and other urban decision makers.

 

Quantifying the sensing power of crowd-sourced vehicle fleets
Kevin P. O’Keeffe, Amin Anjomshoaa, Steven H. Strogatz, Paolo Santi, Carlo Ratti

Source: arxiv.org

Liquid neural networks (or ”liquid brains”) are a widespread class of cognitive living networks characterised by a common feature: the agents (ants or immune cells, for example) move in space. Thus, no fixed, long-term agent-agent connections are maintained, in contrast with standard neural systems. How is this class of systems capable of displaying cognitive abilities, from learning to decision-making? In this paper, the collective dynamics, memory and learning properties of liquid brains is explored under the perspective of statistical physics. Using a comparative approach, we review the generic properties of three large classes of systems, namely: standard neural networks (”solid brains”), ant colonies and the immune system. It is shown that, despite their intrinsic physical differences, these systems share key properties with standard neural systems in terms of formal descriptions, but strongly depart in other ways. On one hand, the attractors found in liquid brains are not always based on connection weights but instead on population abundances. However, some liquid systems use fluctuations in ways similar to those found in cortical networks, suggesting a relevant role of criticality as a way of rapidly reacting to external signals.

 

Statistical physics of liquid brains
Jordi Pinero, Ricard Sole

Source: www.biorxiv.org

The “Crisis of Reproducibility” has received considerable attention both within the scientific community and without. While factors associated with scientific culture and practical practice are most often invoked, I propose that the Crisis of Reproducibility is ultimately a failure of generalization with a fundamental scientific basis in the methods used for biomedical research. The Denominator Problem describes how limitations intrinsic to the two primary approaches of biomedical research, clinical studies and preclinical experimental biology, lead to an inability to effectively characterize the full extent of biological heterogeneity, which compromises the task of generalizing acquired knowledge. Drawing on the example of the unifying role of theory in the physical sciences, I propose that multi-scale mathematical and dynamic computational models, when mapped to the modular structure of biological systems, can serve a unifying role as formal representations of what is conserved and similar from one biological context to another. This ability to explicitly describe the generation of heterogeneity from similarity addresses the Denominator Problem and provides a scientific response to the Crisis of Reproducibility.

 

The Crisis of Reproducibility, the Denominator Problem and the Scientific Role of Multi-scale Modeling

Gary An

Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
December 2018, Volume 80, Issue 12, pp 3071–3080

Source: link.springer.com