Be it resolved: The quest for true AI is one of the great existential risks of our time – Munk Debates Podcast 

A novel written by artificial intelligence is shortlisted for a literary prize. Google software beats a human opponent at Go, one of the most complex board games in the world. Self-driving cars recognize images and then make decisions. These are just some of the extraordinary accomplishments based on artificial intelligence that we have witnessed in the past few years. But there are many scientists who are pushing for a more cautious approach to how we move forward on machine intelligence. They say that we are not far off from developing superintelligent machines whose IQ far surpasses that of humans and who don’t come with an off switch — with seriously negative consequences for humanity. These scientists argue that we can prevent this loss of control but we need to act now by making sure algorithms ensure that benevolence and human mastery are foundational pillars. Critics say that this view of superintelligence highly overrates the abilities of machines today and in the future, and deeply underestimates the incredible powers of human thinking. They say that AI is nowhere close to matching the human talent for understanding and generalization — and may never come close. Unsubstantiated fears of a superintelligent future are getting in the way of resolving one of the riddles of human existence – human intelligence – which could unlock untold creativity and progress.

Arguing for the motion is Stuart Russell, Professor of Computer Science and Smith-Zadeh Professor in Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, and Honorary Fellow, Wadham College, Oxford. He’s the author of Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control.

Arguing against the motion is Melanie Mitchell, Davis Professor of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute. She is the author of Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Thinking Humans.

Read the full article at: omny.fm

Cognitive reflection correlates with behavior on Twitter

Mohsen Mosleh, Gordon Pennycook, Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand
Nature Communications volume 12, Article number: 921 (2021)

We investigate the relationship between individual differences in cognitive reflection and behavior on the social media platform Twitter, using a convenience sample of N = 1,901 individuals from Prolific. We find that people who score higher on the Cognitive Reflection Test—a widely used measure of reflective thinking—were more discerning in their social media use, as evidenced by the types and number of accounts followed, and by the reliability of the news sources they shared. Furthermore, a network analysis indicates that the phenomenon of echo chambers, in which discourse is more likely with like-minded others, is not limited to politics: people who scored lower in cognitive reflection tended to follow a set of accounts which are avoided by people who scored higher in cognitive reflection. Our results help to illuminate the drivers of behavior on social media platforms and challenge intuitionist notions that reflective thinking is unimportant for everyday judgment and decision-making. Performance on a cognitive reflection test correlates with a wide range of behaviours in survey studies. Here the authors investigate the relationship between cognitive reflection and some aspects of actual behaviour on social media.

Read the full article at: www.nature.com

Unmasking the mask studies: why the effectiveness of surgical masks in preventing respiratory infections has been underestimated

Pratyush K. Kollepara, Alexander F. Siegenfeld, Nassim N. Taleb, Yaneer Bar-Yam
Face masks have been widely used as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, pre-pandemic experimental studies have produced mixed results regarding their effectiveness against respiratory viruses, leading to confusion over whether masks protect the wearer, or only those with whom the wearer interacts. Such confusion may have contributed to organizations such as the WHO and CDC initially not recommending that the general public wear masks. Here, we show that studies that did not find surgical masks to be effective were under-powered to such an extent that even if masks were 100% effective, the studies in question would still have been unlikely to find a statistically significant effect. Thus, such studies should not be interpreted as providing evidence against masks. We also provide a framework for understanding the effect of masks on the probability of infection for single and repeated exposures. The framework demonstrates that the impact of wearing a mask more frequently compounds super-linearly, as can the impact of both the susceptible and infected individual wearing a mask. This work shows that current research is consistent with recommendations for using masks at a population level in regions in which there is transmission of COVID-19, and that nonlinear effects and statistical considerations regarding the percentage of exposures for which the mask is worn must be taken into account when designing empirical studies and interpreting their results.

Read the full article at: arxiv.org

Juan Enriquez: How technology changes our sense of right and wrong

What drives society’s understanding of right and wrong? In this thought-provoking talk, futurist Juan Enriquez offers a historical outlook on what humanity once deemed acceptable — from human sacrifice and public executions to slavery and eating meat — and makes a surprising case that exponential advances in technology leads to more ethical behavior.

Read the full article at: www.ted.com