-
Frontier AI Ethics: Anticipating and Evaluating the Societal Impacts of Generative Agents
Authors:
Seth Lazar
Abstract:
Some have criticised Generative AI Systems for replicating the familiar pathologies of already widely-deployed AI systems. Other critics highlight how they foreshadow vastly more powerful future systems, which might threaten humanity's survival. The first group says there is nothing new here; the other looks through the present to a perhaps distant horizon. In this paper, I instead pay attention t…
▽ More
Some have criticised Generative AI Systems for replicating the familiar pathologies of already widely-deployed AI systems. Other critics highlight how they foreshadow vastly more powerful future systems, which might threaten humanity's survival. The first group says there is nothing new here; the other looks through the present to a perhaps distant horizon. In this paper, I instead pay attention to what makes these particular systems distinctive: both their remarkable scientific achievement, and the most likely and consequential ways in which they will change society over the next five to ten years. In particular, I explore the potential societal impacts and normative questions raised by the looming prospect of 'Generative Agents', in which multimodal large language models (LLMs) form the executive centre of complex, tool-using AI systems that can take unsupervised sequences of actions towards some goal.
△ Less
Submitted 10 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Automatic Authorities: Power and AI
Authors:
Seth Lazar
Abstract:
As rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence and the rise of some of history's most potent corporations meet the diminished neoliberal state, people are increasingly subject to power exercised by means of automated systems. Machine learning and related computational technologies now underpin vital government services. They connect consumers and producers in new algorithmic markets. They determine…
▽ More
As rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence and the rise of some of history's most potent corporations meet the diminished neoliberal state, people are increasingly subject to power exercised by means of automated systems. Machine learning and related computational technologies now underpin vital government services. They connect consumers and producers in new algorithmic markets. They determine how we find out about everything from how to vote to where to get vaccinated, and whose speech is amplified, reduced, or restricted. And a new wave of products based on Large Language Models (LLMs) will further transform our economic and political lives. Automatic Authorities are automated computational systems used to exercise power over us by determining what we may know, what we may have, and what our options will be. In response to their rise, scholars working on the societal impacts of AI and related technologies have advocated shifting attention from how to make AI systems beneficial or fair towards a critical analysis of these new power relations. But power is everywhere, and is not necessarily bad. On what basis should we object to new or intensified power relations, and what can be done to justify them? This paper introduces the philosophical materials with which to formulate these questions, and offers preliminary answers. It starts by pinning down the concept of power, focusing on the ability that some agents have to shape others' lives. It then explores how AI enables and intensifies the exercise of power so understood, and sketches three problems with power and three ways to solve those problems. It emphasises, in particular, that justifying power requires more than satisfying substantive justificatory criteria; standards of proper authority and procedural legitimacy must also be met. We need to know not only what power may be used for, but how it may be used, and by whom.
△ Less
Submitted 8 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
On the Societal Impact of Open Foundation Models
Authors:
Sayash Kapoor,
Rishi Bommasani,
Kevin Klyman,
Shayne Longpre,
Ashwin Ramaswami,
Peter Cihon,
Aspen Hopkins,
Kevin Bankston,
Stella Biderman,
Miranda Bogen,
Rumman Chowdhury,
Alex Engler,
Peter Henderson,
Yacine Jernite,
Seth Lazar,
Stefano Maffulli,
Alondra Nelson,
Joelle Pineau,
Aviya Skowron,
Dawn Song,
Victor Storchan,
Daniel Zhang,
Daniel E. Ho,
Percy Liang,
Arvind Narayanan
Abstract:
Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to bo…
▽ More
Foundation models are powerful technologies: how they are released publicly directly shapes their societal impact. In this position paper, we focus on open foundation models, defined here as those with broadly available model weights (e.g. Llama 2, Stable Diffusion XL). We identify five distinctive properties (e.g. greater customizability, poor monitoring) of open foundation models that lead to both their benefits and risks. Open foundation models present significant benefits, with some caveats, that span innovation, competition, the distribution of decision-making power, and transparency. To understand their risks of misuse, we design a risk assessment framework for analyzing their marginal risk. Across several misuse vectors (e.g. cyberattacks, bioweapons), we find that current research is insufficient to effectively characterize the marginal risk of open foundation models relative to pre-existing technologies. The framework helps explain why the marginal risk is low in some cases, clarifies disagreements about misuse risks by revealing that past work has focused on different subsets of the framework with different assumptions, and articulates a way forward for more constructive debate. Overall, our work helps support a more grounded assessment of the societal impact of open foundation models by outlining what research is needed to empirically validate their theoretical benefits and risks.
△ Less
Submitted 27 February, 2024;
originally announced March 2024.
-
Automatic fetal fat quantification from MRI
Authors:
Netanell Avisdris,
Aviad Rabinowich,
Daniel Fridkin,
Ayala Zilberman,
Sapir Lazar,
Jacky Herzlich,
Zeev Hananis,
Daphna Link-Sourani,
Liat Ben-Sira,
Liran Hiersch,
Dafna Ben Bashat,
Leo Joskowicz
Abstract:
Normal fetal adipose tissue (AT) development is essential for perinatal well-being. AT, or simply fat, stores energy in the form of lipids. Malnourishment may result in excessive or depleted adiposity. Although previous studies showed a correlation between the amount of AT and perinatal outcome, prenatal assessment of AT is limited by lacking quantitative methods. Using magnetic resonance imaging…
▽ More
Normal fetal adipose tissue (AT) development is essential for perinatal well-being. AT, or simply fat, stores energy in the form of lipids. Malnourishment may result in excessive or depleted adiposity. Although previous studies showed a correlation between the amount of AT and perinatal outcome, prenatal assessment of AT is limited by lacking quantitative methods. Using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 3D fat- and water-only images of the entire fetus can be obtained from two point Dixon images to enable AT lipid quantification. This paper is the first to present a methodology for developing a deep learning based method for fetal fat segmentation based on Dixon MRI. It optimizes radiologists' manual fetal fat delineation time to produce annotated training dataset. It consists of two steps: 1) model-based semi-automatic fetal fat segmentations, reviewed and corrected by a radiologist; 2) automatic fetal fat segmentation using DL networks trained on the resulting annotated dataset. Three DL networks were trained. We show a significant improvement in segmentation times (3:38 hours to < 1 hour) and observer variability (Dice of 0.738 to 0.906) compared to manual segmentation. Automatic segmentation of 24 test cases with the 3D Residual U-Net, nn-UNet and SWIN-UNetR transformer networks yields a mean Dice score of 0.863, 0.787 and 0.856, respectively. These results are better than the manual observer variability, and comparable to automatic adult and pediatric fat segmentation. A radiologist reviewed and corrected six new independent cases segmented using the best performing network, resulting in a Dice score of 0.961 and a significantly reduced correction time of 15:20 minutes. Using these novel segmentation methods and short MRI acquisition time, whole body subcutaneous lipids can be quantified for individual fetuses in the clinic and large-cohort research.
△ Less
Submitted 8 September, 2022;
originally announced September 2022.
-
Legitimacy, Authority, and Democratic Duties of Explanation
Authors:
Seth Lazar
Abstract:
Increasingly secret, complex and inscrutable computational systems are being used to intensify existing power relations and to create new ones; in particular, they are being used to govern. To be all-things-considered morally permissible new, or newly intense, power relations must meet standards of procedural legitimacy and proper authority. This is necessary for them to protect and realise democr…
▽ More
Increasingly secret, complex and inscrutable computational systems are being used to intensify existing power relations and to create new ones; in particular, they are being used to govern. To be all-things-considered morally permissible new, or newly intense, power relations must meet standards of procedural legitimacy and proper authority. This is necessary for them to protect and realise democratic values of individual liberty, relational equality, and collective self-determination. For governing power in particular to be legitimate and have proper authority, it must meet a publicity requirement: reasonably competent members of the governed community must be able to determine that they are being governed legitimately and with proper authority. The publicity requirement can be satisfied only if the powerful can explain their decision-making to members of their political community. At least some duties of explanation are therefore democratic duties. This paper first sets out the foregoing argument, then applies it to opaque computational systems, and clarifies precisely what kinds of explanations are necessary to fulfil these democratic values.
△ Less
Submitted 11 October, 2023; v1 submitted 18 August, 2022;
originally announced August 2022.
-
Opportunities and challenges in partitioning the graph measure space of real-world networks
Authors:
Máté Józsa,
Alpár S. Lázár,
Zsolt I. Lázár
Abstract:
Based on a large dataset containing thousands of real-world networks ranging from genetic, protein interaction, and metabolic networks to brain, language, ecology, and social networks we search for defining structural measures of the different complex network domains (CND). We calculate 208 measures for all networks and using a comprehensive and scrupulous workflow of statistical and machine learn…
▽ More
Based on a large dataset containing thousands of real-world networks ranging from genetic, protein interaction, and metabolic networks to brain, language, ecology, and social networks we search for defining structural measures of the different complex network domains (CND). We calculate 208 measures for all networks and using a comprehensive and scrupulous workflow of statistical and machine learning methods we investigated the limitations and possibilities of identifying the key graph measures of CNDs. Our approach managed to identify well distinguishable groups of network domains and confer their relevant features. These features turn out to be CND specific and not unique even at the level of individual CNDs. The presented methodology may be applied to other similar scenarios involving highly unbalanced and skewed datasets.
△ Less
Submitted 20 June, 2021;
originally announced June 2021.
-
Trust and Safety
Authors:
S. K. Devitt,
R. Horne,
Z. Assaad,
E. Broad,
H. Kurniawati,
B. Cardier,
A. Scott,
S. Lazar,
M. Gould,
C. Adamson,
C. Karl,
F. Schrever,
S. Keay,
K. Tranter,
E. Shellshear,
D. Hunter,
M. Brady,
T. Putland
Abstract:
Robotics in Australia have a long history of conforming with safety standards and risk managed practices. This chapter articulates the current state of trust and safety in robotics including society's expectations, safety management systems and system safety as well as emerging issues and methods for ensuring safety in increasingly autonomous robotics. The future of trust and safety will combine s…
▽ More
Robotics in Australia have a long history of conforming with safety standards and risk managed practices. This chapter articulates the current state of trust and safety in robotics including society's expectations, safety management systems and system safety as well as emerging issues and methods for ensuring safety in increasingly autonomous robotics. The future of trust and safety will combine standards with iterative, adaptive and responsive regulatory and assurance methods for diverse applications of robotics, autonomous systems and artificial intelligence (RAS-AI). Robotics will need novel technical and social approaches to achieve assurance, particularly for game-changing innovations. The ability for users to easily update algorithms and software, which alters the performance of a system, implies that traditional machine assurance performed prior to deployment or sale, will no longer be viable. Moreover, the high frequency of updates implies that traditional certification that requires substantial time will no longer be practical. To alleviate these difficulties, automation of assurance will likely be needed; something like 'ASsurance-as-a-Service' (ASaaS), where APIs constantly ping RAS-AI to ensure abidance with various rules, frameworks and behavioural expectations. There are exceptions to this, such as in contested or communications denied environments, or in underground or undersea mining; and these systems need their own risk assessments and limitations imposed. Indeed, self-monitors are already operating within some systems. To ensure safe operations of future robotics systems, Australia needs to invest in RAS-AI assurance research, stakeholder engagement and continued development and refinement of robust frameworks, methods, guidelines and policy in order to educate and prepare its technology developers, certifiers, and general population.
△ Less
Submitted 13 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
