Tag Archives: Carnegie Mellon University (CMU)

AI and the 2024 Nobel prizes

Leave a reply

Artificial intelligence made a splash when the 2024 Nobel Prize announcements were made as they were a key factor in both the prizes for physics and for chemistry.

Where do physics, chemistry, and AI go from here?

I have a few speculative pieces about physics, chemistry, and AI. First off we have Nello Cristianini’s (Professor of Artificial Intelligence at the University of Bath (England) October 10, 2024 essay for The Conversation, Note: Links have been removed,

The 2024 Nobel Prizes in physics and chemistry have given us a glimpse of the future of science. Artificial intelligence (AI) was central to the discoveries honoured by both awards. You have to wonder what Alfred Nobel, who founded the prizes, would think of it all.

We are certain to see many more Nobel medals handed to researchers who made use of AI tools. As this happens, we may find the scientific methods honoured by the Nobel committee depart from straightforward categories like “physics”, “chemistry” and “physiology or medicine”.

We may also see the scientific backgrounds of recipients retain a looser connection with these categories. This year’s physics prize was awarded to the American John Hopfield, at Princeton University, and British-born Geoffrey Hinton, from the University of Toronto. While Hopfield is a physicist, Hinton studied experimental psychology before gravitating to AI.

The chemistry prize was shared between biochemist David Baker, from the University of Washington, and the computer scientists Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, who are both at Google DeepMind in the UK.

There is a close connection between the AI-based advances honoured in the physics and chemistry categories. Hinton helped develop an approach used by DeepMind to make its breakthrough in predicting the shapes of proteins.

The physics laureates, Hinton in particular, laid the foundations of the powerful field known as machine learning. This is a subset of AI that’s concerned with algorithms, sets of rules for performing specific computational tasks.

Hopfield’s work is not particularly in use today, but the backpropagation algorithm (co-invented by Hinton) has had a tremendous impact on many different sciences and technologies. This is concerned with neural networks, a model of computing that mimics the human brain’s structure and function to process data. Backpropagation allows scientists to “train” enormous neural networks. While the Nobel committee did its best to connect this influential algorithm to physics, it’s fair to say that the link is not a direct one.

…

Every two years, since 1994, scientists have been holding a contest to find the best ways to predict protein structures and shapes from the sequences of their amino acids. The competition is called Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP).

For the past few contests, CASP winners have used some version of DeepMind’s AlphaFold. There is, therefore, a direct line to be drawn from Hinton’s backpropagation to Google DeepMind’s AlphaFold 2 breakthrough.

…

Attributing credit has always been controversial aspect of the Nobel prizes. A maximum of three researchers can share a Nobel. But big advances in science are collaborative. Scientific papers may have 10, 20, 30 authors or more. More than one team might contribute to the discoveries honoured by the Nobel committee.

This year we may have further discussions about the attribution of the research on backpropagation algorithm, which has been claimed by various researchers, as well as for the general attribution of a discovery to a field like physics.

We now have a new dimension to the attribution problem. It’s increasingly unclear whether we will always be able to distinguish between the contributions of human scientists and those of their artificial collaborators – the AI tools that are already helping push forward the boundaries of our knowledge.

…

This November 26, 2024 news item on ScienceDaily, which is a little repetitive, considers interdisciplinarity in relation to the 2024 Nobel prizes,

In 2024, the Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to John Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton for their foundational work in artificial intelligence (AI), and the Nobel Prize in chemistry went to David Baker, Demis Hassabis, and John Jumper for using AI to solve the protein-folding problem, a 50-year grand challenge problem in science.

A new article, written by researchers at Carnegie Mellon University and Calculation Consulting, examines the convergence of physics, chemistry, and AI, highlighted by recent Nobel Prizes. It traces the historical development of neural networks, emphasizing the role of interdisciplinary research in advancing AI. The authors advocate for nurturing AI-enabled polymaths to bridge the gap between theoretical advancements and practical applications, driving progress toward artificial general intelligence. The article is published in Patterns.

“With AI being recognized in connections to both physics and chemistry, practitioners of machine learning may wonder how these sciences relate to AI and how these awards might influence their work,” explained Ganesh Mani, Professor of Innovation Practice and Director of Collaborative AI at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, who coauthored the article. “As we move forward, it is crucial to recognize the convergence of different approaches in shaping modern AI systems based on generative AI.”

…

A November 25, 2024 Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) news release, which originated the news item, describes the paper,

In their article, the authors explore the historical development of neural networks. By examining the history of AI development, they contend, we can understand more thoroughly the connections among computer science, theoretical chemistry, theoretical physics, and applied mathematics. The historical perspective illuminates how foundational discoveries and inventions across these disciplines have enabled modern machine learning with artificial neural networks. 

Then they turn to key breakthroughs and challenges in this field, starting with Hopfield’s work, and go on to explain how engineering has at times preceded scientific understanding, as is the case with the work of Jumper and Hassabis.

The authors conclude with a call to action, suggesting that the rapid progress of AI across diverse sectors presents both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges. To bridge the gap between hype and tangible development, they say, a new generation of interdisciplinary thinkers must be cultivated.

These “modern-day Leonardo da Vincis,” as the authors call them, will be crucial in developing practical learning theories that can be applied immediately by engineers, propelling the field toward the ambitious goal of artificial general intelligence.

This calls for a paradigm shift in how scientific inquiry and problem solving are approached, say the authors, one that embraces holistic, cross-disciplinary collaboration and learns from nature to understand nature. By breaking down silos between fields and fostering a culture of intellectual curiosity that spans multiple domains, innovative solutions can be identified to complex global challenges like climate change. Through this synthesis of diverse knowledge and perspectives, catalyzed by AI, meaningful progress can be made and the field can realize the full potential of technological aspirations.

“This interdisciplinary approach is not just beneficial but essential for addressing the many complex challenges that lie ahead,” suggests Charles Martin, Principal Consultant at Calculation Consulting, who coauthored the article. “We need to harness the momentum of current advancements while remaining grounded in practical realities.”

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Scott E. Fahlman, Professor Emeritus in Carnegie Mellon’s School of Computer Science.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

The recent Physics and Chemistry Nobel Prizes, AI, and the convergence of knowledge fields by Charles H. Martin, Ganesh Mani. Patterns, 2024 DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2024.101099 Published online November 25, 2024 Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

This paper is open access under Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0.

A scientific enthusiast: “I was a beta tester for the Nobel prize-winning AlphaFold AI”

From an October 11, 2024 essay by Rivka Isaacson (Professor of Molecular Biophysics, King’s College London) for The Conversation, Note: Links have been removed,

The deep learning machine AlphaFold, which was created by Google’s AI research lab DeepMind, is already transforming our understanding of the molecular biology that underpins health and disease.

One half of the 2024 Nobel prize in chemistry went to David Baker from the University of Washington in the US, with the other half jointly awarded to Demis Hassabis and John M. Jumper, both from London-based Google DeepMind.

If you haven’t heard of AlphaFold, it may be difficult to appreciate how important it is becoming to researchers. But as a beta tester for the software, I got to see first-hand how this technology can reveal the molecular structures of different proteins in minutes. It would take researchers months or even years to unpick these structures in laboratory experiments.

This technology could pave the way for revolutionary new treatments and drugs. But first, it’s important to understand what AlphaFold does.

Proteins are produced by series of molecular “beads”, created from a selection of the human body’s 20 different amino acids. These beads form a long chain that folds up into a mechanical shape that is crucial for the protein’s function.

Their sequence is determined by DNA. And while DNA research means we know the order of the beads that build most proteins, it’s always been a challenge to predict how the chain folds up into each “3D machine”.

These protein structures underpin all of biology. Scientists study them in the same way you might take a clock apart to understand how it works. Comprehend the parts and put together the whole: it’s the same with the human body.

Proteins are tiny, with a huge number located inside each of our 30 trillion cells. This meant for decades, the only way to find out their shape was through laborious experimental methods – studies that could take years.

Throughout my career I, along with many other scientists, have been engaged in such pursuits. Every time we solve a protein structure, we deposit it in a global database called the Protein Data Bank, which is free for anyone to use.

AlphaFold was trained on these structures, the majority of which were found using X-ray crystallography. For this technique, proteins are tested under thousands of different chemical states, with variations in temperature, density and pH. Researchers use a microscope to identify the conditions under which each protein lines up in a particular formation. These are then shot with X-rays to work out the spatial arrangement of all the atoms in that protein.

…

Addictive experience

In March 2024, researchers at DeepMind approached me to beta test AlphaFold3, the latest incarnation of the software, which was close to release at the time.

I’ve never been a gamer but I got a taste of the addictive experience as, once I got access, all I wanted to do was spend hours trying out molecular combinations. As well as lightning speed, this new version introduced the option to include bigger and more varied molecules, including DNA and metals, and the opportunity to modify amino acids to mimic chemical signalling in cells.

…

Understanding the moving parts and dynamics of proteins is the next frontier, now that we can predict static protein shapes with AlphaFold. Proteins come in a huge variety of shapes and sizes. They can be rigid or flexible, or made of neatly structured units connected by bendy loops.

…

…

You can read Isaacson’s entire October 11, 2024 essay on The Conversation or in an October 14, 2024 news item on phys.org.

Nano-enabled precision delivery methods for agriculture

Leave a reply

A July 23, 2024 news item on Nanowerk provides an introduction to nanoparticles and their potential use in agriculture, Note: Links have been removed,

Nanoparticles could potentially help address agricultural and environmental sustainability issues on a global scale.

Those issues include rising food demand, increasing greenhouse gas emissions generated by agricultural activities, climbing costs of agrochemicals, reducing crop yields induced by climate change, and degrading soil quality. A class of nanoscale particles called “nanocarriers” could make crop agriculture more sustainable and resilient to climate change, according to a group of specialists that includes Kurt Ristroph, assistant professor of agricultural and biological engineering at Purdue University.

“Saying ‘nanoparticle’ means different things to different people,” Ristroph said. In nanodrug delivery, a nanoparticle usually ranges in size from 60 to 100 nanometers and is made of lipids or polymers. “In the environmental world, a nanoparticle usually means a 3- to 5-nanometer metal oxide colloid. Those are not the same thing, but people use ‘nanoparticle’ for both.”

Ristroph helped organize a 2022 interdisciplinary workshop on nanomethods for drug delivery in plants. Funded by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the workshop was attended by 30 participants from academia, industry and government laboratories.

Many of the workshop participants, including Ristroph, have now published their conclusions in Nature Nanotechnology (“Towards realizing nano-enabled precision delivery in plants”). Their article reviews the possibility nanocarriers could make crop agriculture more sustainable and resilient to climate change.

…

A July 23, 2024 Purdue University news release (also on EurekAlert but published July 19, 2024) by Steve Koppes, which originated the news item, delves further into the topic of how agriculture could be made more sustainable with nanotechnology-enabled delivery methods, Note: Links have been removed,

“Nano-enabled precision delivery of active agents in plants will transform agriculture, but there are critical technical challenges that we must first overcome to realize the full range of its benefits,” said the article’s co-lead author Greg Lowry, the Walter J. Blenko, Sr. Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University. “I’m optimistic about the future of plant nanobiotechnology approaches and the beneficial impacts it will have on our ability to sustainably produce food.”

Plant cells and human cells have major physiological differences. Plant cells have a cell wall while human cells don’t, for example. But certain tools can be transferred from nanomedicine to plant applications.

“People have developed tools for studying the bio-corona formation around nanoparticles in an animal. We could think about bringing some of those tools to bear on nanoparticles in plants,” Ristroph said. 

When nanoparticles are injected into the bloodstream, many components of the blood stick onto the surface of the nanoparticles. The various proteins sticking to a nanoparticle’s surface make it look different.

The task then becomes figuring out what proteins or other molecules will stick to the surface and where the particle will go as a result. A nanoparticle designed to move toward a certain organ may have its destination altered by white blood cells that detect the particle’s surface proteins and send it to a different organ.

“Broadly speaking, that’s the idea of bio-corona formation and trafficking,” Ristroph said. “People in drug delivery nanomedicine have been thinking about and developing tools for studying that kind of thing. Some of those thoughts and some of those tools could be applied to plants.” 

Researchers already have developed many different architectures and chemistries for making nanoscale delivery vehicles for nanomedicine. “Some of the particle types are transferable,” he said. “You can take a nanoparticle that was optimized for movement in humans and put it in a plant, and you’ll probably find that it needs to be redesigned at least somewhat.”

Ristroph focuses on organic (carbon-based) nanocarriers that have a core-shell structure. The core contains a payload, while the shell forms a protective outer layer. Researchers have used many different types of nanomaterial in plants. The most popular materials are metallic nanoparticles because they are somewhat easier to make, handle and track where they go in a plant than organic nanoparticles.

“One of the first questions that you want to figure out is where these nanoparticles go in a plant,” Ristroph said. “It’s a lot easier to detect a metal inside of a plant that’s made of carbon than it is to detect a carbon-based nanoparticle in a plant that’s made of carbon.”

Last March, Ristroph and Purdue PhD student Luiza Stolte Bezerra Lisboa Oliveira published a critical review of the research literature on the Uptake and Translocation of Organic Nanodelivery Vehicles in Plants in Environmental Science and Technology.

“Not a lot is understood about transformations after these things go into a plant, how they’re getting metabolized,” Ristroph said. His team is interested in studying that, along with ways to help ensure that the nanoparticles are delivered to their proper destinations, and in corona formation. Coronas are biomolecular coatings that affect nanoparticle functions. 

The manufacturability of nanocarriers is another interest area that could be transferred to agriculture from nanomedicine.

“I care a lot about manufacturability and making sure that whatever techniques we’re using to make the nanoparticles are scalable and economically feasible,” Ristroph said.

The manufacturability of nanocarriers is another interest area that could be transferred to agriculture from nanomedicine.

“I care a lot about manufacturability and making sure that whatever techniques we’re using to make the nanoparticles are scalable and economically feasible,” Ristroph said.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Towards realizing nano-enabled precision delivery in plants by Gregory V. Lowry, Juan Pablo Giraldo, Nicole F. Steinmetz, Astrid Avellan, Gozde S. Demirer, Kurt D. Ristroph, Gerald J. Wang, Christine O. Hendren, Christopher A. Alabi, Adam Caparco, Washington da Silva, Ivonne González-Gamboa, Khara D. Grieger, Su-Ji Jeon, Mariya V. Khodakovskaya, Hagay Kohay, Vivek Kumar, Raja Muthuramalingam, Hanna Poffenbarger, Swadeshmukul Santra, Robert D. Tilton & Jason C. White. Nature Nanotechnology (2024) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-024-01667-5 Published: 06 June 2024

This paper is behind a paywall.

Bio-hybrid robotics (living robots) needs public debate and regulation

Leave a reply

A July 23, 2024 University of Southampton (UK) press release (also on EurekAlert but published July 22, 2024) describes the emerging science/technology of bio-hybrid robotics and a recent study about the ethical issues raised, Note 1: bio-hybrid may also be written as biohybrid; Note 2: Links have been removed,

Development of ‘living robots’ needs regulation and public debate

Researchers are calling for regulation to guide the responsible and ethical development of bio-hybrid robotics – a ground-breaking science which fuses artificial components with living tissue and cells.

In a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [PNAS] a multidisciplinary team from the University of Southampton and universities in the US and Spain set out the unique ethical issues this technology presents and the need for proper governance.

Combining living materials and organisms with synthetic robotic components might sound like something out of science fiction, but this emerging field is advancing rapidly. Bio-hybrid robots using living muscles can crawl, swim, grip, pump, and sense their surroundings. Sensors made from sensory cells or insect antennae have improved chemical sensing. Living neurons have even been used to control mobile robots.

Dr Rafael Mestre from the University of Southampton, who specialises in emergent technologies and is co-lead author of the paper, said: “The challenges in overseeing bio-hybrid robotics are not dissimilar to those encountered in the regulation of biomedical devices, stem cells and other disruptive technologies. But unlike purely mechanical or digital technologies, bio-hybrid robots blend biological and synthetic components in unprecedented ways. This presents unique possible benefits but also potential dangers.”

Research publications relating to bio-hybrid robotics have increased continuously over the last decade. But the authors found that of the more than 1,500 publications on the subject at the time, only five considered its ethical implications in depth.

The paper’s authors identified three areas where bio-hybrid robotics present unique ethical issues: Interactivity – how bio-robots interact with humans and the environment, Integrability – how and whether humans might assimilate bio-robots (such as bio-robotic organs or limbs), and Moral status.

In a series of thought experiments, they describe how a bio-robot for cleaning our oceans could disrupt the food chain, how a bio-hybrid robotic arm might exacerbate inequalities [emphasis mine], and how increasing sophisticated bio-hybrid assistants could raise questions about sentience and moral value.

“Bio-hybrid robots create unique ethical dilemmas,” says Aníbal M. Astobiza, an ethicist from the University of the Basque Country in Spain and co-lead author of the paper. “The living tissue used in their fabrication, potential for sentience, distinct environmental impact, unusual moral status, and capacity for biological evolution or adaptation create unique ethical dilemmas that extend beyond those of wholly artificial or biological technologies.”

The paper is the first from the Biohybrid Futures project led by Dr Rafael Mestre, in collaboration with the Rebooting Democracy project. Biohybrid Futures is setting out to develop a framework for the responsible research, application, and governance of bio-hybrid robotics.

The paper proposes several requirements for such a framework, including risk assessments, consideration of social implications, and increasing public awareness and understanding.

Dr Matt Ryan, a political scientist from the University of Southampton and a co-author on the paper, said: “If debates around embryonic stem cells, human cloning or artificial intelligence have taught us something, it is that humans rarely agree on the correct resolution of the moral dilemmas of emergent technologies.

“Compared to related technologies such as embryonic stem cells or artificial intelligence, bio-hybrid robotics has developed relatively unattended by the media, the public and policymakers, but it is no less significant. We want the public to be included in this conversation to ensure a democratic approach to the development and ethical evaluation of this technology.”

In addition to the need for a governance framework, the authors set out actions that the research community can take now to guide their research.

“Taking these steps should not be seen as prescriptive in any way, but as an opportunity to share responsibility, taking a heavy weight away from the researcher’s shoulders,” says Dr Victoria Webster-Wood, a biomechanical engineer from Carnegie Mellon University in the US and co-author on the paper.

“Research in bio-hybrid robotics has evolved in various directions. We need to align our efforts to fully unlock its potential.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Ethics and responsibility in biohybrid robotics research by Rafael Mestre, Aníbal M. Astobiza, Victoria A. Webster-Wood, Matt Ryan, and M. Taher A. Saif. PNAS 121 (31) e2310458121 July 23, 2024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2310458121

This paper is open access.

Cyborg or biohybrid robot?

Earlier, I highlighted “… how a bio-hybrid robotic arm might exacerbate inequalities …” because it suggests cyborgs, which are not mentioned in the press release or in the paper, This seems like an odd omission but, over the years, terminology does change although it’s not clear that’s the situation here.

I have two ‘definitions’, the first is from an October 21, 2019 article by Javier Yanes for OpenMind BBVA, Note: More about BBVA later,

…

The fusion between living organisms and artificial devices has become familiar to us through the concept of the cyborg (cybernetic organism). This approach consists of restoring or improving the capacities of the organic being, usually a human being, by means of technological devices. On the other hand, biohybrid robots are in some ways the opposite idea: using living tissues or cells to provide the machine with functions that would be difficult to achieve otherwise. The idea is that if soft robots seek to achieve this through synthetic materials, why not do so directly with living materials?

…

In contrast, there’s this from “Biohybrid robots: recent progress, challenges, and perspectives,” Note 1: Full citation for paper follows excerpt; Note 2: Links have been removed,

…

2.3. Cyborgs

Another approach to building biohybrid robots is the artificial enhancement of animals or using an entire animal body as a scaffold to manipulate robotically. The locomotion of these augmented animals can then be externally controlled, spanning three modes of locomotion: walking/running, flying, and swimming. Notably, these capabilities have been demonstrated in jellyfish (figure 4(A)) [139, 140], clams (figure 4(B)) [141], turtles (figure 4(C)) [142, 143], and insects, including locusts (figure 4(D)) [27, 144], beetles (figure 4(E)) [28, 145–158], cockroaches (figure 4(F)) [159–165], and moths [166–170].

….

The advantages of using entire animals as cyborgs are multifold. For robotics, augmented animals possess inherent features that address some of the long-standing challenges within the field, including power consumption and damage tolerance, by taking advantage of animal metabolism [172], tissue healing, and other adaptive behaviors. In particular, biohybrid robotic jellyfish, composed of a self-contained microelectronic swim controller embedded into live Aurelia aurita moon jellyfish, consumed one to three orders of magnitude less power per mass than existing swimming robots [172], and cyborg insects can make use of the insect’s hemolymph directly as a fuel source [173].

…

So, sometimes there’s a distinction and sometimes there’s not. I take this to mean that the field is still emerging and that’s reflected in evolving terminology.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Biohybrid robots: recent progress, challenges, and perspectives by Victoria A Webster-Wood, Maria Guix, Nicole W Xu, Bahareh Behkam, Hirotaka Sato, Deblina Sarkar, Samuel Sanchez, Masahiro Shimizu and Kevin Kit Parker. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, Volume 18, Number 1 015001 DOI 10.1088/1748-3190/ac9c3b Published 8 November 2022 • © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

This paper is open access.

A few notes about BBVA and other items

BBVA is Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria according to its Wikipedia entry, Note: Links have been removed,

Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈbaŋko βilˈβao βiθˈkaʝa aɾxenˈtaɾja]), better known by its initialism BBVA, is a Spanish multinational financial services company based in Madrid and Bilbao, Spain. It is one of the largest financial institutions in the world, and is present mainly in Spain, Portugal, Mexico, South America, Turkey, Italy and Romania.[2]

BBVA’s OpenMind is, from their About us page,

OpenMind: BBVA’s knowledge community

OpenMind is a non-profit project run by BBVA that aims to contribute to the generation and dissemination of knowledge about fundamental issues of our time, in an open and free way. The project is materialized in an online dissemination community.

“Sharing knowledge for a better future“.

At OpenMind we want to help people understand the main phenomena affecting our lives; the opportunities and challenges that we face in areas such as science, technology, humanities or economics. Analyzing the impact of scientific and technological advances on the future of the economy, society and our daily lives is the project’s main objective, which always starts on the premise that a broader and greater quality knowledge will help us to make better individual and collective decisions.

As for other items, you can find my latest (biorobotic, cyborg, or bionic depending what terminology you what to use) jellyfish story in this June 6, 2024 posting, the Biohybrid Futures project mentioned in the press release here, and also mentioned in the Rebooting Democracy project (unexpected in the context of an emerging science/technology) can be found here on this University of Southampton website.

Finally, you can find more on these stories (science/technology announcements and/or ethics research/issues) here by searching for ‘robots’ (tag and category), ‘cyborgs’ (tag), ‘machine/flesh’ (tag), ‘neuroprosthetic’ (tag), and human enhancement (category).

Should robots have rights? Confucianism offers some ideas

Leave a reply

Fascinating although I’m not sure I entirely understand his argument,

This May 24, 2023 Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) news release (also on EurekAlert but published May 25, 2023) has Professor Tae Wan Kim’s clarification, Note: Links have been removed,

Philosophers and legal scholars have explored significant aspects of the moral and legal status of robots, with some advocating for giving robots rights. As robots assume more roles in the world, a new analysis reviewed research on robot rights, concluding that granting rights to robots is a bad idea. Instead, the article looks to Confucianism to offer an alternative.

The analysis, by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), appears in Communications of the ACM, published by the Association for Computing Machinery.

“People are worried about the risks of granting rights to robots,” notes Tae Wan Kim, Associate Professor of Business Ethics at CMU’s Tepper School of Business, who conducted the analysis. “Granting rights is not the only way to address the moral status of robots: Envisioning robots as rites bearers—not a rights bearers—could work better.”

Although many believe that respecting robots should lead to granting them rights, Kim argues for a different approach. Confucianism, an ancient Chinese belief system, focuses on the social value of achieving harmony; individuals are made distinctively human by their ability to conceive of interests not purely in terms of personal self-interest, but in terms that include a relational and a communal self. This, in turn, requires a unique perspective on rites, with people enhancing themselves morally by participating in proper rituals.

When considering robots, Kim suggests that the Confucian alternative of assigning rites—or what he calls role obligations—to robots is more appropriate than giving robots rights. The concept of rights is often adversarial and competitive, and potential conflict between humans and robots is concerning.

“Assigning role obligations to robots encourages teamwork, which triggers an understanding that fulfilling those obligations should be done harmoniously,” explains Kim. “Artificial intelligence (AI) imitates human intelligence, so for robots to develop as rites bearers, they must be powered by a type of AI that can imitate humans’ capacity to recognize and execute team activities—and a machine can learn that ability in various ways.”

Kim acknowledges that some will question why robots should be treated respectfully in the first place. “To the extent that we make robots in our image, if we don’t treat them well, as entities capable of participating in rites, we degrade ourselves,” he suggests.

Various non-natural entities—such as corporations—are considered people and even assume some Constitutional rights. In addition, humans are not the only species with moral and legal status; in most developed societies, moral and legal considerations preclude researchers from gratuitously using animals for lab experiments.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Should Robots Have Rights or Rites? by Tae Wan Kim, Alan Strudler. Communications of the ACM, June 2023, Vol. 66 No. 6, Pages 78-85 DOI: 10.1145/3571721

This work is licensed under a http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ In other words, this paper is open access.

The paper is quite readable, as academic papers go, (Note: Links have been removed),

Boston Dynamics recently released a video introducing Atlas, a six-foot bipedal humanoid robot capable of search and rescue missions. Part of the video contained employees apparently abusing Atlas (for example, kicking, hitting it with a hockey stick, pushing it with a heavy ball). The video quickly raised a public and academic debate regarding how humans should treat robots. A robot, in some sense, is nothing more than software embedded in hardware, much like a laptop computer. If it is your property and kicking it harms no one nor infringes on anyone’s rights, it’s okay to kick it, although that would be a stupid thing to do. Likewise, there seems to be no significant reason that kicking a robot should be deemed as a moral or legal wrong. However, the question—”What do we owe to robots?”—is not that simple. Philosophers and legal scholars have seriously explored and defended some significant aspects of the moral and legal status of robots—and their rights.3,6,15,16,24,29,36 In fact, various non-natural entities—for example, corporations—are treated as persons and even enjoy some constitutional rights.a In addition, humans are not the only species that get moral and legal status. In most developed societies, for example, moral and legal considerations preclude researchers from gratuitously using animals for lab experiments. The fact that corporations are treated as persons and animals are recognized as having some rights does not entail that robots should be treated analogously.

…

Connie Lin’s May 26, 2023 article for Fast Company “Confucianism for robots? Ethicist says that’s better than giving them full rights” offers a brief overview and more comments from Kim. For the curious, you find out more about Boston Dynamics and Atlas here.

International conference “Living Machines” dedicated to technology inspired by nature in Genoa, Italy (July 10 – 13, 2023)

Leave a reply

I love the look and the theme for this “Living Machines” conference, which seems to be water,

A June 28, 2023 Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (IIT) press release (also on EurekAlert) provides more detail about the conference,

Now in its twelfth year, the international conference “Living Machines”, organised by Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (Italian Institute of Technology, IIT), returns to Italy and comes to Genoa for the first time, from 10 to 13 July. Around one hundred experts from all over the world are expected, and they will present their achievements in the field of bio-inspired science and technology. The conference will take place in an exceptional venue, the Acquario di Genova (Genoa Aquarium), which, having reached its 30th birthday, is the ideal location at which to bring together various subject areas, from biology to artificial intelligence and robotics, with a focus on sustainability and environmental protection.

The scientific organiser of the event is Barbara Mazzolai, Associate Director for Robotics and head of the Bioinspired Soft Robotics Lab at IIT, along with Fabian Meder, researcher in the Bioinspired Soft Robotics Lab group and co-chair of the conference programme.

The conference will include two events open to the public: an exhibition area, which will be accessible from 11 to 13 July in the afternoon (from 2 to 4.30 pm); and a scientific café, which will take place on the 12 July at 5 pm. The conference will be an opportunity for international guests to appreciate the region’s beauty and talents, and it will also include the participation of students from the Niccolò Paganini Conservatory of Music. In addition, a satellite event of the conference will be the ISPA – Italian Sustainability Photo Award – exhibition, which will open at Palazzo Ducale on 10 July at 6 p.m.

The “Living Machines” conference is the landmark event for the international scientific community which bases its research on living organisms, such as human beings and other animal species – terrestrial, marine, and airborne – in addition to plants, fungi, and bacteria, in order to create so-called “living machines”, in other words, forms of technology capable of replicating their structure and mechanisms of operation.

“The conference is rooted in the union between robotics and neuroscience, using man and other animal species as a model for the study of intelligence and control systems,” said Barbara Mazzolai, Associate Director for Robotics at IIT. “This year the conference will focus on the role of biomimicry in the creation of robots that are more sustainable, with applications for the challenges of environmental protection and human health. Discussions will revolve around the development of robots with a lower energy impact, made using recyclable and biodegradable materials, and that can be used in emergency situations or extreme environments, such as deep sea, soil, space, or environmental disasters, but also for precision agriculture, environmental surveillance, infrastructure monitoring, human care and medical-surgical assistance.”

In the conference programme, experts will take part in a first day of parallel workshop and tutorial sessions (on 10 July), during which the topics of bioinspiration and biohybrid technology in the fields of medicine and the marine environment will be addressed. This first day will be followed by three days of plenary sessions, featuring talks by internationally-renowned scientists. More specifically: Oussama Khatib, one of the pioneers of robotics and director of the Robotics Laboratory at Stanford University; Marco Dorigo, professor at the Université Libre de Bruxelles and one of the pioneers of collective intelligence; Peter Fratzl, director of the Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces, working on research into osteoporosis and tissue regeneration; Eleni Stavrinidou, coordinator of the “Electronic Plants” group at Linköping University and an expert in bioelectronic and biohybrid systems; Olga Speck, Principal Researcher at the University of Freiburg, specialising in biomimetic materials and the regenerative capabilities of plants; and Kyu-Jin Cho, director of the Research Centre for Soft Robotics and the Biorobotics Laboratory at Seoul National University, one of the world’s leading experts on soft robotics.

For conference participants only, the programme includes: a visit to the Acquario, guided by the facility’s scientific staff, who will illustrate the work and practices needed for the protection and conservation of marine species and the undergoing research projects; an exhibition area for prototypes and products by research groups and companies operating in this field; and a dinner at Villa Lo Zerbino, with a musical contribution by students from the Niccolò Paganini Conservatory.

Open to the general public, on 12 July from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. there will be a round table entitled “Living Machines: The Origin and the Future” chaired by science journalist Nicola Nosengo, Chief Editor of Nature Italy. Speakers will include Cecilia Laschi from the National University of Singapore, Vickie Webster-Wood from Carnegie Mellon University, Thomas Speck from the University of Freiburg and Paul Verschure from Radboud University Nijmegen.

A satellite initiative of the conference will be the exhibition for ISPA, the Italian Sustainability Photo Award, which will open at Palazzo Ducale on 10 July at 6.00 p.m. ISPA is the photographic award created by the Parallelozero agency in cooperation with the main sponsor PIMCO, to raise public awareness of environmental, social, and governance sustainability issues, encapsulated in the acronym ESG. The works of the winning photographers and finalists in the last three editions will be on display in Genoa: a selection of images that depict the emblematic stories of Italy, a nation moving towards a more sustainable future, a visual narrative that makes it easier to understand the country’s progress in research and innovation.

The organisations supporting the event include, in addition to the principal organiser Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia (Italian Institute of Technology), the international Convergent Science Network [emphasis mine], the Office of Naval Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, and the Living, Adaptive and Energy-autonomous Materials Systems Cluster of Excellence in Freiburg.

Event website: https://livingmachinesconference.eu/2023/

I was particularly struck by this quote, “The conference is rooted in the union between robotics and neuroscience [emphasis mine], using man and other animal species as a model for the study of intelligence and control systems,” from Barbara Mazzolai as I have an as yet unpublished post for a UNESCO neurotechnology event coming up on July 13, 2023. These events come on the heels of a May 16, 2023 Canadian Science Policy Centre panel discussion on responsible neurotechnology (see my May 12, 2023 posting).

For the curious, you can find the Convergent Science Network here.

Implantable living pharmacy

Leave a reply

I stumbled across a very interesting US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) project (from an August 30, 2021 posting on Northwestern University’s Rivnay Lab [a laboratory for organic bioelectronics] blog),

Our lab has received a cooperative agreement with DARPA to develop a wireless, fully implantable ‘living pharmacy’ device that could help regulate human sleep patterns. The project is through DARPA’s BTO (biotechnology office)’s Advanced Acclimation and Protection Tool for Environmental Readiness (ADAPTER) program, meant to address physical challenges of travel, such as jetlag and fatigue.

The device, called NTRAIN (Normalizing Timing of Rhythms Across Internal Networks of Circadian Clocks), would control the body’s circadian clock, reducing the time it takes for a person to recover from disrupted sleep/wake cycles by as much as half the usual time.

The project spans 5 institutions including Northwestern, Rice University, Carnegie Mellon, University of Minnesota, and Blackrock Neurotech.

…

Prior to the Aug. 30, 2021 posting, Amanda Morris wrote a May 13, 2021 article for Northwestern NOW (university magazine), which provides more details about the project, Note: A link has been removed,

…

The first phase of the highly interdisciplinary program will focus on developing the implant. The second phase, contingent on the first, will validate the device. If that milestone is met, then researchers will test the device in human trials, as part of the third phase. The full funding corresponds to $33 million over four-and-a-half years. 

Nicknamed the “living pharmacy,” the device could be a powerful tool for military personnel, who frequently travel across multiple time zones, and shift workers including first responders, who vacillate between overnight and daytime shifts.

…

Combining synthetic biology with bioelectronics, the team will engineer cells to produce the same peptides that the body makes to regulate sleep cycles, precisely adjusting timing and dose with bioelectronic controls. When the engineered cells are exposed to light, they will generate precisely dosed peptide therapies. 

“This control system allows us to deliver a peptide of interest on demand, directly into the bloodstream,” said Northwestern’s Jonathan Rivnay, principal investigator of the project. “No need to carry drugs, no need to inject therapeutics and — depending on how long we can make the device last — no need to refill the device. It’s like an implantable pharmacy on a chip that never runs out.” 

…

Beyond controlling circadian rhythms, the researchers believe this technology could be modified to release other types of therapies with precise timing and dosing for potentially treating pain and disease. The DARPA program also will help researchers better understand sleep/wake cycles, in general.

“The experiments carried out in these studies will enable new insights into how internal circadian organization is maintained,” said Turek [Fred W. Turek], who co-leads the sleep team with Vitaterna [Martha Hotz Vitaterna]. “These insights will lead to new therapeutic approaches for sleep disorders as well as many other physiological and mental disorders, including those associated with aging where there is often a spontaneous breakdown in temporal organization.” 

…

For those who like to dig even deeper, Dieynaba Young’s June 17, 2021 article for Smithsonian Magazine (GetPocket.com link to article) provides greater context and greater satisfaction, Note: Links have been removed,

In 1926, Fritz Kahn completed Man as Industrial Palace, the preeminent lithograph in his five-volume publication The Life of Man. The illustration shows a human body bustling with tiny factory workers. They cheerily operate a brain filled with switchboards, circuits and manometers. Below their feet, an ingenious network of pipes, chutes and conveyer belts make up the blood circulatory system. The image epitomizes a central motif in Kahn’s oeuvre: the parallel between human physiology and manufacturing, or the human body as a marvel of engineering.

An apparatus in the embryonic stage of development at the time of this writing in June of 2021—the so-called “implantable living pharmacy”—could have easily originated in Kahn’s fervid imagination. The concept is being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in conjunction with several universities, notably Northwestern and Rice. Researchers envision a miniaturized factory, tucked inside a microchip, that will manufacture pharmaceuticals from inside the body. The drugs will then be delivered to precise targets at the command of a mobile application. …

…

The implantable living pharmacy, which is still in the “proof of concept” stage of development, is actually envisioned as two separate devices—a microchip implant and an armband. The implant will contain a layer of living synthetic cells, along with a sensor that measures temperature, a short-range wireless transmitter and a photo detector. The cells are sourced from a human donor and reengineered to perform specific functions. They’ll be mass produced in the lab, and slathered onto a layer of tiny LED lights.

The microchip will be set with a unique identification number and encryption key, then implanted under the skin in an outpatient procedure. The chip will be controlled by a battery-powered hub attached to an armband. That hub will receive signals transmitted from a mobile app.

If a soldier wishes to reset their internal clock, they’ll simply grab their phone, log onto the app and enter their upcoming itinerary—say, a flight departing at 5:30 a.m. from Arlington, Virginia, and arriving 16 hours later at Fort Buckner in Okinawa, Japan. Using short-range wireless communications, the hub will receive the signal and activate the LED lights inside the chip. The lights will shine on the synthetic cells, stimulating them to generate two compounds that are naturally produced in the body. The compounds will be released directly into the bloodstream, heading towards targeted locations, such as a tiny, centrally-located structure in the brain called the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) that serves as master pacemaker of the circadian rhythm. Whatever the target location, the flow of biomolecules will alter the natural clock. When the solider arrives in Okinawa, their body will be perfectly in tune with local time.

The synthetic cells will be kept isolated from the host’s immune system by a membrane constructed of novel biomaterials, allowing only nutrients and oxygen in and only the compounds out. Should anything go wrong, they would swallow a pill that would kill the cells inside the chip only, leaving the rest of their body unaffected.

…

If you have the time, I recommend reading Young’s June 17, 2021 Smithsonian Magazine article (GetPocket.com link to article) in its entirety. Young goes on to discuss, hacking, malware, and ethical/societal issues and more.

There is an animation of Kahn’s original poster in a June 23, 2011 posting on openculture.com (also found on Vimeo; Der Mensch als Industriepalast [Man as Industrial Palace])

Credits: Idea & Animation: Henning M. Lederer / led-r-r.net; Sound-Design: David Indge; and original poster art: Fritz Kahn.

In Brazil: Applications open for July 3 – 15, 2023 School of Advanced Science on Nanotechnology, Agriculture and Environment

Leave a reply

According to the December 15, 2022 Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo press release on EurekAlert applications will be received until February 5, 2023,

The São Paulo School of Advanced Science on Nanotechnology, Agriculture and Environment (SPSAS NanoAgri&Enviro) will be held on July 3-15 at the Brazilian Center for Research in Energy and Materials (CNPEM) in Campinas, São Paulo state, Brazil. 

Reporters are invited to reach the organizing committee through the email eventos@cnpem.br, for opportunities to visit the school and sessions.

Designed to meet an increasing level of content depth and complexity, the SPSAS NanoAgri&Enviro will cover the following topics: i) Nanotechnology, innovation, and sustainability; ii) Synthesis, functionalization, and characterization of nanomaterials; iii) Characterization of nanoparticles in complex matrices; iv) Synchrotron Light for nano-agri-environmental research; v) Biological and environmental applications of nanoparticles; vi) Nanofertilizers and Nanoagrochemicals; vii) Ecotoxicology, geochemistry and nanobiointerfaces; viii) Nanosafety and Nanoinformatics; ix) International harmonization and regulatory issues; x) Environmental implications of nanotechnology.

Discussions regarding those topics will benefit from the participation of internationally renowned scientists as speakers, including Mark V. Wiesner (Duke University), Iseult Lynch (University of Birmingham), Leonardo F. Fraceto (São Paulo State University – UNESP), Gregory V. Lowry (Carnegie Mellon University), Marisa N. Fernandes (Federal University of São Carlos – UFSCar), Caue Ribeiro (Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation – EMBRAPA), and others.

The program also comprise didactic activities programmed among theoretical interactive classes, practical experiments (hands-on), and technical visits to world-class facilities and specialized laboratories from several institutions in São Paulo state.

The São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) is supporting the event through its São Paulo School of Advanced Science Program (SPSAS http://espca.fapesp.br/home). Undergraduate students, postdoctoral fellows and researchers who are already working on subjects relating to the school can apply to receive financial support to cover the cost of air travel, accommodation and meals. Applications must be submitted by February 5, 2023.

More information: https://pages.cnpem.br/spsasnano/.

I looked up the criteria for eligible applicants and found this among the other criteria (from the Applications page),

Participating students must be enrolled in undergraduate or graduate courses in Brazil or abroad, being potential candidates for Master’s, Doctoral or Post-Doctoral internships in higher education and research institutions in the state of São Paulo. Doctors may also be accepted. [emphases mine]

If I read that correctly, it means that people who are considering or planning to further their studies in the state of São Paulo are being invited to apply.

I recognized two of the speakers’ names, Mark Wiesner and Iseult Lynch both of whom have been mentioned here a number of times as has Gregory V. Lowry. (Wiesner very kindly helped with an art/sci project I was involved with [Steep] a number of years ago.)

Good luck with your application!

Just swallow your battery, eh? Ingestible batteries

Leave a reply

Christopher Bettinger, Ph.D., is developing an edible battery made with melanin and dissolvable materials. Courtesy of: Bettinger lab

Christopher Bettinger, Ph.D., is developing an edible battery made with melanin and dissolvable materials. Courtesy of: Bettinger lab

An Aug. 23, 2016 news item on phys.org describes a session at the 252nd American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting held Aug. 21 – 25, 2016 in Philadelphia,

Non-toxic, edible batteries could one day power ingestible devices for diagnosing and treating disease. One team reports new progress toward that goal with their batteries made with melanin pigments, naturally found in the skin, hair and eyes.

…

“For decades, people have been envisioning that one day, we would have edible electronic devices to diagnose or treat disease,” says Christopher Bettinger, Ph.D. “But if you want to take a device every day, you have to think about toxicity issues. That’s when we have to think about biologically derived materials that could replace some of these things you might find in a RadioShack.”

An Aug. 23, 2016 ACS news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, further describes the work featured in the ACS meeting session,

About 20 years ago, scientists did develop a battery-operated ingestible camera as a complementary tool to endoscopies. It can image places in the digestive system that are inaccessible to the traditional endoscope. But it is designed to pass through the body and be excreted. For a single use, the risk that the camera with a conventional battery will get stuck in the gastrointestinal tract is small. But the chances of something going wrong would increase unacceptably if doctors wanted to use it more frequently on a single patient.

The camera and some implantable devices such as pacemakers run on batteries containing toxic components that are sequestered away from contact with the body. But for low-power, repeat applications such as drug-delivery devices that are meant to be swallowed, non-toxic and degradable batteries would be ideal.

“The beauty is that by definition an ingestible, degradable device is in the body for no longer than 20 hours or so,” Bettinger says. “Even if you have marginal performance, which we do, that’s all you need.”

While he doesn’t have to worry about longevity, toxicity is an issue. To minimize the potential harm of future ingestible devices, Bettinger’s team at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) decided to turn to melanins and other naturally occurring compounds. In our skin, hair and eyes, melanins absorb ultraviolet light to quench free radicals and protect us from damage. They also happen to bind and unbind metallic ions. “We thought, this is basically a battery,” Bettinger says.

Building on this idea, the researchers experimented with battery designs that use melanin pigments at either the positive or negative terminals; various electrode materials such as manganese oxide and sodium titanium phosphate; and cations such as copper and iron that the body uses for normal functioning.

“We found basically that they work,” says Hang-Ah Park, Ph.D., a post-doctoral researcher at CMU. “The exact numbers depend on the configuration, but as an example, we can power a 5 milliWatt device for up to 18 hours using 600 milligrams of active melanin material as a cathode.”

Although the capacity of a melanin battery is low relative to lithium-ion, it would be high enough to power an ingestible drug-delivery or sensing device. For example, Bettinger envisions using his group’s battery for sensing gut microbiome changes and responding with a release of medicine, or for delivering bursts of a vaccine over several hours before degrading.

In parallel with the melanin batteries, the team is also making edible batteries with other biomaterials such as pectin, a natural compound from plants used as a gelling agent in jams and jellies. Next, they plan on developing packaging materials that will safely deliver the battery to the stomach.

When these batteries will be incorporated into biomedical devices is uncertain, but Bettinger has already found another application for them. His lab uses the batteries to probe the structure and chemistry of the melanin pigments themselves to better understand how they work.

I previously wrote about an ingestible battery in a November 23, 2015 posting featuring work from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Accountability for artificial intelligence decision-making

Leave a reply

How does an artificial intelligence program arrive at its decisions? It’s a question that’s not academic any more as these programs take on more decision-making chores according to a May 25, 2016 Carnegie Mellon University news release (also on EurekAlert) by Bryon Spice (Note: Links have been removed),

Machine-learning algorithms increasingly make decisions about credit, medical diagnoses, personalized recommendations, advertising and job opportunities, among other things, but exactly how usually remains a mystery. Now, new measurement methods developed by Carnegie Mellon University [CMU] researchers could provide important insights to this process.

Was it a person’s age, gender or education level that had the most influence on a decision? Was it a particular combination of factors? CMU’s Quantitative Input Influence (QII) measures can provide the relative weight of each factor in the final decision, said Anupam Datta, associate professor of computer science and electrical and computer engineering.

It’s reassuring to know that more requests for transparency of the decision-making process are being made. After all, it’s disconcerting that someone with the life experience of a gnat and/or possibly some issues might be developing an algorithm that could affection your life in some fundamental ways. Here’s more from the news release (Note: Links have been removed),

“Demands for algorithmic transparency are increasing as the use of algorithmic decision-making systems grows and as people realize the potential of these systems to introduce or perpetuate racial or sex discrimination or other social harms,” Datta said.

“Some companies are already beginning to provide transparency reports, but work on the computational foundations for these reports has been limited,” he continued. “Our goal was to develop measures of the degree of influence of each factor considered by a system, which could be used to generate transparency reports.”

These reports might be generated in response to a particular incident — why an individual’s loan application was rejected, or why police targeted an individual for scrutiny, or what prompted a particular medical diagnosis or treatment. Or they might be used proactively by an organization to see if an artificial intelligence system is working as desired, or by a regulatory agency to see whether a decision-making system inappropriately discriminated between groups of people.

Datta, along with Shayak Sen, a Ph.D. student in computer science, and Yair Zick, a post-doctoral researcher in the Computer Science Department, will present their report on QII at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 23–25 [2016], in San Jose, Calif.

Generating these QII measures requires access to the system, but doesn’t necessitate analyzing the code or other inner workings of the system, Datta said. It also requires some knowledge of the input dataset that was initially used to train the machine-learning system.

A distinctive feature of QII measures is that they can explain decisions of a large class of existing machine-learning systems. A significant body of prior work takes a complementary approach, redesigning machine-learning systems to make their decisions more interpretable and sometimes losing prediction accuracy in the process.

QII measures carefully account for correlated inputs while measuring influence. For example, consider a system that assists in hiring decisions for a moving company. Two inputs, gender and the ability to lift heavy weights, are positively correlated with each other and with hiring decisions. Yet transparency into whether the system uses weight-lifting ability or gender in making its decisions has substantive implications for determining if it is engaging in discrimination.

“That’s why we incorporate ideas for causal measurement in defining QII,” Sen said. “Roughly, to measure the influence of gender for a specific individual in the example above, we keep the weight-lifting ability fixed, vary gender and check whether there is a difference in the decision.”

Observing that single inputs may not always have high influence, the QII measures also quantify the joint influence of a set of inputs, such as age and income, on outcomes and the marginal influence of each input within the set. Since a single input may be part of multiple influential sets, the average marginal influence of the input is computed using principled game-theoretic aggregation measures previously applied to measure influence in revenue division and voting.

“To get a sense of these influence measures, consider the U.S. presidential election,” Zick said. “California and Texas have influence because they have many voters, whereas Pennsylvania and Ohio have power because they are often swing states. The influence aggregation measures we employ account for both kinds of power.”

The researchers tested their approach against some standard machine-learning algorithms that they used to train decision-making systems on real data sets. They found that the QII provided better explanations than standard associative measures for a host of scenarios they considered, including sample applications for predictive policing and income prediction.

Now, they are seeking collaboration with industrial partners so that they can employ QII at scale on operational machine-learning systems.

Here’s a link to and a citation for a PDF of the paper presented at the May 2016 conference,

Algorithmic Transparency via Quantitative Input Influence: Theory and Experiments with Learning Systems by Anupam Datta, Shayak Sen, Yair Zick. Presented at the at the IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 23–25, in San Jose, Calif.

I’ve also embedded the paper here,

CarnegieMellon_AlgorithmicTransparency