On Data, Causality, and Artificial Intelligence

2024 will be the year of lawsuits against generative AI companies. We’ve already had the GitHub Copilot case over assisted coding (https://lnkd.in/eH8Ap-eJ) and the Anthropic case over AI lyrics (https://lnkd.in/eY6UF9Cn). Now the Times joins the fray (https://lnkd.in/e8wHHMzx), and more are likely to follow.

So far, Gen AI companies have defended themselves by arguing fair use and transformative use – that their models create something substantially new and serve a different purpose than the original (thus doesn’t substitute the original, as in Google Books). But recent Supreme Court decisions such as Warhol v. Goldsmith made clear that transformative use claims face high bars.

What might come next?
– New business models for content licensing
– Restrictions on public access to some internal models
– Calls for updated copyright laws and content use regulations
– Technical solutions like attribution, data provenance, and content tagging
– What else?

In our latest short post at Data Duets, Duygu Dagli and I share a recent paper (and an R package) that offers a better solution.

How often do you log transform your data? How do you deal with zeros? Do you just add 1 or some other constant before taking the log?

In our latest short post, Gorkem Turgut (G.T.) Ozer and I share a recent paper (and an R package) that offers a better solution!

Source

The founding event of artificial intelligence as a field is considered to be the 1956 Dartmouth Workshop in Hanover, New Hampshire.

The proposal listed seven areas of focus for AI: automation of higher-level functions, language models, neural networks, computational efficiency, self-learning, abstraction and generalization from sensor data, and creativity.

These were all revolutionary ideas at the time (and still are), but the one that stands out to me the most is creativity:

“𝘈 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘮𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴.”

Today, most generative AI models seem to follow this idea of injecting some randomness. But can a touch of randomness turn 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 into 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘺? Well, this 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.

Randomness alone can’t make a model imaginative. Imagination requires an understanding of cause-effect relationships and counterfactual reasoning.

𝘈𝘯 𝘈𝘐 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘪𝘹𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘺𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘳𝘵.

That’s why the more exciting potential today seems to lie in creative human input to a model, or in using the output of the model as input to creative human brain.

Source

Daniel Millimet and Marc F. Bellemare work on an interesting paper on the feasibility of assuming that fixed effects are fixed over long periods in causal inference models. They highlight an overlooked reality that fixed effects may fail to control for unobserved heterogeneity over long periods of time.

One lesson for causal identification using long panels is to think twice before assuming that fixed effects will take care of unobserved heterogeneity.

More on this is in our short post with Duygu Dagli at Data Duets. She uses rapid gentrification as an example. The short format is a new idea to post more often.

Source

This is the tag line on boomy.com, a generative AI-based music platform.

We have entered an era where everyone seems to be able to 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘟𝘟𝘟 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘟𝘟𝘟 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, a fact that leads to the need for a new vocabulary, since “original” is defined as

– created directly and personally by a particular artist
– not dependent on other people’s ideas

Meanwhile, “Boomy artists have created 18,047,099 original songs” and that 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 great.

Imagination (of counterfactuals) draws on domain knowledge and creativity and is key to causal reasoning; it is also where humans continue to outperform algorithms. What about the role of data?

𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦. 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘱. 𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘱 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘥𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘶𝘱 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘦𝘺𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯.

This map distorts the data on the relative positions of the continents, but it uses the data correctly on their location and size. It’s just as wrong as any other world map, but it makes one look up, think, and imagine.

What might have happened if
– Central America was in the arctic zone and Siberia was subtropical
– Cuba was off the east coast of Canada and the USA
– Japan was off the coasts of Portugal and Spain
– North Korea was part of South Korea
– Taiwan was next to France

Source

Gilbert may have a point here, except for the part about how markets work. This is a popular free market product with a growing number of customers. Today I heard that ChatGPT Plus now has a waiting list. I also find Gilbert’s statement a bit overdramatic, but that’s beside the point. LLMs are useful tools if their limitations are well defined, communicated, and acknowledged, and if the lingering issues of copyright and privacy are resolved.

But if not, and if we continue to treat a computer model as if it had some kind of consciousness and general intelligence, progress will be painful. I’ve expressed this concern several times, using Searle’s Chinese Room argument and pointing out the dangers of so-called “hallucinations” in the hands of well-meaning users who don’t always know what they don’t know.

Source

I started coding in C and used C# before switching to Java (those were the dark days). Today, R and Python make up my daily stack (and I dabble in Julia for fun). Now, in retrospect, one habit I wish the data science community had developed better is exception handling. More often than not, I come across code that is doomed to crash (hey, it’s called an exception for a reason).

The next time you code to analyze data, remember this video of division by zero. This is the pain and suffering your computer goes through when your denominator hits zero. This is also a reminder to appreciate (not complain about) the errors and warnings in R and Python (my former and future students, hear me?).

Received the video in personal communication and happy to add a source.

…because experts are more likely to know what they don’t know. When users don’t know what they don’t know, so-called “hallucinations” are less likely to be detected and this seems to be a growing problem, likely exacerbated by the Dunning-Kruger effect. Well, this is my take on them.

In the study cited in the article, several LLM models are asked to summarize news articles to measure how often they “hallucinated” or made up facts.

The LLM models showed different rates of “hallucination”, with OpenAI having the lowest (about 3%), followed by Meta (about 5%), Anthropic’s Claude 2 system (over 8%), and Google’s Palm chat with the highest (27%).

Source

𝘈𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘮𝘪𝘹 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘊𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 -𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘜𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘪𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨; 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.

The Executive Order defines “AI” as:
“a machine-based system that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, make predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments.”

This means that the scope is not limited to generative AI, which is good. Using “AI” as an umbrella term may still not be a good idea for the reasons my assistant lists below but I hope this is a first step in the right direction.

“𝘈𝘐” 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘨𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘰𝘨𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘴.

𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘱𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤’𝘴 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘥𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘳. 𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘶𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘣𝘺 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘰𝘣𝘴𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘈𝘐 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘴, 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘰𝘯𝘦-𝘴𝘪𝘻𝘦-𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘴-𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦.

Source

Every time I fly, I am struck by how archaic airport baggage handling still is. Sure, the airline industry is infamous for maintaining its legacy Fortran and Cobol software, but that’s because aviation is a pioneer in using computers to run its operations. Meanwhile, baggage handling remains a bottleneck in air travel because the process is highly manual and inefficient (except for using the same conveyor system that seems to have been in use since 1971).

When robots take over (or assist with) baggage handling, overall passenger satisfaction is likely to improve. Increased use of robots to solve such low-stakes bottleneck problems may also help the public perception of robots.

evoBot looks like one of the robots that can solve this problem. The robot achieves excellent balance using an inverted pendulum design, and can reach speeds of 37 mph and carry over 220 pounds. Pretty impressive.

Not shown in the video, but it can also lift luggage off the ground and deliver it to its destination (airplane or the 1971 conveyor belt). Munich Airport seems to have tested it already. I hope to see it in action soon.

If you ask it, its answer is “Yes.” If you ask it if it “understands” Chinese, its answer is again “Yes” without hesitation. Searle’s 1980 Chinese Room argument is more relevant than ever in the age of LLMs:

𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 (𝘣𝘰𝘹 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦) 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘱𝘶𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘢𝘴𝘬 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵: 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳. 𝘛𝘰 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘴, 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘴, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦-𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦, 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦? 𝘖𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦?

More recently in his book, Searle linked his original argument to consciousness, but that’s probably a higher bar than needed to reason that ChatGPT is a box that has no idea what it’s talking about.

I took several rides in Google’s Waymo robotaxi. This is a short video of the experience, which is great, almost flawless. One problem is that it gets boring really fast.

About half the time during my trip, I used Uber or Lyft instead of a Waymo, and I met a professional dancer, a retired chef, a compliance officer, a criminal justice expert, an Amazon truck driver, and a painter.

I had really fun conversations that touched on “AI” and dance music, the best old school restaurants in town, the private equity fundraising process, cybersecurity, privacy, more “AI” and so on. As a bonus, almost all of the conversations included some useful, local information about the city.

None of the robotaxi rides had any of this, serendipity was nonexistent. The robot feels friendly, sure, but that’s about it. The longer the ride, the more boring it gets.

Replacing influencers with generative AI looks like a great use case. The real question is whether influencers who promote “AI” will also be replaced by AI.

Some details:
With just a few minutes of sample video from the person to be cloned and a payment of $1,000, brands can clone a human streamer to work 24/7.

The AI videobots may already be having some economic impact: the average salary for livestream hosts in China is down 20% from 2022 (just another YoY figure, not a causal effect).

Source

This is based on a recent Nature study, and it’s useful with a caveat that may make the findings and visuals less striking than they look:

“𝑁𝑎𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠, 𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑠, 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑙𝑒𝑠, 𝑎𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠, 𝑜𝑟 𝑘𝑒𝑦𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑠 ‘𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔’; ‘𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑒𝑡*’, ‘𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔’, ‘𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑜𝑚 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡’, ‘𝑑𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔’, ‘𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑣𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒’, ‘𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒’, ‘𝑑𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛’, ‘𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠’, ‘𝑛𝑎𝑖̈𝑣𝑒 𝑏𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑠’, ‘𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠’, ‘𝑙𝑙𝑚*’, ‘𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑔𝑝𝑡’, ‘𝑔𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑚𝑖𝑥𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑠’, ‘𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑚𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑑𝑠’.”

So, SVM, Naive Bayes, Random forest, and Ensemble methods are all called AI (not untrue, but…). Gaussian processes? Well, papers with a GP regression count then. Dimensionality reduction? So, papers using PCA or LDA count.

This feeds the trend of using AI as an umbrella term unfortunately.

Source

The business problem is to put a lifeguard station on a beach to save some lives (i.e., find the best location for the lifeguard station). This is not really a predictive modeling problem. But that’s the hammer our data scientists have and they have access to fancy libraries. There is also some historical data: swimmers rescued and drowned at other beaches. It all checks out. Resistance to 𝘱𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 is futile.

Transforming the problem into an objective function could have signaled that this is an optimization problem (a prescriptive modeling problem), but that step was skipped. In the picture shown, we may need a solution:

– minimizes distance => 𝗦𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗳𝗮𝗻𝗰𝘆_𝗹𝗶𝗯𝗿𝗮𝗿𝘆
while also…
– minimizing time => 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗼𝗼𝗺
– minimizing swimming => 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀
– minimizing time to ice cream => 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗽𝘀 𝗶𝗻
– [not shown] minimizing walking on sand => 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗟𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁
and hopefully not…
– maximizing time => 𝗔 𝗷𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺

So, the ideal solution requires more thinking about the problem. For example, maximizing the number of lives saved may actually require constraints on how to minimize time so that lifeguards don’t risk their lives during the rescue.

The law of the instrument works a little too well in predictive modeling (and more generally in machine learning). Objective functions are often lost in translation when they should be an explicit step in the modeling process. Best practice tends to favor performance metrics, even though achieving the highest performance on the wrong function is clearly useless (and sometimes detrimental).

More focus on objective functions and less obsession with “better performance” may be what we need. This would underline the importance of problem formulation and domain knowledge, and undermine the 𝘱𝘪𝘱 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵 solution.

A combination of Warren Powell‘s writing and the accompanying xkcd comic inspired this post (courtesy of xkcd.com).

I have had a copy of Scott Cunningham‘s “Mixtape” since it came out. I’ve skimmed through it before, but last night, while putting together a few slides, I read an entire chapter and loved it. It has just enough detail to keep the reader from going to the cited work. It is also candid and fun. The print version is nicely sized and designed so you can blend in and look cool while others around you are reading the latest fiction. The book has already made its impact and this is probably a late call but I had to share.

Source

We seem to have a growing barrier to discussing AI: the use of AI as an umbrella term. My former students will say “Here we go again,” but if something means everything, it means nothing. If we take the time to define what we mean when we refer to AI, it will probably help the conversation.

Attached is a figure I’ve been using in my classes since 2017 to make this point (sorry, not the cat picture but the following figure of a timeline from AI to ML to Deep Learning). We might be better off referring to specific models and algorithms (or at least a group of models, such as LLMs, instead of AI).

Over the weekend, I attended a series of discussions on “AI” at the Academy of Management‘s annual conference. I had the opportunity to hear the perspectives of great scholars from a variety of backgrounds. Once again, I was puzzled as to what was meant by “AI” in most of the discussions.

Source

In Data Duets, Duygu Dagli and I offered our take on Ashesh Rambachan and Jonathan Roth‘s recently published but long overdue paper now titled “A more credible approach to parallel trends.”

Problem:
We want to test the causal effect of a promotion on sales, let’s say a coupon. The coupon was sent to newer customers. Did the coupon increase the sales? Or would the new customers have bought more anyway?

Solution:
We’ll never know the answer to the last question but we can answer the first question after making some assumptions. More on this in the post.

This is less elaborate than our earlier posts on synthetic controls and Lord’s paradox. We will probably keep it this way so that we can post more often.

Source