Tag Archives: 2012

#438769 Will Robots Make Good Friends? ...

Posted on February 26, 2021 by Android

In the 2012 film Robot and Frank, the protagonist, a retired cat burglar named Frank, is suffering the early symptoms of dementia. Concerned and guilty, his son buys him a “home robot” that can talk, do household chores like cooking and cleaning, and remind Frank to take his medicine. It’s a robot the likes of which we’re getting closer to building in the real world.

The film follows Frank, who is initially appalled by the idea of living with a robot, as he gradually begins to see the robot as both functionally useful and socially companionable. The film ends with a clear bond between man and machine, such that Frank is protective of the robot when the pair of them run into trouble.

This is, of course, a fictional story, but it challenges us to explore different kinds of human-to-robot bonds. My recent research on human-robot relationships examines this topic in detail, looking beyond sex robots and robot love affairs to examine that most profound and meaningful of relationships: friendship.

My colleague and I identified some potential risks, like the abandonment of human friends for robotic ones, but we also found several scenarios where robotic companionship can constructively augment people’s lives, leading to friendships that are directly comparable to human-to-human relationships.

Philosophy of Friendship
The robotics philosopher John Danaher sets a very high bar for what friendship means. His starting point is the “true” friendship first described by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, which saw an ideal friendship as premised on mutual good will, admiration, and shared values. In these terms, friendship is about a partnership of equals.

Building a robot that can satisfy Aristotle’s criteria is a substantial technical challenge and is some considerable way off, as Danaher himself admits. Robots that may seem to be getting close, such as Hanson Robotics’ Sophia, base their behavior on a library of pre-prepared responses: a humanoid chatbot, rather than a conversational equal. Anyone who’s had a testing back-and-forth with Alexa or Siri will know AI still has some way to go in this regard.

Aristotle also talked about other forms of “imperfect” friendship, such as “utilitarian” and “pleasure” friendships, which are considered inferior to true friendship because they don’t require symmetrical bonding and are often to one party’s unequal benefit. This form of friendship sets a relatively very low bar which some robots, like “sexbots” and robotic pets, clearly already meet.

Artificial Amigos
For some, relating to robots is just a natural extension of relating to other things in our world, like people, pets, and possessions. Psychologists have even observed how people respond naturally and socially towards media artefacts like computers and televisions. Humanoid robots, you’d have thought, are more personable than your home PC.

However, the field of “robot ethics” is far from unanimous on whether we can—or should— develop any form of friendship with robots. For an influential group of UK researchers who charted a set of “ethical principles of robotics,” human-robot “companionship” is an oxymoron, and to market robots as having social capabilities is dishonest and should be treated with caution, if not alarm. For these researchers, wasting emotional energy on entities that can only simulate emotions will always be less rewarding than forming human-to-human bonds.

But people are already developing bonds with basic robots, like vacuum-cleaning and lawn-trimming machines that can be bought for less than the price of a dishwasher. A surprisingly large number of people give these robots pet names—something they don’t do with their dishwashers. Some even take their cleaning robots on holiday.

Other evidence of emotional bonds with robots include the Shinto blessing ceremony for Sony Aibo robot dogs that were dismantled for spare parts, and the squad of US troops who fired a 21-gun salute, and awarded medals, to a bomb-disposal robot named “Boomer” after it was destroyed in action.

These stories, and the psychological evidence we have so far, make clear that we can extend emotional connections to things that are very different to us, even when we know they are manufactured and pre-programmed. But do those connections constitute a friendship comparable to that shared between humans?

True Friendship?
A colleague and I recently reviewed the extensive literature on human-to-human relationships to try to understand how, and if, the concepts we found could apply to bonds we might form with robots. We found evidence that many coveted human-to-human friendships do not in fact live up to Aristotle’s ideal.

We noted a wide range of human-to-human relationships, from relatives and lovers to parents, carers, service providers, and the intense (but unfortunately one-way) relationships we maintain with our celebrity heroes. Few of these relationships could be described as completely equal and, crucially, they are all destined to evolve over time.

All this means that expecting robots to form Aristotelian bonds with us is to set a standard even human relationships fail to live up to. We also observed forms of social connectedness that are rewarding and satisfying and yet are far from the ideal friendship outlined by the Greek philosopher.

We know that social interaction is rewarding in its own right, and something that, as social mammals, humans have a strong need for. It seems probable that relationships with robots could help to address the deep-seated urge we all feel for social connection—like providing physical comfort, emotional support, and enjoyable social exchanges—currently provided by other humans.

Our paper also discussed some potential risks. These arise particularly in settings where interaction with a robot could come to replace interaction with people, or where people are denied a choice as to whether they interact with a person or a robot—in a care setting, for instance.

These are important concerns, but they’re possibilities and not inevitabilities. In the literature we reviewed we actually found evidence of the opposite effect: robots acting to scaffold social interactions with others, acting as ice-breakers in groups, and helping people to improve their social skills or to boost their self-esteem.

It appears likely that, as time progresses, many of us will simply follow Frank’s path towards acceptance: scoffing at first, before settling into the idea that robots can make surprisingly good companions. Our research suggests that’s already happening—though perhaps not in a way of which Aristotle would have approved.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Image Credit: Andy Kelly on Unsplash Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437809 Q&A: The Masterminds Behind ...

Posted on November 30, 2020 by Android

Illustration: iStockphoto

Getting a car to drive itself is undoubtedly the most ambitious commercial application of artificial intelligence (AI). The research project was kicked into life by the 2004 DARPA Urban Challenge and then taken up as a business proposition, first by Alphabet, and later by the big automakers.

The industry-wide effort vacuumed up many of the world’s best roboticists and set rival companies on a multibillion-dollar acquisitions spree. It also launched a cycle of hype that paraded ever more ambitious deadlines—the most famous of which, made by Alphabet’s Sergei Brin in 2012, was that full self-driving technology would be ready by 2017. Those deadlines have all been missed.

Much of the exhilaration was inspired by the seeming miracles that a new kind of AI—deep learning—was achieving in playing games, recognizing faces, and transliterating voices. Deep learning excels at tasks involving pattern recognition—a particular challenge for older, rule-based AI techniques. However, it now seems that deep learning will not soon master the other intellectual challenges of driving, such as anticipating what human beings might do.

Among the roboticists who have been involved from the start are Gill Pratt, the chief executive officer of Toyota Research Institute (TRI) , formerly a program manager at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); and Wolfram Burgard, vice president of automated driving technology for TRI and president of the IEEE Robotics and Automation Society. The duo spoke with IEEE Spectrum’s Philip Ross at TRI’s offices in Palo Alto, Calif.

This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

IEEE Spectrum: How does AI handle the various parts of the self-driving problem?

Photo: Toyota

Gill Pratt

Gill Pratt: There are three different systems that you need in a self-driving car: It starts with perception, then goes to prediction, and then goes to planning.

The one that by far is the most problematic is prediction. It’s not prediction of other automated cars, because if all cars were automated, this problem would be much more simple. How do you predict what a human being is going to do? That’s difficult for deep learning to learn right now.

Spectrum: Can you offset the weakness in prediction with stupendous perception?

Photo: Toyota Research Institute for Burgard

Wolfram Burgard

Wolfram Burgard: Yes, that is what car companies basically do. A camera provides semantics, lidar provides distance, radar provides velocities. But all this comes with problems, because sometimes you look at the world from different positions—that’s called parallax. Sometimes you don’t know which range estimate that pixel belongs to. That might make the decision complicated as to whether that is a person painted onto the side of a truck or whether this is an actual person.

With deep learning there is this promise that if you throw enough data at these networks, it’s going to work—finally. But it turns out that the amount of data that you need for self-driving cars is far larger than we expected.

Spectrum: When do deep learning’s limitations become apparent?

Pratt: The way to think about deep learning is that it’s really high-performance pattern matching. You have input and output as training pairs; you say this image should lead to that result; and you just do that again and again, for hundreds of thousands, millions of times.

Here’s the logical fallacy that I think most people have fallen prey to with deep learning. A lot of what we do with our brains can be thought of as pattern matching: “Oh, I see this stop sign, so I should stop.” But it doesn’t mean all of intelligence can be done through pattern matching.

“I asked myself, if all of those cars had automated drive, how good would they have to be to tolerate the number of crashes that would still occur?”
—Gill Pratt, Toyota Research Institute

For instance, when I’m driving and I see a mother holding the hand of a child on a corner and trying to cross the street, I am pretty sure she’s not going to cross at a red light and jaywalk. I know from my experience being a human being that mothers and children don’t act that way. On the other hand, say there are two teenagers—with blue hair, skateboards, and a disaffected look. Are they going to jaywalk? I look at that, you look at that, and instantly the probability in your mind that they’ll jaywalk is much higher than for the mother holding the hand of the child. It’s not that you’ve seen 100,000 cases of young kids—it’s that you understand what it is to be either a teenager or a mother holding a child’s hand.

You can try to fake that kind of intelligence. If you specifically train a neural network on data like that, you could pattern-match that. But you’d have to know to do it.

Spectrum: So you’re saying that when you substitute pattern recognition for reasoning, the marginal return on the investment falls off pretty fast?

Pratt: That’s absolutely right. Unfortunately, we don’t have the ability to make an AI that thinks yet, so we don’t know what to do. We keep trying to use the deep-learning hammer to hammer more nails—we say, well, let’s just pour more data in, and more data.

Spectrum: Couldn’t you train the deep-learning system to recognize teenagers and to assign the category a high propensity for jaywalking?

Burgard: People have been doing that. But it turns out that these heuristics you come up with are extremely hard to tweak. Also, sometimes the heuristics are contradictory, which makes it extremely hard to design these expert systems based on rules. This is where the strength of the deep-learning methods lies, because somehow they encode a way to see a pattern where, for example, here’s a feature and over there is another feature; it’s about the sheer number of parameters you have available.

Our separation of the components of a self-driving AI eases the development and even the learning of the AI systems. Some companies even think about using deep learning to do the job fully, from end to end, not having any structure at all—basically, directly mapping perceptions to actions.

Pratt: There are companies that have tried it; Nvidia certainly tried it. In general, it’s been found not to work very well. So people divide the problem into blocks, where we understand what each block does, and we try to make each block work well. Some of the blocks end up more like the expert system we talked about, where we actually code things, and other blocks end up more like machine learning.

Spectrum: So, what’s next—what new technique is in the offing?

Pratt: If I knew the answer, we’d do it. [Laughter]

Spectrum: You said that if all cars on the road were automated, the problem would be easy. Why not “geofence” the heck out of the self-driving problem, and have areas where only self-driving cars are allowed?

Pratt: That means putting in constraints on the operational design domain. This includes the geography—where the car should be automated; it includes the weather, it includes the level of traffic, it includes speed. If the car is going slow enough to avoid colliding without risking a rear-end collision, that makes the problem much easier. Street trolleys operate with traffic still in some parts of the world, and that seems to work out just fine. People learn that this vehicle may stop at unexpected times. My suspicion is, that is where we’ll see Level 4 autonomy in cities. It’s going to be in the lower speeds.

“We are now in the age of deep learning, and we don’t know what will come after.”
—Wolfram Burgard, Toyota Research Institute

That’s a sweet spot in the operational design domain, without a doubt. There’s another one at high speed on a highway, because access to highways is so limited. But unfortunately there is still the occasional debris that suddenly crosses the road, and the weather gets bad. The classic example is when somebody irresponsibly ties a mattress to the top of a car and it falls off; what are you going to do? And the answer is that terrible things happen—even for humans.

Spectrum: Learning by doing worked for the first cars, the first planes, the first steam boilers, and even the first nuclear reactors. We ran risks then; why not now?

Pratt: It has to do with the times. During the era where cars took off, all kinds of accidents happened, women died in childbirth, all sorts of diseases ran rampant; the expected characteristic of life was that bad things happened. Expectations have changed. Now the chance of dying in some freak accident is quite low because of all the learning that’s gone on, the OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] rules, UL code for electrical appliances, all the building standards, medicine.

Furthermore—and we think this is very important—we believe that empathy for a human being at the wheel is a significant factor in public acceptance when there is a crash. We don’t know this for sure—it’s a speculation on our part. I’ve driven, I’ve had close calls; that could have been me that made that mistake and had that wreck. I think people are more tolerant when somebody else makes mistakes, and there’s an awful crash. In the case of an automated car, we worry that that empathy won’t be there.

Photo: Toyota

Toyota is using this
Platform 4 automated driving test vehicle, based on the Lexus LS, to develop Level-4 self-driving capabilities for its “Chauffeur” project.

Spectrum: Toyota is building a system called Guardian to back up the driver, and a more futuristic system called Chauffeur, to replace the driver. How can Chauffeur ever succeed? It has to be better than a human plus Guardian!

Pratt: In the discussions we’ve had with others in this field, we’ve talked about that a lot. What is the standard? Is it a person in a basic car? Or is it a person with a car that has active safety systems in it? And what will people think is good enough?

These systems will never be perfect—there will always be some accidents, and no matter how hard we try there will still be occasions where there will be some fatalities. At what threshold are people willing to say that’s okay?

Spectrum: You were among the first top researchers to warn against hyping self-driving technology. What did you see that so many other players did not?

Pratt: First, in my own case, during my time at DARPA I worked on robotics, not cars. So I was somewhat of an outsider. I was looking at it from a fresh perspective, and that helps a lot.

Second, [when I joined Toyota in 2015] I was joining a company that is very careful—even though we have made some giant leaps—with the Prius hybrid drive system as an example. Even so, in general, the philosophy at Toyota is kaizen—making the cars incrementally better every single day. That care meant that I was tasked with thinking very deeply about this thing before making prognostications.

And the final part: It was a new job for me. The first night after I signed the contract I felt this incredible responsibility. I couldn’t sleep that whole night, so I started to multiply out the numbers, all using a factor of 10. How many cars do we have on the road? Cars on average last 10 years, though ours last 20, but let’s call it 10. They travel on an order of 10,000 miles per year. Multiply all that out and you get 10 to the 10th miles per year for our fleet on Planet Earth, a really big number. I asked myself, if all of those cars had automated drive, how good would they have to be to tolerate the number of crashes that would still occur? And the answer was so incredibly good that I knew it would take a long time. That was five years ago.

Burgard: We are now in the age of deep learning, and we don’t know what will come after. We are still making progress with existing techniques, and they look very promising. But the gradient is not as steep as it was a few years ago.

Pratt: There isn’t anything that’s telling us that it can’t be done; I should be very clear on that. Just because we don’t know how to do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437769 Q&A: Facebook’s CTO Is at War With ...

Posted on November 29, 2020 by Android

Photo: Patricia de Melo Moreira/AFP/Getty Images

Facebook chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer leads the company’s AI and integrity efforts.

Facebook’s challenge is huge. Billions of pieces of content—short and long posts, images, and combinations of the two—are uploaded to the site daily from around the world. And any tiny piece of that—any phrase, image, or video—could contain so-called bad content.

In its early days, Facebook relied on simple computer filters to identify potentially problematic posts by their words, such as those containing profanity. These automatically filtered posts, as well as posts flagged by users as offensive, went to humans for adjudication.

In 2015, Facebook started using artificial intelligence to cull images that contained nudity, illegal goods, and other prohibited content; those images identified as possibly problematic were sent to humans for further review.

By 2016, more offensive photos were reported by Facebook’s AI systems than by Facebook users (and that is still the case).

In 2018, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made a bold proclamation: He predicted that within five or ten years, Facebook’s AI would not only look for profanity, nudity, and other obvious violations of Facebook’s policies. The tools would also be able to spot bullying, hate speech, and other misuse of the platform, and put an immediate end to them.

Today, automated systems using algorithms developed with AI scan every piece of content between the time when a user completes a post and when it is visible to others on the site—just fractions of a second. In most cases, a violation of Facebook’s standards is clear, and the AI system automatically blocks the post. In other cases, the post goes to human reviewers for a final decision, a workforce that includes 15,000 content reviewers and another 20,000 employees focused on safety and security, operating out of more than 20 facilities around the world.

In the first quarter of this year, Facebook removed or took other action (like appending a warning label) on more than 9.6 million posts involving hate speech, 8.6 million involving child nudity or exploitation, almost 8 million posts involving the sale of drugs, 2.3 million posts involving bullying and harassment, and tens of millions of posts violating other Facebook rules.

Right now, Facebook has more than 1,000 engineers working on further developing and implementing what the company calls “integrity” tools. Using these systems to screen every post that goes up on Facebook, and doing so in milliseconds, is sucking up computing resources. Facebook chief technology officer Mike Schroepfer, who is heading up Facebook’s AI and integrity efforts, spoke with IEEE Spectrum about the team’s progress on building an AI system that detects bad content.

Since that discussion, Facebook’s policies around hate speech have come under increasing scrutiny, with particular attention on divisive posts by political figures. A group of major advertisers in June announced that they would stop advertising on the platform while reviewing the situation, and civil rights groups are putting pressure on others to follow suit until Facebook makes policy changes related to hate speech and groups that promote hate, misinformation, and conspiracies.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg responded with news that Facebook will widen the category of what it considers hateful content in ads. Now the company prohibits claims that people from a specific race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, gender identity, or immigration status are a threat to the physical safety, health, or survival of others. The policy change also aims to better protect immigrants, migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers from ads suggesting these groups are inferior or expressing contempt. Finally, Zuckerberg announced that the company will label some problematic posts by politicians and government officials as content that violates Facebook’s policies.

However, civil rights groups say that’s not enough. And an independent audit released in July also said that Facebook needs to go much further in addressing civil rights concerns and disinformation.

Schroepfer indicated that Facebook’s AI systems are designed to quickly adapt to changes in policy. “I don’t expect considerable technical changes are needed to adjust,” he told Spectrum.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

IEEE Spectrum: What are the stakes of content moderation? Is this an existential threat to Facebook? And is it critical that you deal well with the issue of election interference this year?

Schroepfer: It’s probably existential; it’s certainly massive. We are devoting a tremendous amount of our attention to it.

The idea that anyone could meddle in an election is deeply disturbing and offensive to all of us here, just as people and citizens of democracies. We don’t want to see that happen anywhere, and certainly not on our watch. So whether it’s important to the company or not, it’s important to us as people. And I feel a similar way on the content-moderation side.

There are not a lot of easy choices here. The only way to prevent people, with certainty, from posting bad things is to not let them post anything. We can take away all voice and just say, “Sorry, the Internet’s too dangerous. No one can use it.” That will certainly get rid of all hate speech online. But I don’t want to end up in that world. And there are variants of that world that various governments are trying to implement, where they get to decide what’s true or not, and you as a person don’t. I don’t want to get there either.

My hope is that we can build a set of tools that make it practical for us to do a good enough job, so that everyone is still excited about the idea that anyone can share what they want, and so that Facebook is a safe and reasonable place for people to operate in.

Spectrum: You joined Facebook in 2008, before AI was part of the company’s toolbox. When did that change? When did you begin to think that AI tools would be useful to Facebook?

Schroepfer: Ten years ago, AI wasn’t commercially practical; the technology just didn’t work very well. In 2012, there was one of those moments that a lot of people point to as the beginning of the current revolution in deep learning and AI. A computer-vision model—a neural network—was trained using what we call supervised training, and it turned out to be better than all the existing models.

Spectrum: How is that training done, and how did computer-vision models come to Facebook?

Image: Facebook

Just Broccoli? Facebook’s image analysis algorithms can tell the difference between marijuana [left] and tempura broccoli [right] better than some humans.

Schroepfer: Say I take a bunch of photos and I have people look at them. If they see a photo of a cat, they put a text label that says cat; if it’s one of a dog, the text label says dog. If you build a big enough data set and feed that to the neural net, it learns how to tell the difference between cats and dogs.

Prior to 2012, it didn’t work very well. And then in 2012, there was this moment where it seemed like, “Oh wow, this technique might work.” And a few years later we were deploying that form of technology to help us detect problematic imagery.

Spectrum: Do your AI systems work equally well on all types of prohibited content?

Schroepfer: Nudity was technically easiest. I don’t need to understand language or culture to understand that this is either a naked human or not. Violence is a much more nuanced problem, so it was harder technically to get it right. And with hate speech, not only do you have to understand the language, it may be very contextual, even tied to recent events. A week before the Christchurch shooting [New Zealand, 2019], saying “I wish you were in the mosque” probably doesn’t mean anything. A week after, that might be a terrible thing to say.

Spectrum: How much progress have you made on hate speech?

Schroepfer: AI, in the first quarter of 2020, proactively detected 88.8 percent of the hate-speech content we removed, up from 80.2 percent in the previous quarter. In the first quarter of 2020, we took action on 9.6 million pieces of content for violating our hate-speech policies.

Image: Facebook

Off Label: Sometimes image analysis isn’t enough to determine whether a picture posted violates the company’s policies. In considering these candy-colored vials of marijuana, for example, the algorithms can look at any accompanying text and, if necessary, comments on the post.

Spectrum: It sounds like you’ve expanded beyond tools that analyze images and are also using AI tools that analyze text.

Schroepfer: AI started off as very siloed. People worked on language, people worked on computer vision, people worked on video. We’ve put these things together—in production, not just as research—into multimodal classifiers.

[Schroepfer shows a photo of a pan of Rice Krispies treats, with text referring to it as a “potent batch”] This is a case in which you have an image, and then you have the text on the post. This looks like Rice Krispies. On its own, this image is fine. You put the text together with it in a bigger model; that can then understand what’s going on. That didn’t work five years ago.

Spectrum: Today, every post that goes up on Facebook is immediately checked by automated systems. Can you explain that process?

Image: Facebook

Bigger Picture: Identifying hate speech is often a matter of context. Either the text or the photo in this post isn’t hateful standing alone, but putting them together tells a different story.

Schroepfer: You upload an image and you write some text underneath it, and the systems look at both the image and the text to try to see which, if any, policies it violates. Those decisions are based on our Community Standards. It will also look at other signals on the posts, like the comments people make.

It happens relatively instantly, though there may be times things happen after the fact. Maybe you uploaded a post that had misinformation in it, and at the time you uploaded it, we didn’t know it was misinformation. The next day we fact-check something and scan again; we may find your post and take it down. As we learn new things, we’re going to go back through and look for violations of what we now know to be a problem. Or, as people comment on your post, we might update our understanding of it. If people are saying, “That’s terrible,” or “That’s mean,” or “That looks fake,” those comments may be an interesting signal.

Spectrum: How is Facebook applying its AI tools to the problem of election interference?

Schroepfer: I would split election interference into two categories. There are times when you’re going after the content, and there are times you’re going after the behavior or the authenticity of the person.

On content, if you’re sharing misinformation, saying, “It’s super Wednesday, not super Tuesday, come vote on Wednesday,” that’s a problem whether you’re an American sitting in California or a foreign actor.

Other times, people create a series of Facebook pages pretending they’re Americans, but they’re really a foreign entity. That is a problem on its own, even if all the content they’re sharing completely meets our Community Standards. The problem there is that you have a foreign government running an information operation.

There, you need different tools. What you’re trying to do is put pieces together, to say, “Wait a second. All of these pages—Martians for Justice, Moonlings for Justice, and Venusians for Justice”—are all run by an administrator with an IP address that’s outside the United States. So they’re all connected, even though they’re pretending to not be connected. That’s a very different problem than me sitting in my office in Menlo Park [Calif.] sharing misinformation.

I’m not going to go into lots of technical detail, because this is an area of adversarial nature. The fundamental problem you’re trying to solve is that there’s one entity coordinating the activity of a bunch of things that look like they’re not all one thing. So this is a series of Instagram accounts, or a series of Facebook pages, or a series of WhatsApp accounts, and they’re pretending to be totally different things. We’re looking for signals that these things are related in some way. And we’re looking through the graph [what Facebook calls its map of relationships between users] to understand the properties of this network.

Spectrum: What cutting-edge AI tools and methods have you been working on lately?

Schroepfer: Supervised learning, with humans setting up the instruction process for the AI systems, is amazingly effective. But it has a very obvious flaw: the speed at which you can develop these things is limited by how fast you can curate the data sets. If you’re dealing in a problem domain where things change rapidly, you have to rebuild a new data set and retrain the whole thing.

Self-supervision is inspired by the way people learn, by the way kids explore the world around them. To get computers to do it themselves, we take a bunch of raw data and build a way for the computer to construct its own tests. For language, you scan a bunch of Web pages, and the computer builds a test where it takes a sentence, eliminates one of the words, and figures out how to predict what word belongs there. And because it created the test, it actually knows the answer. I can use as much raw text as I can find and store because it’s processing everything itself and doesn’t require us to sit down and build the information set. In the last two years there has been a revolution in language understanding as a result of AI self-supervised learning.

Spectrum: What else are you excited about?

Schroepfer: What we’ve been working on over the last few years is multilingual understanding. Usually, when I’m trying to figure out, say, whether something is hate speech or not I have to go through the whole process of training the model in every language. I have to do that one time for every language. When you make a post, the first thing we have to figure out is what language your post is in. “Ah, that’s Spanish. So send it to the Spanish hate-speech model.”

We’ve started to build a multilingual model—one box where you can feed in text in 40 different languages and it determines whether it’s hate speech or not. This is way more effective and easier to deploy.

To geek out for a second, just the idea that you can build a model that understands a concept in multiple languages at once is crazy cool. And it not only works for hate speech, it works for a variety of things.

When we started working on this multilingual model years ago, it performed worse than every single individual model. Now, it not only works as well as the English model, but when you get to the languages where you don’t have enough data, it’s so much better. This rapid progress is very exciting.

Spectrum: How do you move new AI tools from your research labs into operational use?

Schroepfer: Engineers trying to make the next breakthrough will often say, “Cool, I’ve got a new thing and it achieved state-of-the-art results on machine translation.” And we say, “Great. How long does it take to run in production?” They say, “Well, it takes 10 seconds for every sentence to run on a CPU.” And we say, “It’ll eat our whole data center if we deploy that.” So we take that state-of-the-art model and we make it 10 or a hundred or a thousand times more efficient, maybe at the cost of a little bit of accuracy. So it’s not as good as the state-of-the-art version, but it’s something we can actually put into our data centers and run in production.

Spectrum: What’s the role of the humans in the loop? Is it true that Facebook currently employs 35,000 moderators?

Schroepfer: Yes. Right now our goal is not to reduce that. Our goal is to do a better job catching bad content. People often think that the end state will be a fully automated system. I don’t see that world coming anytime soon.

As automated systems get more sophisticated, they take more and more of the grunt work away, freeing up the humans to work on the really gnarly stuff where you have to spend an hour researching.

We also use AI to give our human moderators power tools. Say I spot this new meme that is telling everyone to vote on Wednesday rather than Tuesday. I have a tool in front of me that says, “Find variants of that throughout the system. Find every photo with the same text, find every video that mentions this thing and kill it in one shot.” Rather than, I found this one picture, but then a bunch of other people upload that misinformation in different forms.

Another important aspect of AI is that anything I can do to prevent a person from having to look at terrible things is time well spent. Whether it’s a person employed by us as a moderator or a user of our services, looking at these things is a terrible experience. If I can build systems that take the worst of the worst, the really graphic violence, and deal with that in an automated fashion, that’s worth a lot to me. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437610 How Intel’s OpenBot Wants to Make ...

Posted on November 21, 2020 by Android

You could make a pretty persuasive argument that the smartphone represents the single fastest area of technological progress we’re going to experience for the foreseeable future. Every six months or so, there’s something with better sensors, more computing power, and faster connectivity. Many different areas of robotics are benefiting from this on a component level, but over at Intel Labs, they’re taking a more direct approach with a project called OpenBot that turns US $50 worth of hardware and your phone into a mobile robot that can support “advanced robotics workloads such as person following and real-time autonomous navigation in unstructured environments.”

This work aims to address two key challenges in robotics: accessibility and scalability. Smartphones are ubiquitous and are becoming more powerful by the year. We have developed a combination of hardware and software that turns smartphones into robots. The resulting robots are inexpensive but capable. Our experiments have shown that a $50 robot body powered by a smartphone is capable of person following and real-time autonomous navigation. We hope that the presented work will open new opportunities for education and large-scale learning via thousands of low-cost robots deployed around the world.

Smartphones point to many possibilities for robotics that we have not yet exploited. For example, smartphones also provide a microphone, speaker, and screen, which are not commonly found on existing navigation robots. These may enable research and applications at the confluence of human-robot interaction and natural language processing. We also expect the basic ideas presented in this work to extend to other forms of robot embodiment, such as manipulators, aerial vehicles, and watercraft.

One of the interesting things about this idea is how not-new it is. The highest profile phone robot was likely the $150 Romo, from Romotive, which raised a not-insignificant amount of money on Kickstarter in 2012 and 2013 for a little mobile chassis that accepted one of three different iPhone models and could be controlled via another device or operated somewhat autonomously. It featured “computer vision, autonomous navigation, and facial recognition” capabilities, but was really designed to be a toy. Lack of compatibility hampered Romo a bit, and there wasn’t a lot that it could actually do once the novelty wore off.

As impressive as smartphone hardware was in a robotics context (even back in 2013), we’re obviously way, way beyond that now, and OpenBot figures that smartphones now have enough clout and connectivity that turning them into mobile robots is a good idea. You know, again. We asked Intel Labs’ Matthias Muller why now was the right time to launch OpenBot, and he mentioned things like the existence of a large maker community with broad access to 3D printing as well as open source software that makes broader development easier.

And of course, there’s the smartphone hardware: “Smartphones have become extremely powerful and feature dedicated AI processors in addition to CPUs and GPUs,” says Mueller. “Almost everyone owns a very capable smartphone now. There has been a big boost in sensor performance, especially in cameras, and a lot of the recent developments for VR applications are well aligned with robotic requirements for state estimation.” OpenBot has been tested with 10 recent Android phones, and since camera placement tends to be similar and USB-C is becoming the charging and communications standard, compatibility is less of an issue nowadays.

Image: OpenBot

Intel researchers created this table comparing OpenBot to other wheeled robot platforms, including Amazon’s DeepRacer, MIT’s Duckiebot, iRobot’s Create-2, and Thymio. The top group includes robots based on RC trucks; the bottom group includes navigation robots for deployment at scale and in education. Note that the cost of the smartphone needed for OpenBot is not included in this comparison.

If you’d like an OpenBot of your own, you don’t need to know all that much about robotics hardware or software. For the hardware, you probably need some basic mechanical and electronics experience—think Arduino project level. The software is a little more complicated; there’s a pretty good walkthrough to get some relatively sophisticated behaviors (like autonomous person following) up and running, but things rapidly degenerate into a command line interface that could be intimidating for new users. We did ask about why OpenBot isn’t ROS-based to leverage the robustness and reach of that community, and Muller said that ROS “adds unnecessary overhead,” although “if someone insists on using ROS with OpenBot, it should not be very difficult.”

Without building OpenBot to explicitly be part of an existing ecosystem, the challenge going forward is to make sure that the project is consistently supported, lest it wither and die like so many similar robotics projects have before it. “We are committed to the OpenBot project and will do our best to maintain it,” Mueller assures us. “We have a good track record. Other projects from our group (e.g. CARLA, Open3D, etc.) have also been maintained for several years now.” The inherently open source nature of the project certainly helps, although it can be tricky to rely too much on community contributions, especially when something like this is first starting out.

The OpenBot folks at Intel, we’re told, are already working on a “bigger, faster and more powerful robot body that will be suitable for mass production,” which would certainly help entice more people into giving this thing a go. They’ll also be focusing on documentation, which is probably the most important but least exciting part about building a low-cost community focused platform like this. And as soon as they’ve put together a way for us actual novices to turn our phones into robots that can do cool stuff for cheap, we’ll definitely let you know. Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots

#437261 How AI Will Make Drug Discovery ...

Posted on July 24, 2020 by Android

If you had to guess how long it takes for a drug to go from an idea to your pharmacy, what would you guess? Three years? Five years? How about the cost? $30 million? $100 million?

Well, here’s the sobering truth: 90 percent of all drug possibilities fail. The few that do succeed take an average of 10 years to reach the market and cost anywhere from $2.5 billion to $12 billion to get there.

But what if we could generate novel molecules to target any disease, overnight, ready for clinical trials? Imagine leveraging machine learning to accomplish with 50 people what the pharmaceutical industry can barely do with an army of 5,000.

Welcome to the future of AI and low-cost, ultra-fast, and personalized drug discovery. Let’s dive in.

GANs & Drugs
Around 2012, computer scientist-turned-biophysicist Alex Zhavoronkov started to notice that artificial intelligence was getting increasingly good at image, voice, and text recognition. He knew that all three tasks shared a critical commonality. In each, massive datasets were available, making it easy to train up an AI.

But similar datasets were present in pharmacology. So, back in 2014, Zhavoronkov started wondering if he could use these datasets and AI to significantly speed up the drug discovery process. He’d heard about a new technique in artificial intelligence known as generative adversarial networks (or GANs). By pitting two neural nets against one another (adversarial), the system can start with minimal instructions and produce novel outcomes (generative). At the time, researchers had been using GANs to do things like design new objects or create one-of-a-kind, fake human faces, but Zhavoronkov wanted to apply them to pharmacology.

He figured GANs would allow researchers to verbally describe drug attributes: “The compound should inhibit protein X at concentration Y with minimal side effects in humans,” and then the AI could construct the molecule from scratch. To turn his idea into reality, Zhavoronkov set up Insilico Medicine on the campus of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and rolled up his sleeves.

Instead of beginning their process in some exotic locale, Insilico’s “drug discovery engine” sifts millions of data samples to determine the signature biological characteristics of specific diseases. The engine then identifies the most promising treatment targets and—using GANs—generates molecules (that is, baby drugs) perfectly suited for them. “The result is an explosion in potential drug targets and a much more efficient testing process,” says Zhavoronkov. “AI allows us to do with fifty people what a typical drug company does with five thousand.”

The results have turned what was once a decade-long war into a month-long skirmish.

In late 2018, for example, Insilico was generating novel molecules in fewer than 46 days, and this included not just the initial discovery, but also the synthesis of the drug and its experimental validation in computer simulations.

Right now, they’re using the system to hunt down new drugs for cancer, aging, fibrosis, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, ALS, diabetes, and many others. The first drug to result from this work, a treatment for hair loss, is slated to start Phase I trials by the end of 2020.

They’re also in the early stages of using AI to predict the outcomes of clinical trials in advance of the trial. If successful, this technique will enable researchers to strip a bundle of time and money out of the traditional testing process.

Protein Folding
Beyond inventing new drugs, AI is also being used by other scientists to identify new drug targets—that is, the place to which a drug binds in the body and another key part of the drug discovery process.

Between 1980 and 2006, despite an annual investment of $30 billion, researchers only managed to find about five new drug targets a year. The trouble is complexity. Most potential drug targets are proteins, and a protein’s structure—meaning the way a 2D sequence of amino acids folds into a 3D protein—determines its function.

But a protein with merely a hundred amino acids (a rather small protein) can produce a googol-cubed worth of potential shapes—that’s a one followed by three hundred zeroes. This is also why protein-folding has long been considered an intractably hard problem for even the most powerful of supercomputers.

Back in 1994, to monitor supercomputers’ progress in protein-folding, a biannual competition was created. Until 2018, success was fairly rare. But then the creators of DeepMind turned their neural networks loose on the problem. They created an AI that mines enormous datasets to determine the most likely distance between a protein’s base pairs and the angles of their chemical bonds—aka, the basics of protein-folding. They called it AlphaFold.

On its first foray into the competition, contestant AIs were given 43 protein-folding problems to solve. AlphaFold got 25 right. The second-place team managed a meager three. By predicting the elusive ways in which various proteins fold on the basis of their amino acid sequences, AlphaFold may soon have a tremendous impact in aiding drug discovery and fighting some of today’s most intractable diseases.

Drug Delivery
Another theater of war for improved drugs is the realm of drug delivery. Even here, converging exponential technologies are paving the way for massive implications in both human health and industry shifts.

One key contender is CRISPR, the fast-advancing gene-editing technology that stands to revolutionize synthetic biology and treatment of genetically linked diseases. And researchers have now demonstrated how this tool can be applied to create materials that shape-shift on command. Think: materials that dissolve instantaneously when faced with a programmed stimulus, releasing a specified drug at a highly targeted location.

Yet another potential boon for targeted drug delivery is nanotechnology, whereby medical nanorobots have now been used to fight incidences of cancer. In a recent review of medical micro- and nanorobotics, lead authors (from the University of Texas at Austin and University of California, San Diego) found numerous successful tests of in vivo operation of medical micro- and nanorobots.

Drugs From the Future
Covid-19 is uniting the global scientific community with its urgency, prompting scientists to cast aside nation-specific territorialism, research secrecy, and academic publishing politics in favor of expedited therapeutic and vaccine development efforts. And in the wake of rapid acceleration across healthcare technologies, Big Pharma is an area worth watching right now, no matter your industry. Converging technologies will soon enable extraordinary strides in longevity and disease prevention, with companies like Insilico leading the charge.

Riding the convergence of massive datasets, skyrocketing computational power, quantum computing, cognitive surplus capabilities, and remarkable innovations in AI, we are not far from a world in which personalized drugs, delivered directly to specified targets, will graduate from science fiction to the standard of care.

Rejuvenational biotechnology will be commercially available sooner than you think. When I asked Alex for his own projection, he set the timeline at “maybe 20 years—that’s a reasonable horizon for tangible rejuvenational biotechnology.”

How might you use an extra 20 or more healthy years in your life? What impact would you be able to make?

Join Me
(1) A360 Executive Mastermind: If you’re an exponentially and abundance-minded entrepreneur who would like coaching directly from me, consider joining my Abundance 360 Mastermind, a highly selective community of 360 CEOs and entrepreneurs who I coach for 3 days every January in Beverly Hills, Ca. Through A360, I provide my members with context and clarity about how converging exponential technologies will transform every industry. I’m committed to running A360 for the course of an ongoing 25-year journey as a “countdown to the Singularity.”

If you’d like to learn more and consider joining our 2021 membership, apply here.

(2) Abundance-Digital Online Community: I’ve also created a Digital/Online community of bold, abundance-minded entrepreneurs called Abundance-Digital. Abundance-Digital is Singularity University’s ‘onramp’ for exponential entrepreneurs—those who want to get involved and play at a higher level. Click here to learn more.

(Both A360 and Abundance-Digital are part of Singularity University—your participation opens you to a global community.)

This article originally appeared on diamandis.com. Read the original article here.

Image Credit: andreas160578 from Pixabay Continue reading →

Posted in Human Robots