16,246 research outputs found
Introduction to Library Trends 44 (2) Fall 1995: The Library and Undergraduate Education
published or submitted for publicatio
Recommended from our members
When users control the algorithms: Values expressed in practices on the twitter platform
Recent interest in ethical AI has brought a slew of values, including fairness, into conversations about technology design. Research in the area of algorithmic fairness tends to be rooted in questions of distribution that can be subject to precise formalism and technical implementation. We seek to expand this conversation to include the experiences of people subject to algorithmic classification and decision-making. By examining tweets about the “Twitter algorithm” we consider the wide range of concerns and desires Twitter users express. We find a concern with fairness (narrowly construed) is present, particularly in the ways users complain that the platform enacts a political bias against conservatives. However, we find another important category of concern, evident in attempts to exert control over the algorithm. Twitter users who seek control do so for a variety of reasons, many well justified. We argue for the need for better and clearer definitions of what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate control over algorithmic processes and to consider support for users who wish to enact their own collective choices
The Future of Human-Artificial Intelligence Nexus and its Environmental Costs
The environmental costs and energy constraints have become emerging issues for the future development of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). So far, the discussion on environmental impacts of ML/AI lacks a perspective reaching beyond quantitative measurements of the energy-related research costs. Building on the foundations laid down by Schwartz et al., 2019 in the GreenAI initiative, our argument considers two interlinked phenomena, the gratuitous generalisation capability and the future where ML/AI performs the majority of quantifiable inductive inferences. The gratuitous generalisation capability refers to a discrepancy between the cognitive demands of a task to be accomplished and the performance (accuracy) of a used ML/AI model. If the latter exceeds the former because the model was optimised to achieve the best possible accuracy, it becomes inefficient and its operation harmful to the environment. The future dominated by the non-anthropic induction describes a use of ML/AI so all-pervasive that most of the inductive inferences become furnished by ML/AI generalisations. The paper argues that the present debate deserves an expansion connecting the environmental costs of research and ineffective ML/AI uses (the issue of gratuitous generalisation capability) with the (near) future marked by the all-pervasive Human-Artificial Intelligence Nexus
A note on science, legal research and artificial intelligence
This paper discusses the principles of scientific research and in turn review legal research that was done using Artificial Intelligence arguing that it is the tools (Artificial Intelligence) that take center stage while the meaning (legal research) is left back stage. In turn, this kind of research does not adhere to the fundamentals of scientific research nor comply with scientific and industry ethical codes
On the Value of Out-of-Distribution Testing: An Example of Goodhart's Law
Out-of-distribution (OOD) testing is increasingly popular for evaluating a
machine learning system's ability to generalize beyond the biases of a training
set. OOD benchmarks are designed to present a different joint distribution of
data and labels between training and test time. VQA-CP has become the standard
OOD benchmark for visual question answering, but we discovered three troubling
practices in its current use. First, most published methods rely on explicit
knowledge of the construction of the OOD splits. They often rely on
``inverting'' the distribution of labels, e.g. answering mostly 'yes' when the
common training answer is 'no'. Second, the OOD test set is used for model
selection. Third, a model's in-domain performance is assessed after retraining
it on in-domain splits (VQA v2) that exhibit a more balanced distribution of
labels. These three practices defeat the objective of evaluating
generalization, and put into question the value of methods specifically
designed for this dataset. We show that embarrassingly-simple methods,
including one that generates answers at random, surpass the state of the art on
some question types. We provide short- and long-term solutions to avoid these
pitfalls and realize the benefits of OOD evaluation
Critically Examining the "Neural Hype": Weak Baselines and the Additivity of Effectiveness Gains from Neural Ranking Models
Is neural IR mostly hype? In a recent SIGIR Forum article, Lin expressed
skepticism that neural ranking models were actually improving ad hoc retrieval
effectiveness in limited data scenarios. He provided anecdotal evidence that
authors of neural IR papers demonstrate "wins" by comparing against weak
baselines. This paper provides a rigorous evaluation of those claims in two
ways: First, we conducted a meta-analysis of papers that have reported
experimental results on the TREC Robust04 test collection. We do not find
evidence of an upward trend in effectiveness over time. In fact, the best
reported results are from a decade ago and no recent neural approach comes
close. Second, we applied five recent neural models to rerank the strong
baselines that Lin used to make his arguments. A significant improvement was
observed for one of the models, demonstrating additivity in gains. While there
appears to be merit to neural IR approaches, at least some of the gains
reported in the literature appear illusory.Comment: Published in the Proceedings of the 42nd Annual International ACM
SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR
2019
- …