Skip to main content

The AI Delusion - Gary Smith *****

This is a very important little book ('little' isn't derogatory - it's just quite short and in a small format) - it gets to the heart of the problem with applying artificial intelligence techniques to large amounts of data and thinking that somehow this will result in wisdom.

Gary Smith as an economics professor who teaches statistics, understands numbers and, despite being a self-confessed computer addict, is well aware of the limitations of computer algorithms and big data. What he makes clear here is that we forget at our peril that computers do not understand the data that they process, and as a result are very susceptible to GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. Yet we are increasingly dependent on computer-made decisions coming out of black box algorithms which mine vast quantities of data to find correlations and use these to make predictions. What's wrong with this? We don't know how the algorithms are making their predictions - and the algorithms don't know the difference between correlation and causality.

The scientist's (and statistician's) mantra is often 'correlation is not causality.' What this means is that if we have two things happening in the world we choose to measure - let's call them A (it could be banana imports) and B (it could number of pregnancies in the country) and if B rises and falls as A does, it doesn't mean that B is caused by A. It could be that A is caused B, A and B are both caused by C, or it's just a random coincidence. The banana import/pregnancy correlation actually happened in the UK for a number of years after the second world war. Human statisticians would never think the pregnancies were caused by banana imports - but an algorithm would not know any better.

In the banana case there was probably a C linking the two, but because modern data mining systems handle vast quantities of data and look at hundreds or thousands of variables, it is almost inevitable that they will discover apparent links between two sets of information where the coincidence is totally random. The correlation happens to work for the data being mined, but is totally useless for predicting the future. 

This is the thesis at the heart of this book. Smith makes four major points that really should be drummed into all stock traders, politicians, banks, medics, social media companies... and anyone else who is tempted to think that letting a black box algorithm loose on vast quantities of data will make useful predictions. First, there are patterns in randomness. Given enough values, totally random data will have patterns embedded within it - it's easy to assume that these have a meaning, but they don't. Second, correlation is not causality. Third, cherry picking is dangerous. Often these systems pick the bits of the data that work and ignore the bits that don't - an absolute no-no in proper analysis. And finally, data without theory is treacherous. You need to have a theory and test it against the data - if you try to derive the theory from the data with no oversight, it will always fit that data, but is very unlikely to be correct.

My only problems with book is that Smith insists for some reason on making databases two words ('data bases' - I know, not exactly terrible), and the book can feel a bit repetitious because most of it consists of repeated examples of how the four points above lead AI systems to make terrible predictions - from Hillary Clinton's system mistakenly telling her team where to focus canvassing effort to the stock trading systems produced by 'quants'. But I think that repetition is important here because it shows just how much we are under the sway of these badly thought-out systems - and how much we need to insist that algorithms that affect our lives are transparent and work from knowledge, not through data mining. 

As Smith points out, we regularly hear worries that AI systems are going to get so clever that they will take over the world. But actually the big problem is that our AI systems are anything but intelligent: 'In the age of Big Data, the real danger is not that computers are smarter than us, but that we think computers are smarter than us and therefore trust computers to make important decisions for us.’

This should be big-selling book. A plea to the publisher: change the cover (it just looks like it's badly printed and smudged) and halve the price to give it wider appeal. 

Hardback:  

Kindle:  

Review by Brian Clegg

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Demon in the Machine - Paul Davies *****

Physicists have a habit of dabbling in biology and, perhaps surprisingly, biologists tend to be quite tolerant of it. (I find it hard to believe the reverse would be true if biologists tried to do physics.) Perhaps one reason for that tolerance is Schrödinger’s lecture series and book What is Life?, which had a huge impact on molecular biology and with a reference to which, not surprisingly, Paul Davies begins his fascinating book. 

At the heart of the The Demon in the Machine (we'll come back to that demon in a moment) is the relationship between life and information. In essence, Davies points out that if we try to reduce life to its simple physical components it is like trying to work with a computer that has no software. The equivalent of software here is information, not just in the best publicised aspect of the information stored in the DNA, but on a far broader scale, operating in networks across the organism.
This information and its processing gives life its emergent compl…

The Cosmic Mystery Tour – Nicholas Mee ****

This is another book, like last year’s Enjoy Our Universe by Alvaro de Rújula, that sets out to provide a light-hearted introduction to physics and astrophysics for the general reader. It’s from the same publisher (OUP) and packaged in the same way: as a high quality small-format hardback with 200 glossy pages, the majority of them adorned with colour pictures. But that’s where the resemblance ends. Unlike its predecessor, this new book by Nicholas Mee delivers exactly what it promises.

It’s not that de Rújula’s book was a bad one, but he just wasn’t able to think his way into the reader’s mind. He kept saying ‘physics is fun’, but he was talking about the fun a professional physicist gets out of doing it – which is a very arcane, often highly mathematical, type of fun. The result, for a non-specialist reader, was actually quite alienating. Mee, on the other hand, understands exactly how his readers think, what they find interesting, and the details that – no matter how important they …

Professor Maxwell's Duplicitous Demon - Brian Clegg ****

‘It’s not uncommon when trying to give Maxwell his rightful place in the pantheon of physics to bracket him with Newton and Einstein’, Brian Clegg says towards the end of this book. In one sense that’s perfectly true. Dip into any physics textbook and you’ll see Maxwell’s name at least as often as the other two. His greatest achievement – Maxwell’s equations – did for electromagnetism what Newton had done for gravity, while laying the essential theoretical groundwork for everything Einstein was to do.

There’s a big difference, though. A few years ago, when I was offered the chance to write short biographies of Newton and Einstein, I jumped at it – because they addressed mysteries of the universe that anyone can relate to, and their lives outside physics were, if anything, even more fascinating. At the risk of sounding downright rude, you can’t say either of those things about James Clerk Maxwell. In spite of that, Brian Clegg has done a wonderful job here of recounting just what Maxwel…