Skip to main content

Neil Lawrence - Atomic Human interview

Neil Lawrence is the DeepMind Professor of Machine Learning at the University of Cambridge where he leads the university-wide initiative on AI, and a Senior AI Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute. Previously he was Director of Machine Learning at Amazon, deploying solutions for Alexa, Prime Air and the Amazon supply chain. Co-host of the Talking Machines podcast, he's written a series for The Guardian and appeared regularly on other media. Known for his policy and societal work with the UK's AI Council, the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation, and the OECD's Global Partnership on AI, his research focuses on improving data governance, accelerating scientific discovery, and how humans can take back control of large AI systems. His latest title is The Atomic Human.

What would you like your book to achieve?

I wanted it to speak to individuals from different backgrounds in a way that didn’t preach or tell, but told stories in a way the reader could relate to. I hope the book allows people to bring their own perspectives and combine them with a more nuanced understanding of intelligence. In a way the book is an edited version of me, one that’s more coherent and tempers my more polemic instincts. I’d like to be in a world where everyone feels confident (and informed) when having a say in how we use this technology. I hope the reader leaves the book feeling more empowered to have that say.

You emphasise how humans have to cope with very limited bandwidth compared with AIs - is there anything we can do make the best of our limitations?

I think how we deal with this varies according to our personalities. For me, it makes me realise I have to better understand someone’s culture before I understand their words. I feel arguments arise when other people’s words are combined with our premises, but to understand people you have to understand their premises. I think I’ve got better at that as I’ve got older.

I take your point that we shouldn't allow AIs to make life-changing decisions without human supervision, but can we realistically impose this?

Likely not fully, although existing legistlation already attempts to do this. In GDPR consequential decisions should be taken by humans or be rendered explainable. And I think that’s trying to get to this point. Even if we can’t enforce this precisely, I’m worried that the current debate around AI doesn’t seem to have this principle at its heart. Referring back to your first question, having this principle at the heart would be a change I hope the book can help enact. 

Given concerns about AI decision making, should autonomous vehicles be allowed on the roads (particularly narrow, windy European roads)?

I think I worry more about the busyness of the roads and the  shared usage between pedestrians, cyclists, etc that you get e.g. in city centres. Motorways would seem ideal for deployment already, but they are much more tightly regulated than other roads (no cyclists or pedestrians). This reflects what we’ve seen in previous waves of automation, humans have to adapt to computers to accommodate them. What I call the 'great AI fallacy' is the idea that this trend would be different for AI.

A colleague recently visited the US and said that one of the major challenges the Wayve vehicle he rode in had was in dropping off. It struggled to find a legal place to park near the destination. I suspect that most taxi drivers would just have parked illegally. That’s something we seem to tolerate from humans but likely won’t tolerate from machines. I think that relates to the core theme of the book, which is really about the shared jeopardy of human society. Since machines don’t share in the jeopardy I think we will never indulge them in the same way we do humans (or other animals). I think that has significant implications not just for autonomous vehicles but in a range of other societal domains where human decision making comes into contact with machines.

What’s exciting you at the moment (in AI or otherwise)?

The potential that AI could allow the computer to become a tool, not just of software engineers, but of regular people. In a similar manner to the printing press enabled writing to become accessible to regular people.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lake of Darkness (SF) - Adam Roberts *****

Two of the best ever fantasy writers - Alan Garner and Gene Wolfe - both wrote books that over the years got more sophisticated and harder to take in, yet these books really rewarded the reader who put in the effort to a great degree. Adam Roberts has become their equivalent in the science fiction world. Although much of Lake of Darkness is an easy enough read, the concepts it is built on are mind-boggling and the last part left my mind buzzing, if not entirely sure what I had just experienced. This could be seen as one of Roberts' few ventures into space opera - it certainly has the large scale trappings of this sub-genre. But the setting here is very different. Fairly early on, one of the characters (who it is does not become clear until later) addresses the reader directly, poking fun at the way that science fiction stereotypically sees space-based societies almost inevitably as militaristic, with ships modelled on warships. This is a very different type of future, with a socie
Post a Comment
Read more

Radical Thinking - Peter Lamont *****

It's not often you start reading a book and within a few pages are thinking 'this is something special.' Peter Lamont writes with a distinctive style, in places verging on poetry or liturgy in the way he uses repeated sentences for emphasis. There's also something of the dance of the seven veils about the whole thing - he glides around a subject, letting the reader catch a glimpse of something interesting, but taking his time to coyly reveal things. That can be a touch irritating at times, but it certainly catches the attention. What this book isn't despite the subtitle, is a 'how to' guide, except at the most basic level. And it probably isn't about radical thinking per se either - it's more about the nature of thinking in general, and critical thinking in particular. Lamont uses various walks around bits of Edinburgh (where he lives and works), using historical connections to expose us to the nature of what we think about things and what to make of
Post a Comment
Read more

Marcus Chown - A Crack in Everything interview

Marcus Chown graduated from the University of London in 1980 with a first class degree in physics. He also earned a Master of Science in astrophysics from the California Institute of Technology. With much experience writing for magazines such as New Scientist, Chown has written a string of successful popular science books. His latest title is A Crack in Everything . Why black holes? I thought there was a fascinating, and largely untold, story about how black holes, once considered so ridiculous as to not even be the preserve of science fiction, have moved relentlessly into the centre of science over the past century. They evidently play some key but mysterious role in the universe, creating all we see around us and even explaining why we are here at all. But what that is nobody knows. What I am talking about is 'supermassive' black holes. There is one in the heart of every galaxy, and some have huge masses of tens of billions of times that of the sun. What they are doing there?
Post a Comment
Read more