Daily Archives: July 1, 2020

New mathematical idea reins in AI bias towards making unethical and costly commercial choices

Posted on by

Researchers from the University of Warwick, Imperial College London, EPFL (Lausanne) and Sciteb Ltd have found a mathematical means of helping regulators and business manage and police Artificial Intelligence systems’ biases towards making unethical, and potentially very costly and damaging commercial choices—an ethical eye on AI.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly deployed in commercial situations. Consider for example using AI to set prices of insurance products to be sold to a particular customer. There are legitimate reasons for setting different prices for different people, but it may also be profitable to ‘game’ their psychology or willingness to shop around.

The AI has a vast number of potential strategies to choose from, but some are unethical and will incur not just moral cost but a significant potential economic penalty as stakeholders will apply some penalty if they find that such a strategy has been used—regulators may levy significant fines of billions of Dollars, Pounds or Euros and customers may boycott you—or both.

So in an environment in which decisions are increasingly made without , there is therefore a very strong incentive to know under what circumstances AI systems might adopt an unethical strategy and reduce that risk or eliminate entirely if possible.

Mathematicians and statisticians from University of Warwick, Imperial, EPFL and Sciteb Ltd have come together to help business and regulators creating a new “Unethical Optimization Principle” and provide a simple formula to estimate its impact. They have laid out the full details in a paper bearing the name “An unethical optimization principle”, published in Royal Society Open Science on Wednesday 1st July 2020.

The four authors of the paper are Nicholas Beale of Sciteb Ltd; Heather Battey of the Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London; Anthony C. Davison of the Institute of Mathematics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; and Professor Robert MacKay of the Mathematics Institute of the University of Warwick.

Professor Robert MacKay of the Mathematics Institute of the University of Warwick said:

“Our suggested ‘Unethical Optimization Principle’ can be used to help regulators, compliance staff and others to find problematic strategies that might be hidden in a large strategy space. Optimisation can be expected to choose disproportionately many unethical strategies, inspection of which should show where problems are likely to arise and thus suggest how the AI search algorithm should be modified to avoid them in future.

“The Principle also suggests that it may be necessary to re-think the way AI operates in very large spaces, so that unethical outcomes are explicitly rejected in the optimization/learning process.”

Explore further

COVID-19 vaccine development: New guidelines for ethical approach to infecting trial volunteers

More information: An Unethical Optimization Principle, Royal Society Open Science (2020). URL after publication: royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200462

Source: New mathematical idea reins in AI bias towards making unethical and costly commercial choices

Google Just Acquired Smart Glasses Startup North, then kills off the product

Posted on by

Last Friday, it was reported that Canadian smart glasses startup North was on the verge of being snapped up by Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Today, it’s official.

North announced the acquisition on both Twitter and in an official blog. Details regarding the terms of the sale were scant, though a Globe and Mail scoop from Friday put the number at around $180 million. North’s remaining staff will, however, be staying in Kitchener-Waterloo, Canada and joining a Google team also based there.

“We couldn’t be more thrilled to join Google, and to take an exciting next step towards the future we’ve been focused on for the past eight years,” wrote North co-founders Stephen Lake, Matthew Bailey, and Aaron Grant in the blog.

[…]

Well, it looks like with the acquisition, we’ll never know if a Focals 2.0 would’ve fixed the problems of the original. North’s blog says the company will not only be winding down Focals 1.0, but that the Focals 2.0 will not ship. At the end of the blog, North provides an email for refund requests, and notes that customer support will continue through the end of 2020. And, if Twitter is any indication, refund emails to existing North customers have already begun hitting inboxes.

Source: Google Just Acquired Smart Glasses Startup North

Yup, this is how monopolies kill the competition.

Note, this article claims that Google was the first company with smart glasses, but I’m pretty sure that Recon Instruments would disagree – another company that was bought up.

I talked about this problem during DORS/CLUC in 2019

 

The internet becomes trademarkable, sort of, with near-unanimous Supreme Court ruling on Booking.com

Posted on by

The internet’s domain names have become potentially trademarkable following a decision by the US Supreme Court today that Booking.com can in fact be registered with America’s Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) – against officials’ objections.

The near-unanimous decision [PDF] – Justice Stephen Breyer was the sole rebel – went against the PTO’s legal arguments that adding “.com” to a generic term was like adding “company” to a word and so “conveys no additional meaning that would distinguish [one provider’s] services from those of other providers.”

The Supreme Court disagreed; at some length. It agreed with both the district court and the appeals court that “consumers do not in fact perceive the term ‘Booking.com’ that way.” It cited as a key piece of evidence a survey that showed 75 per cent of respondents thought ‘Booking.com’ was a brand name, whereas just 24 per cent believed it was a generic name.

It didn’t help that the PTO hasn’t followed its own argument in the past, with the court noting trademark registration #3,601,346 for Art.com and #2,580,467 for Dating.com. If the decision went against Booking.com, the Supreme Court reasoned, then existing approved trademarks would “be at risk of cancellation.” But it was also scathing in its assessment that “we discern no support for the PTO’s current view in trademark law or policy.”

The same survey that showed 75 per cent of people felt Booking.com was a brand however also revealed that only 33 per cent felt “Washingmachine.com” was a brand whereas 61 per cent though it was generic. And that subjective measurement is likely to prove to be a major headache for the PTO in deciding on what presumably will now be a rush of .com trademark applications.

Source: The internet becomes trademarkable, sort of, with near-unanimous Supreme Court ruling on Booking.com • The Register