Thursday, July 13, 2023

AI

How an “AI-tocracy” emerges

In China, the use of AI-driven facial recognition helps the regime repress dissent while enhancing the technology, researchers report

Peer-Reviewed Publication

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY



CAMBRIDGE, MA -- Many scholars, analysts, and other observers have suggested that resistance to innovation is an Achilles’ heel of authoritarian regimes. Such governments can fail to keep up with technological changes that help their opponents; they may also, by stifling rights, inhibit innovative economic activity and weaken the long-term condition of the country. 

But a new study co-led by an MIT professor suggests something quite different. In China, the research finds, the government has increasingly deployed AI-driven facial-recognition technology to suppress dissent; has been successful at limiting protest; and in the process, has spurred the development of better AI-based facial-recognition tools and other forms of software.

“What we found is that in regions of China where there is more unrest, that leads to greater government procurement of facial-recognition AI, subsequently, by local government units such as municipal police departments,” says MIT economist Martin Beraja, who is co-author of a new paper detailing the findings. 

What follows, as the paper notes, is that “AI innovation entrenches the regime, and the regime’s investment in AI for political control stimulates further frontier innovation.”

The scholars call this state of affairs an “AI-tocracy,” describing the connected cycle in which increased deployment of the AI-driven technology quells dissent while also boosting the country’s innovation capacity.

The open-access paper, also called “AI-tocracy,” appears in the August issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics. An abstract of the uncorrected proof was first posted online in March. The co-authors are Beraja, who is the Pentti Kouri Career Development Associate Professor of Economics at MIT; Andrew Kao, a doctoral candidate in economics at Harvard University; David Yang, a professor of economics at Harvard; and Noam Yuchtman, a professor of management at the London School of Economics. 

To conduct the study, the scholars drew on multiple kinds of evidence spanning much of the last decade. To catalogue instances of political unrest in China, they used data from the Global Database of Events, Language, and Tone (GDELT) Project, which records news feeds globally. The team turned up 9,267 incidents of unrest between 2014 and 2020. 

The researchers then examined records of almost 3 million procurementcontracts issued by the Chinese government between 2013 and 2019, from a database maintained by China’s Ministry of Finance. They found that local governments’ procurement of facial-recognition AI services and complementary public security tools — high-resolution video cameras — jumped significantly in the quarter following an episode of public unrest in that area.

Given that Chinese government officials were clearly responding to public dissent activities by ramping up on facial-recognition technology, the researchers then examined a follow-up question: Did this approach work to suppress dissent?

The scholars believe that it did, although as they note in the paper, they “cannot directly estimate the effect” of the technology on political unrest. But as one way of getting at that question, they studied the relationship between weather and political unrest in different areas of China. Certain weather conditions are conducive to political unrest. But in prefectures in China that had already invested heavily in facial-recognition technology, such weather conditions are less conducive to unrest compared to prefectures that had not made the same investments. 

In so doing, the researchers also accounted for issues such as whether or not greater relative wealth levels in some areas might have produced larger investments in AI-driven technologies regardless of protest patterns. However, the scholars still reached the same conclusion: Facial-recognition technology was being deployed in response to past protests, and then reducing further protest levels. 

“It suggests that the technology is effective in chilling unrest,” Beraja says. 

Finally, the research team studied the effects of increased AI demand on China’s technology sector and found the government’s greater use of facial-recognition tools appears to be driving the country’s tech sector forward. For instance, firms that are granted procurement contracts for facial-recognition technologies subsequently produce about 49 percent more software products in the two years after gaining the government contract than they had beforehand. 

“We examine if this leads to greater innovation by facial-recognition AI firms, and indeed it does,” Beraja says.

Such data — from China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology — also indicates that AI-driven tools are not necessarily “crowding out” other kinds of high-tech innovation.

Adding it all up, the case of China indicates how autocratic governments can potentially reach a near-equilibrium state in which their political power is enhanced, rather than upended, when they harness technological advances.

“In this age of AI, when the technologies not only generate growth but are also technologies of repression, they can be very useful” to authoritarian regimes, Beraja says. 

The finding also bears on larger questions about forms of government and economic growth. A significant body of scholarly research shows that rights-granting democratic institutions do generate greater economic growth over time, in part by creating better conditions for technological innovation. Beraja notes that the current study does not contradict those earlier findings, but in examining the effects of AI in use, it does identify one avenue through which authoritarian governments can generate more growth than they otherwise would have. 

“This may lead to cases where more autocratic institutions develop side by side with growth,” Beraja adds. 

Other experts in the societal applications of AI say the paper makes a valuable contribution to the field. 

“This is an excellent and important paper that improves our understanding of the interaction between technology, economic success, and political power,” says Avi Goldfarb, the Rotman Chair in Artificial Intelligence and Healthcare and a professor of marketing at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. “The paper documents a positive feedback loop between the use of AI facial-recognition technology to monitor suppress local unrest in China and the development and training of AI models. This paper is pioneering research in AI and political economy. As AI diffuses, I expect this research area to grow in importance.”

For their part, the scholars are continuing to work on related aspects of this issue. One forthcoming paper of theirs examines the extent to which China is exporting advanced facial-recognition technologies around the world — highlighting a mechanism through which government repression could grow globally.

###    

Support for the research was provided in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program; the Harvard Data Science Initiative; and the British Academy’s Global Professorships program.

 

 

Could AI-powered robot “companions” combat human loneliness?


Companion robots may help socially isolated people avoid the health risks of being alone

Peer-Reviewed Publication

DUKE UNIVERSITY

AUKLAND, NZ and DURHAM, N.C. – Companion robots enhanced with artificial intelligence may one day help alleviate the loneliness epidemic, suggests a new report from researchers at Auckland, Duke, and Cornell Universities.

Their report, appearing in the July 12 issue of Science Robotics, maps some of the ethical considerations for governments, policy makers, technologists, and clinicians, and urges stakeholders to come together to rapidly develop guidelines for trust, agency, engagement, and real-world efficacy.

It also proposes a new way to measure whether a companion robot is helping someone.

“Right now, all the evidence points to having a real friend as the best solution,” said Murali Doraiswamy, MBBS, FRCP, professor of Psychiatry and Geriatrics at Duke University and member of the Duke Institute for Brain Sciences. “But until society prioritizes social connectedness and eldercare, robots are a solution for the millions of isolated people who have no other solutions.”

The number of Americans with no close friends has quadrupled since 1990, according to the Survey Center on American Life. Increased loneliness and social isolation may affect a third of the world population, and come with serious health consequences, such as increased risk for mental illness, obesity, dementia, and early death. Loneliness may even be as pernicious a health factor as smoking cigarettes, according to the U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy, M.D.

While it is increasingly difficult to make new friends as an adult to help offset loneliness, making a companion robot to support socially isolated older adults may prove to be a promising solution.

“AI presents exciting opportunities to give companion robots greater skills to build social connection,” said Elizabeth Broadbent, Ph.D., professor of Psychological Medicine at Waipapa Taumata Rau, University of Auckland. “But we need to be careful to build in rules to ensure they are moral and trustworthy.”

Social robots like the ElliQ have had thousands of interactions with human users, nearly half related to simple companionship, including company over a cup of tea or coffee. A growing body of research on companion robots suggests they can reduce stress and loneliness and can help older people remain healthy and active in their homes.

Newer robots embedded with advanced AI programs may foster stronger social connections with humans than earlier generations of robots. Generative AI like ChatGPT, which is based on large language models, allows robots to engage in more spontaneous conversations, and even mimic the voices of old friends and loved ones who have passed away.

Doctors are mostly on board, too, the authors point out. A Sermo survey of 307 care providers across Europe and the United States showed that 69% of physicians agreed that social robots could provide companionship, relieve isolation, and potentially improve patients’ mental health. Seventy percent of doctors also felt insurance companies should cover the cost of companion robots if they prove to be effective friendship supplement. How to measure a robot’s impact, though, remains tricky.

This lack of measurability highlights the need to develop patient-rated outcome measures, such as the one being developed by the authors. The “Companion Robot Impact Scale” (Co-Bot-I-7) aims to establish the impact on physical health and loneliness, and is showing that companion machines might already be proving effective.

Early results from Broadbent’s lab, for example, find that amiable androids help reduce stress and even promote skin healing after a minor wound.

“With the right ethical guidelines,” the authors conclude in their report, “we may be able to build on current work to use robots to create a healthier society.”

In addition to Dr. Doraiswamy and Professor Broadbent, study authors include Mark Billinghurst, Ph.D., and Samantha Boardman, M.D.

Professor Broadbent and Dr. Doraiswamy have served as advisors to Sermo and technology companies. Dr. Doraiswamy, Professor Broadbent, and Dr. Boardman are co-developers of the Co-Bot-I-7 scale.

CITATION: “Enhancing Social Connectedness With Companion Robots Employing AI,” Elizabeth Broadbent, Mark Billinghurst, Samantha G. Boardman, P. Murali Doraiswamy. Science Robotics, July 12, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/scirobotics.adi6347

No comments:

Post a Comment