Google is currently working on Meena, a particular chatbot, which should be able to have arbitrary conversations and be used in many contexts. In their paper “Towards a Human-like Open-Domain Chatbot“, the developers present the 2.6 billion parameters end-to-end trained neural conversational model. They show that Meena “can conduct conversations that are more sensible and specific than existing state-of-the-art chatbots”. “Such improvements are reflected through a new human evaluation metric that we propose for open-domain chatbots, called Sensibleness and Specificity Average (SSA), which captures basic, but important attributes for human conversation. Remarkably, we demonstrate that perplexity, an automatic metric that is readily available to any neural conversational models, highly correlates with SSA.” (Google AI Blog) The company draws a comparison with OpenAI GPT-2, a model used in “Talk to Transformer” and Harmony, among others, which uses 1.5 billion parameters and is based on the text content of 8 million web pages.
“Alphabet X, the company’s early research and development division, has unveiled the Everyday Robot project, whose aim is to develop a ‘general-purpose learning robot.’ The idea is to equip robots with cameras and complex machine-learning software, letting them observe the world around them and learn from it without needing to be taught every potential situation they may encounter.” (MIT Technology Review, 23 November 2019) This was reported by MIT Technology Review on 23 November 2019 in the article “Alphabet X’s ‘Everyday Robot’ project is making machines that learn as they go”. The approach of Alphabet X seems to be well though-out and target-oriented. In a way, it is oriented towards human learning. One could also teach robots human language in this way. With the help of microphones, cameras and machine learning, they would gradually understand us better and better. For example, they observe how we point to and comment on a person. Or they perceive that we point to an object and say a certain term – and after some time they conclude that this is the name of the object. However, such frameworks pose ethical and legal challenges. You can’t just designate cities as such test areas. The result would be comprehensive surveillance in public spaces. Specially established test areas, on the other hand, would probably not have the same benefits as “natural environments”. Many questions still need to be answered.
Artificial intelligence is spreading into more and more application areas. American scientists have now developed a system that can supplement texts: “Talk to Transformer”. The user enters a few sentences – and the AI system adds further passages. “The system is based on a method called DeepQA, which is based on the observation of patterns in the data. This method has its limitations, however, and the system is only effective for data on the order of 2 million words, according to a recent news article. For instance, researchers say that the system cannot cope with the large amounts of data from an academic paper. Researchers have also been unable to use this method to augment texts from academic sources. As a result, DeepQA will have limited application, according to the researchers. The scientists also note that there are more applications available in the field of text augmentation, such as automatic transcription, the ability to translate text from one language to another and to translate text into other languages.” The sentences in quotation marks are not from the author of this blog. They were written by the AI system itself. You can try it via talktotransformer.com.
In October 2019 Springer VS published the “Handbuch Maschinenethik” (“Handbook Machine Ethics”) with German and English contributions. Editor is Oliver Bendel (Zurich, Switzerland). One of the articles was written by Bertram F. Malle (Brown University, Rhode Island) and Matthias Scheutz (Tufts University, Massachusetts). From the abstract: “We describe a theoretical framework and recent research on one key aspect of robot ethics: the development and implementation of a robot’s moral competence. As autonomous machines take on increasingly social roles in human communities, these machines need to have some level of moral competence to ensure safety, acceptance, and justified trust. We review the extensive and complex elements of human moral competence and ask how analogous competences could be implemented in a robot. We propose that moral competence consists of five elements, two constituents (moral norms and moral vocabulary) and three activities (moral judgment, moral action, and moral communication). A robot’s computational representations of social and moral norms is a prerequisite for all three moral activities. However, merely programming in advance the vast network of human norms is impossible, so new computational learning algorithms are needed that allow robots to acquire and update the context-specific and graded norms relevant to their domain of deployment. Moral vocabulary is needed primarily for moral communication, which expresses moral judgments of others’ violations and explains one’s own moral violations – to justify them, apologize, or declare intentions to do better. Current robots have at best rudimentary moral competence, but with improved learning and reasoning they may begin to show the kinds of capacities that humans will expect of future social robots.” (Abstract “Handbuch Maschinenethik”). The book is available via www.springer.com.
Some months ago, researchers at the University of Massachusetts showed the climate toll of machine learning, especially deep learning. Training Google’s BERT, with its 340 million data parameters, emitted nearly as much carbon as a round-trip flight between the East and West coasts. According to Technology Review, the trend could also accelerate the concentration of AI research into the hands of a few big tech companies. “Under-resourced labs in academia or countries with fewer resources simply don’t have the means to use or develop such computationally expensive models.” (Technology Review, 4 October 2019) In response, some researchers are focused on shrinking the size of existing models without losing their capabilities. The magazine wrote enthusiastically: “Honey, I shrunk the AI” (Technology Review, 4 October 2019) There are advantages not only with regard to the environment and to the access to state-of-the-art AI. According to Technology Review, tiny models will help bring the latest AI advancements to consumer devices. “They avoid the need to send consumer data to the cloud, which improves both speed and privacy. For natural-language models specifically, more powerful text prediction and language generation could improve myriad applications like autocomplete on your phone and voice assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant.” (Technology Review, 4 October 2019)
“Within the field of deepfakes, or ‘synthetic media’ as researchers call it, much of the attention has been focused on fake faces potentially wreaking havoc on political reality, as well as other deep learning algorithms that can, for instance, mimic a person’s writing style and voice. But yet another branch of synthetic media technology is fast evolving: full body deepfakes.” (Fast Company, 21 September 2019) Last year, researchers from the University of California Berkeley demonstrated in an impressive way how deep learning can be used to transfer dance moves from a professional onto the bodies of amateurs. Also in 2018, a team from the University of Heidelberg published a paper on teaching machines to realistically render human movements. And in spring of this year, a Japanese company developed an AI that can generate whole body models of nonexistent persons. “While it’s clear that full body deepfakes have interesting commercial applications, like deepfake dancing apps or in fields like athletics and biomedical research, malicious use cases are an increasing concern amid today’s polarized political climate riven by disinformation and fake news.” (Fast Company, 21 September 2019) Was anyone really in this area, did he or she really take part in a demonstration and throw stones? In the future you won’t know for sure.