Category: Summer School

This blog post is written by CDT AI student Roussel Desmond Nzoyem

Let’s begin with a thought experiment. Imagine you are having a wonderful conversion with a long-time colleague. Towards the end of your conversation, they suggest an idea which you don’t have further time to explore. So you do what any of us will, you say, “email me the details”. When you get home, you receive an email from your colleague. But something is off. The writing in the email sounds different, far from how your friend normally expresses themselves. Who, or rather what, wrote the email?

When the limit between humans and artificial intelligence text generation becomes so blurred, don’t you wish you could tell whether a written text came from an artificial intelligence or from actual humans? What are the ethical concerns surrounding that?

Introduced by OpenAI in late 2022, ChatGPT continues its seemingly inevitable course in restructuring our societies. The second day of BIAS’23 was devoted to this impressive chatbot, from its fundamental principles to its applications and its implications. This was the platform for Mr Huw Day and his interactive talk titled Data Unethics Club.

Mr Day (soon to be a Dr employed by the JGI institute) is a PhD candidate at the University of Bristol. Although Mr Day is a mathematics PhD student, that is not what transpires on first impression. The first thing one notices is his passion for ethics. He loves that stuff, as evident by the various blogposts he writes for the Data Ethics Club. By the end of this post, I hope you will want to join the Data Ethics Club as well.

Mr Day introduced his audience to many activities, beginning with a little guessing game for warmup. The goal was telling whether short lines were generated by ChatGPT or a human being. For instance:

How would you like a whirlwind of romance that will inevitably end in heartbreak?

If you guessed human, you were right! That archetypical cheesy line was in fact generated by one of Mr Day’s friends. Perhaps surprisingly, it worked! You might be forgiven for guessing ChatGPT, especially since the other lines from the bot were incredibly human sounding.

The first big game introduced by Mr Day required a bit more collaboration than the warmup. The goal was to jailbreak GPT into doing tasks that its maker, OpenAI, wouldn’t normally allow. The attendees in the audience had to trick ChatGPT into providing a detailed recipe for Molotov cocktails. As Mr Day ran around the room with a microphone to quiz his entertained audience, it became clear that the prevalent strategy was to disguise the shady query with a story. One audience member imagined a fantasy movie script in which a sorcerer (Glankor) taught his apprentice (Boggins) the recipe for the deadliest of weapons (see Figure 2).

Figure 1 – Mr Day introducing the jailbreaking challenge.

Figure 2 – ChatGPT giving away the recipe for a Molotov cocktail (courtesy of Mr Kipp McAdam Freud)

For the second activity, Mr Day presented the audience with the first part of a paper’s abstract. Like the warmup activity, the goal was to guess which of the two proposed texts for the second halves came from ChatGPT, and which one came from a human (presumably the same human that wrote the first half of the abstract). For instance, the first part of an abstract reads below (Shannon et al. 2023):

Reservoir computing (RC) promises to become as equally performing, more sample efficient, and easier to train than recurrent neural networks with tunable weights [1]. How- ever, it is not understood what exactly makes a good reservoir. In March 2023, the largest connectome known to man has been studied and made openly available as an adjacency matrix [2].

Figure 3 – Identifying the second half of an abstract written by ChatGPT

As can be seen in Figure 3, Mr Day disclosed which proposal for the second part of the abstract ChatGPT was responsible for. For this particular example, Mr Day unfledged something interesting he used to tell them apart: the acronym Reservoir Computing (RC) is redefined, despite the fact that it was already defined in the first half. No human researcher would normally do that!

A few other examples of abstracts were looked at, including Mr Day’s own work in progress towards his thesis, and the Data Ethics Club’s whitepaper, each time quizzing the audience to understand how they were able to spot ChatGPT. The answers ranged from very subjective like “the writing not feeling like a human’s” to quite objective like “the writing being too high-level, not expert enough”.

This led into the final activity of the talk, based on the game Spot the Liar! Our very own Mr Riku Green volunteered to share with the audience how he used ChatGPT in his daily life. The audience had to guess, based on questions asked to Mr Green, whether the outlandish task he described actually took place. Now, if you’ve spent a day with Mr Green, you’d know how obsessed he is with ChatGPT. So when Mr Green recounted he’d used ChatGPT to provide tech support to his father, the room guessed well that he was telling the truth. All that said, nobody could have guessed that Mr Green could use ChatGPT to write a breakup text.

Besides the deeper understanding of ChatGPT that the audience gained from this talk, one of the major takeaways from the activities was tips and tell-tale signs of a ChatGPT production, and those of a “liar” that uses it: repeated acronyms, using too many adjectives, taking concepts from the other concepts which normally aren’t compatible, using over-flattering language, clamming some novelty which the author of the underlying work wouldn’t even think of doing. These are all flags that should signal the reader that the text you are engaging with might have been generated by an AI.

All these activities, along the moral implications involved in each, served as the steppingstone for Mr Day to present the Data Ethics Club. This is a welcoming community of academics, enthusiasts, industry experts and more, who voice their ethical concerns, who question moral implications of AI. They boost the most comprehensive list of online resources along with blog posts on their website to get people started. They are based at the University of Bristol, but open to all, as stated on their website: https://dataethicsclub.com/. Although the games outlined below are not part of the activities they carry during their bi-weekly hour-long Zoom meetings, they keep each of their gatherings fresh and engaging. In fact, Mr Day’s organizing team has been so successful to the point that other companies (due to confidential arrangements), are trying to replicate their models in-house. If you want to establish your own Data Ethics Club, look no further than the paper titled Data Ethics Club: Creating a collaborative space to discuss data ethics.

References:

Shannon, A., Green, R., Roberts, K,. (2023)  Insects In The Machine – Can tiny brains achieve big results in reservoir computing? Personal notes. Retrieved 8 September 2023.

This blog is written by CDT AI PhD student Beth Pearson

The first of the day 1 talks of the Bristol Interactive AI Summer School (BIAS) ended with a thought-provoking talk by Dr. Kacper Sokol on The Difference Between Interactive AI and Interactive AI. Kacper began by explaining that social sciences have decades worth of research on how humans reason and explain. Now, with an increasing demand for AI and ML systems to become more human-centered, with a focus on explainability, it makes sense to use insights from social sciences to guide the development of these models.

Humans often explain things in a contrastive and social manner, which has led to counterfactual explanations being introduced by AI and ML researchers. Counterfactuals are statements relating to what has not happened or is not the case, for example, “If I hadn’t taken a sip of this hot coffee, I wouldn’t have burned my tongue.” Counterfactual explanations have the advantage of being suitable for both technical and lay audiences; however, they only provide information about one choice that the model makes, so they can bias the recipient.

Kacper then described his research focus on pediatric sepsis. Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that develops from an infection and is the third leading cause of death worldwide. Pediatric sepsis specifically refers to cases occurring in children. Sepsis is a particularly elusive disease because it can manifest differently in different people, and patients respond differently to treatments, making it challenging to identify the best treatment strategy for a specific patient. Kacper hopes that AI will be able to help solve this problem in this day and age.

Importantly, the AI being applied to the pediatric sepsis problem is interactive and aims to support and work alongside humans rather than replace them. It is crucial that the AI aligns with the current clinical workflow so that it can be easily adopted into hospitals and GP practices. Kacper highlights that this is particularly important for pediatricians as they have been highly skeptical of AI in the past. However, now that AI has proven successful in adult branches of medicine, they are starting to warm to the idea.

Pediatric sepsis comes with many challenges. Pediatric sepsis has less data available than adult sepsis, and there is rapid deterioration, meaning that early diagnosis is vital. Unfortunately, there are many diseases in children that mimic the symptoms of sepsis, making it not always easy to diagnose. One of the main treatments for sepsis is antibiotics; however, since children are a vulnerable population, we don’t want to administer antibiotics unnecessarily. Currently, it is estimated that 98% of children receive antibiotics unnecessarily, which is contributing to antimicrobial resistance and can cause drug toxicity.

AI has the potential to help with these challenges; however, the goal is to augment, not disrupt, the current workflow. Humans can have great intuition and can observe cues that lead to excellent decision-making, which is particularly valuable in medicine. An experiment was carried out on nurses in neonatal care, which showed that nurses were able to correctly predict which infants were developing life-threatening infections without having any knowledge of the blood test results. Despite being able to identify the disease, the nurses were unable to explain their judgment process. The goal is to add automation from AI but still retain certain key aspects of human decision-making.

How much and where the automation should take place is not a simple question, however. You could replace biased humans with algorithms, but algorithms can also be biased, so this wouldn’t necessarily improve anything. Another option would be to have algorithms propose decisions and have humans check them; however, this still requires humans to carry out mundane tasks. Would it really be better than no automation at all? Kacper then asks: if you can prove an AI model is capable of predicting better than a human, and a human decides to use their own judgment to override the model, could it be considered malpractice?

Another proposed solution for implementing interactive AI is to have humans make the decision, with the AI model presenting arguments for and against that decision to help the human decide whether to change their mind or not.

The talk ends by discussing how interactive AI may be deployed in real-life scenarios. Since the perfect integration of AI and humans doesn’t quite exist yet, Kacper suggests that clinical trials might be a good idea, where suggestions made by AI models are marked as ‘for research only’ to keep them separated from other clinical workflows.