Wednesday March 27, 2019
Home India JLF Panel Exa...

JLF Panel Examine The Future Of AI

The panel also explored the impact of AI through the example of the popular debate on the use of driverless cars. 

0
//
AI has the potential to increase India's annual growth.
AI has the potential to increase India's annual growth. pixabay

“In 50 years, we’ll probably have a robot conducting this session,” said author Anupama Raju in her opening comments on Monday at the session “The Future is Now” in the ongoing Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF), giving voice to an increasingly popular concern: will robots take over the world, our jobs and life as we know it?

A panel of eminent technologists Meredith Broussard and Toby Walsh was in conversation with Raju on the concluding day of the Festival.

“Scientists work within the envelope of the dreams that writers tell us,” said Walsh, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) professor, stating that the world is now waking up to the ideas that have been explored by science fictions writers such as Isaac Asimov for over 50 years.

Data journalism professor Broussard said that Hollywood has “coloured” our perception of AI with movies such as “The Terminator”, which portray robots as “evil machines that take over humanity”.

Having helped 1.7 million people around the world gain mobility with the famous Jaipur Foot, the organisation is now embarking on a mission to develop an affordable artificial hand, its founder D.R. Mehta has said.
Jaipur Foot and US are collaborating to develop an artificial hand. Pixabay

She called the fictional narratives “interesting but far from reality”, stating that there is “very little to fear” about AI.

Walsh argued that the real concern with AI is actually its “incompetence: We are giving decision making ability to machines that are not capable of making choices that are fair and meet the values of the society we’d like”.

Walsh, who has written “2062: The World that AI Made”, however, batted for the greater rationality of machines over humans.

“Humans are terribly irrational,” she said.

Broussard argued that computers, limited by their ability to merely executing what they are programmed to do, would “discriminate by default: The world is racist and sexist and has all kinds of social and economic inequality”.

Agreeing that AI doesn’t have an opinion and simply reflects the values of the people who build it, Walsh said that using computers to make a fairer world would certainly require immense prudence and hard-work.

“It’s the same as how chemistry makes the world a better place if we think carefully about not over-fertilising our soil or using nuclear bombs.”

The enterprise solutions major has integrated SAP CoPilot with the "SAP S/4HANA" Cloud.
“A tectonic shift is happening in AI. Nearly 85 per cent of enterprises globally will use AI in some form or the other by 2020.

The panel also explored the impact of AI through the example of the popular debate on the use of driverless cars.

Walsh said that driverless cars would help save millions of lives, be economically beneficial by reducing transportation costs, prevent truck attacks by terrorists, and free people to do more productive tasks than driving.

Also Read: https://www.newsgram.com/facebook-rejects-false-claim-that-half-of-its-accounts-are-fake/
Broussard, author of “Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World”, was admittedly “sceptical”.

Narrating an incident where she almost got killed by a driverless car, she explained, among other issues, how such cars’ “image-recognition algorithms could be easily defeated”, thereby resulting in accidents.

The JLF concludes later on Monday evening. (IANS)

Next Story

Google Claims Eye Doctors Can Turn More Effective Using AI

Without assistance, general ophthalmologists are significantly less accurate than the algorithm, while retina specialists are not significantly more accurate than the algorithm. 

0
google
The research team at Google AI believes that some of these pitfalls may be avoided if the computer can "explain" its predictions. Pixabay

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues to evolve, diagnosing diseases has become faster with greater accuracy. A new study from the Google AI research group shows that physicians and algorithms working together are more effective than either one alone.

In the study, to be published in the journal Ophthalmology, the researchers created a system which not only improved the ophthalmologists’ diagnostic accuracy but also improved the algorithm’s accuracy.

The study expands on previous work from Google AI showing that its algorithm works roughly as well as human experts in screening patients for a common diabetic eye disease called diabetic retinopathy.

eyes
To test this theory, ten ophthalmologists (four general ophthalmologists, one trained outside the US, four retina specialists, and one retina specialist in training) were asked to read images with and without algorithm assistance. Pixabay

“What we found is that AI can do more than simply automate eye screening, it can assist physicians in more accurately diagnosing diabetic retinopathy. AI and physicians working together can be more accurate than either one alone,” said lead researcher Rory Sayres.

Recent advances in AI promise to improve access to diabetic retinopathy screening and to improve its accuracy. But it’s less clear how AI will work in the physician’s office or other clinical settings, the team said.

According to the team, previous attempts to use computer-assisted diagnosis shows that some screeners rely on the machine too much, which leads to repeating the machine’s errors, or under-rely on it and ignore accurate predictions.

The research team at Google AI believes that some of these pitfalls may be avoided if the computer can “explain” its predictions.

web
Recent advances in AI promise to improve access to diabetic retinopathy screening and to improve its accuracy. But it’s less clear how AI will work in the physician’s office or other clinical settings, the team said. Pixabay

To test this theory, ten ophthalmologists (four general ophthalmologists, one trained outside the US, four retina specialists, and one retina specialist in training) were asked to read images with and without algorithm assistance.

Also Read: U.S. Government Human Rights Report Shows ‘Amber’ Warning Light Situation in Hong Kong

Without assistance, general ophthalmologists are significantly less accurate than the algorithm, while retina specialists are not significantly more accurate than the algorithm.

With assistance, general ophthalmologists match but do not exceed the model’s accuracy, while retina specialists start to exceed the model’s performance. (IANS)