at Celsius Lecture, Uppsala University, Sweden on Feb 11, 2021 [reveal]
Neil D. Lawrence, University of Cambridge

#### Abstract

With breakthroughs in understanding images, translating language, transcribing speech artificial intelligence promises to revolutionise the technological landscape. Machine learning algorithms are able to convert unstructured data into actionable knowledge. With the increasing impact of these technologies, society’s interest is also growing. The word intelligence conjures notions of human-like capabilities. But are we really on the cusp of creating machines that match us? We associate intelligence with knowledge, but in this talk I will argue that the true marvel of our intelligence is the way it deals with ignorance. Despite the large strides forward we have made, I will argue that we have a long way to go to deliver on the promise of artificial intelligence. And it is a journey that our societies need to take together, not just as computer scientists, but together by rediscovering the interdisciplinary spirit that Celsius, Linnaeus and their contemporaries did so much to demonstrate.

## Laplace’s Demon

Philosophical Essay on Probabilities Laplace (1814) pg 3

$\text{data} + \text{model} \stackrel{\text{compute}}{\rightarrow} \text{prediction}$

If we do discover a theory of everything … it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason-for then we would truly know the mind of God

Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time 1988

## Life Rules

Conway’s game of life has three simple rules.

• Survival Every cell surrounded by two or three other cells survives for the next turn.
• Death Each cell surrounded by four or more cells dies from overpopulation. Likewise, every cell next to one or no cells at all dies from isolation.
• Birth Each square adjacent to exactly three cells gives birth to a new cell.

## Laplace’s Gremlin

Philosophical Essay on Probabilities Laplace (1814) pg 5

## Information and Embodiment

### Bandwidth Constrained Conversations

Embodiment factors imply that, in our communication between humans, what is not said is, perhaps, more important than what is said. To communicate with each other we need to have a model of who each of us are.

To aid this, in society, we are required to perform roles. Whether as a parent, a teacher, an employee or a boss. Each of these roles requires that we conform to certain standards of behaviour to facilitate communication between ourselves.

Control of self is vitally important to these communications.

The high availability of data available to humans undermines human-to-human communication channels by providing new routes to undermining our control of self.

The consequences between this mismatch of power and delivery are to be seen all around us. Because, just as driving an F1 car with bicycle wheels would be a fine art, so is the process of communication between humans.

If I have a thought and I wish to communicate it, I first of all need to have a model of what you think. I should think before I speak. When I speak, you may react. You have a model of who I am and what I was trying to say, and why I chose to say what I said. Now we begin this dance, where we are each trying to better understand each other and what we are saying. When it works, it is beautiful, but when misdeployed, just like a badly driven F1 car, there is a horrible crash, an argument.

Stories, between humans.

### Heider and Simmel (1944)

Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel’s experiments with animated shapes from 1944 (Heider and Simmel, 1944). Our interpretation of these objects as showing motives and even emotion is a combination of our desire for narrative, a need for understanding of each other, and our ability to empathise. At one level, these are crudely drawn objects, but in another key way, the animator has communicated a story through simple facets such as their relative motions, their sizes and their actions. We apply our psychological representations to these faceless shapes in an effort to interpret their actions.

See also a recent review paper on Human Cooperation by Henrich and Muthukrishna (2021).

## Computer Conversations

Similarly, we find it difficult to comprehend how computers are making decisions. Because they do so with more data than we can possibly imagine.

In many respects, this is not a problem, it’s a good thing. Computers and us are good at different things. But when we interact with a computer, when it acts in a different way to us, we need to remember why.

Just as the first step to getting along with other humans is understanding other humans, so it needs to be with getting along with our computers.

Embodiment factors explain why, at the same time, computers are so impressive in simulating our weather, but so poor at predicting our moods. Our complexity is greater than that of our weather, and each of us is tuned to read and respond to one another.

Their intelligence is different. It is based on very large quantities of data that we cannot absorb. Our computers don’t have a complex internal model of who we are. They don’t understand the human condition. They are not tuned to respond to us as we are to each other.

Embodiment factors encapsulate a profound thing about the nature of humans. Our locked in intelligence means that we are striving to communicate, so we put a lot of thought into what we’re communicating with. And if we’re communicating with something complex, we naturally anthropomorphize them.

We give our dogs, our cats and our cars human motivations. We do the same with our computers. We anthropomorphize them. We assume that they have the same objectives as us and the same constraints. They don’t.

This means, that when we worry about artificial intelligence, we worry about the wrong things. We fear computers that behave like more powerful versions of ourselves that will struggle to outcompete us.

In reality, the challenge is that our computers cannot be human enough. They cannot understand us with the depth we understand one another. They drop below our cognitive radar and operate outside our mental models.

The real danger is that computers don’t anthropomorphize. They’ll make decisions in isolation from us without our supervision, because they can’t communicate truly and deeply with us.

## Artificial Intelligence

One of the struggles of artificial intelligence is that the term means different things to different people. Our intelligence is precious to us, and the notion that it can be easily recreated is disturbing to us. This leads to some dystopian notions of artificial intelligence, such as the singularity.

Depending on whether this powerful technology is viewed as beneficent or maleficent, it can be viewed either as a helpful assistant, in the manner of Jeeves, or a tyrannical dictator.

The history of automation and technology is a history of us adapting to technological change. The invention of the railways, and the need for consistent national times to timetable our movements. The development of the factory system in the mills of Derbyshire required workers to operate and maintain the machines that replaced them.

Listening to modern to conversations about artificial intelligence, I think the use of the term intelligence has given rise to an idea that this technology will be the But amoung these different assessments of artificial intelligence is buried an idea, one that

## Lenox Globe

Introduce Linnaeus and the hydra.

## DeepFace

The DeepFace architecture (Taigman et al., 2014) consists of layers that deal with translation and rotational invariances. These layers are followed by three locally-connected layers and two fully-connected layers. Color illustrates feature maps produced at each layer. The neural network includes more than 120 million parameters, where more than 95% come from the local and fully connected layers.

### Deep Learning as Pinball

Sometimes deep learning models are described as being like the brain, or too complex to understand, but one analogy I find useful to help the gist of these models is to think of them as being similar to early pin ball machines.

In a deep neural network, we input a number (or numbers), whereas in pinball, we input a ball.

Think of the location of the ball on the left-right axis as a single number. Our simple pinball machine can only take one number at a time. As the ball falls through the machine, each layer of pins can be thought of as a different layer of ‘neurons.’ Each layer acts to move the ball from left to right.

In a pinball machine, when the ball gets to the bottom it might fall into a hole defining a score, in a neural network, that is equivalent to the decision: a classification of the input object.

An image has more than one number associated with it, so it is like playing pinball in a hyper-space.

%pip install --upgrade git+https://github.com/sods/ods

Learning involves moving all the pins to be in the correct position, so that the ball ends up in the right place when it’s fallen through the machine. But moving all these pins in hyperspace can be difficult.

In a hyper-space you have to put a lot of data through the machine for to explore the positions of all the pins. Even when you feed many millions of data points through the machine, there are likely to be regions in the hyper-space where no ball has passed. When future test data passes through the machine in a new route unusual things can happen.

Adversarial examples exploit this high dimensional space. If you have access to the pinball machine, you can use gradient methods to find a position for the ball in the hyper space where the image looks like one thing, but will be classified as another.

Probabilistic methods explore more of the space by considering a range of possible paths for the ball through the machine. This helps to make them more data efficient and gives some robustness to adversarial examples.

• 2 June 1739
• Carl Linnaeus (naturalist)
• Jonas Alströmer (mercantilist)
• Mårten Triewald (mechanical engineer)
• Sten Carl Bielke (civil servants)
• Carl Wilhelm Cederhielm (civil servant)
• Anders Johan von Höpken (politician)
 policy datagovernance
 acceleratescience AutoAI
A chance for us to acknowledge our ignorance and to rediscover interdisplinary science.

## Richard Feynmann on Doubt

One thing is I can live with is doubt, and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live with not knowing than to have an answer that might be wrong.

Richard P. Feynmann in the The Pleasure of Finding Things Out 1981.

## Thanks!

For more information on these subjects and more you might want to check the following resources.

# References

Heider, F., Simmel, M., 1944. An experimental study of apparent behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 57, 243–259.
Henrich, J., Muthukrishna, M., 2021. The origins and psychology of human cooperation. Annual Review of Psychology 72, 207–240. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-081920-042106
Laplace, P.S., 1814. Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, 2nd ed. Courcier, Paris.
Seba, A., Tanjé, P., 1734. Thesaurus rerum naturalium. Apud J. Wetstenium & Gul. Smith, & Janssonio-Waesbergios.
Taigman, Y., Yang, M., Ranzato, M., Wolf, L., 2014. DeepFace: Closing the gap to human-level performance in face verification, in: Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2014.220