How the AI Boom Went Bust

Thomas Haigh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3634901

IF: 22.7

2024-01-26

Communications of the ACM

Abstract:Fallout from an exploding bubble of hype triggered the real AI Winter in the late 1980s.

computer science, theory & methods, software engineering, hardware & architecture

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Between the Booms: AI in Winter

Thomas Haigh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3688379

IF: 22.7

2024-10-26

Communications of the ACM

Abstract:AI became more pluralistic as a loss of faith in formerly dominant approaches created space for new ideas.

computer science, theory & methods, software engineering, hardware & architecture
The 30-Year Cycle In The AI Debate

Jean-Marie Chauvet

2018-10-09

Abstract:In the last couple of years, the rise of Artificial Intelligence and the successes of academic breakthroughs in the field have been inescapable. Vast sums of money have been thrown at AI start-ups. Many existing tech companies -- including the giants like Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft -- have opened new research labs. The rapid changes in these everyday work and entertainment tools have fueled a rising interest in the underlying technology itself; journalists write about AI tirelessly, and companies -- of tech nature or not -- brand themselves with AI, Machine Learning or Deep Learning whenever they get a chance. Confronting squarely this media coverage, several analysts are starting to voice concerns about over-interpretation of AI's blazing successes and the sometimes poor public reporting on the topic. This paper reviews briefly the track-record in AI and Machine Learning and finds this pattern of early dramatic successes, followed by philosophical critique and unexpected difficulties, if not downright stagnation, returning almost to the clock in 30-year cycles since 1958.

Artificial Intelligence
A Brief History of AI: How to Prevent Another Winter (A Critical Review)

Amirhosein Toosi,Andrea G Bottino,Babak Saboury,Eliot Siegel,Arman Rahmim,Andrea G. Bottino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpet.2021.07.001

2021-10-01

PET Clinics

Abstract:Artificial intelligence has witnessed exponential growth in the past decade. Advances in computing power and the design of sophisticated artificial intelligence algorithms have enabled computers to outperform humans in a variety of tasks. Yet, artificial intelligence's path has never been smooth, having essentially fallen apart twice in its lifetime after periods of popular success. We provide a brief rundown of artificial intelligence's evolution, highlighting its crucial moments and major turning points from inception to the present. In doing so, we attempt to learn, anticipate the future, and discuss what steps may be taken to prevent another winter.
The new AI spring: a deflationary view

Jocelyn Maclure

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00912-z

2019-09-21

Abstract:The current hype about artificial intelligence makes a sober assessment of the state of the technology and its likely societal impacts difficult. AI researchers, start-ups, investors and the media all have their own incentives to keep the hype going. China and the US compete for pole position in AI research and development, and the EU and most economically advanced countries vie for the remaining top spots. The mighty multinational corporations of the digital economy rival for both new and established researchers and engineers. Where I live, in Montreal, Facebook, Alphabet (Google Brain and Deep Mind), Microsoft and Samsung all lured top scientists into their newly opened labs, and both the provincial and federal governments invested massively to maintain the Canadian edge in AI. If this weren't enough, some of the best fiction of recent years—Ex Machina, Her, Westworld, Ian McEwan's recent Machines Like Me—all hijack our power of imagination so that we keep picturing ourselves...

English Else
Watching the Generative AI Hype Bubble Deflate

David Gray Widder,Mar Hicks

2024-08-16

Abstract:Only a few short months ago, Generative AI was sold to us as inevitable by the leadership of AI companies, those who partnered with them, and venture capitalists. As certain elements of the media promoted and amplified these claims, public discourse online buzzed with what each new beta release could be made to do with a few simple prompts. As AI became a viral sensation, every business tried to become an AI business. Some businesses added "AI" to their names to juice their stock prices, and companies talking about "AI" on their earnings calls saw similar increases. While the Generative AI hype bubble is now slowly deflating, its harmful effects will last.

Computers and Society
The laws of inflating the AI bubble

Mark Buchanan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02627-5

IF: 19.684

2024-09-13

Nature Physics

Abstract:Law number 1: "When an AI system performs a task, human observers immediately estimate its general competence in areas that seem related. Usually that estimate is wildly overinflated." For some reason, Brooks notes, people generally form optimistically biased estimates about an AI's capabilities. This happens because almost all of our experience with real intelligence comes from interacting with people. When we extrapolate to form expectations about what an AI might do, we assume its capabilities will generalize in the way most people's do, implicitly giving the AI credit for capacities it lacks.

physics, multidisciplinary
Why AI is Harder Than We Think

Melanie Mitchell

2021-04-28

Abstract:Since its beginning in the 1950s, the field of artificial intelligence has cycled several times between periods of optimistic predictions and massive investment ("AI spring") and periods of disappointment, loss of confidence, and reduced funding ("AI winter"). Even with today's seemingly fast pace of AI breakthroughs, the development of long-promised technologies such as self-driving cars, housekeeping robots, and conversational companions has turned out to be much harder than many people expected. One reason for these repeating cycles is our limited understanding of the nature and complexity of intelligence itself. In this paper I describe four fallacies in common assumptions made by AI researchers, which can lead to overconfident predictions about the field. I conclude by discussing the open questions spurred by these fallacies, including the age-old challenge of imbuing machines with humanlike common sense.

Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence. Fears of an AI pioneer

Stuart Russell,John Bohannon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.349.6245.252

IF: 56.9

2015-07-17

Science

Abstract:From the enraged robots in the 1920 play R.U.R. to the homicidal computer H.A.L. in 2001: A Space Odyssey, science fiction writers have embraced the dark side of artificial intelligence (AI) ever since the concept entered our collective imagination. Sluggish progress in AI research, especially during the “AI winter” of the 1970s and 1980s, made such worries seem far-fetched. But recent breakthroughs in machine learning and vast improvements in computational power have brought a flood of research funding— and fresh concerns about where AI may lead us. One researcher now speaking up is Stuart Russell, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who with Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, wrote the premier AI textbook, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, now in its third edition. Last year, Russell joined the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at Cambridge University in the United Kingdom as an AI expert focusing on “risks that could lead to human extinction.” Among his chief concerns, which he aired at an April meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, run by the United Nations, is the danger of putting military drones and weaponry under the full control of AI systems. This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.
Misrepresented Technological Solutions in Imagined Futures: The Origins and Dangers of AI Hype in the Research Community

Savannah Thais

2024-08-09

Abstract:Technology does not exist in a vacuum; technological development, media representation, public perception, and governmental regulation cyclically influence each other to produce the collective understanding of a technology's capabilities, utilities, and risks. When these capabilities are overestimated, there is an enhanced risk of subjecting the public to dangerous or harmful technology, artificially restricting research and development directions, and enabling misguided or detrimental policy. The dangers of technological hype are particularly relevant in the rapidly evolving space of AI. Centering the research community as a key player in the development and proliferation of hype, we examine the origins and risks of AI hype to the research community and society more broadly and propose a set of measures that researchers, regulators, and the public can take to mitigate these risks and reduce the prevalence of unfounded claims about the technology.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning
AI in training (1980–2000): Foundation for the future or misplaced optimism?

David Welham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00818.x

IF: 6.6

2008-03-01

British Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract:Since the beginning of the use of technology to support training and learning there has always been the belief that such new technologies would be able to add value either by reducing costs or increasing effectiveness. The 1980s and early 1990s were a period of enormous optimism as to the promise that such technology could bring. The governments of Europe and the US were generous in their funding of research in this area. In Europe research and development programmes such as ESPRIT, DELTA, RACE, ERASMUS and COMETT, to name only a few, funded a wealth of initiatives aimed at advancing the use of technology. At the margins of the early initiatives was the belief that AI must have a part to play in these developments. This paper reviews the early initiatives and suggests reasons why the potential for the use of AI in education and training has never been truly fulfilled.

education & educational research
Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It

J Mark Bishop

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474

2021-01-05

Abstract:Artificial Neural Networks have reached "grandmaster" and even "super-human" performance across a variety of games, from those involving perfect information, such as Go, to those involving imperfect information, such as "Starcraft". Such technological developments from artificial intelligence (AI) labs have ushered concomitant applications across the world of business, where an "AI" brand-tag is quickly becoming ubiquitous. A corollary of such widespread commercial deployment is that when AI gets things wrong-an autonomous vehicle crashes, a chatbot exhibits "racist" behavior, automated credit-scoring processes "discriminate" on gender, etc.-there are often significant financial, legal, and brand consequences, and the incident becomes major news. As Judea Pearl sees it, the underlying reason for such mistakes is that "... all the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just curve fitting." The key, as Pearl suggests, is to replace "reasoning by association" with "causal reasoning" -the ability to infer causes from observed phenomena. It is a point that was echoed by Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis in a recent piece for the New York Times: "we need to stop building computer systems that merely get better and better at detecting statistical patterns in data sets-often using an approach known as 'Deep Learning'-and start building computer systems that from the moment of their assembly innately grasp three basic concepts: time, space, and causality." In this paper, foregrounding what in 1949 Gilbert Ryle termed "a category mistake", I will offer an alternative explanation for AI errors; it is not so much that AI machinery cannot "grasp" causality, but that AI machinery (qua computation) cannot understand anything at all.
AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse

Andrew J. Peterson

2024-04-22

Abstract:While artificial intelligence has the potential to process vast amounts of data, generate new insights, and unlock greater productivity, its widespread adoption may entail unforeseen consequences. We identify conditions under which AI, by reducing the cost of access to certain modes of knowledge, can paradoxically harm public understanding. While large language models are trained on vast amounts of diverse data, they naturally generate output towards the 'center' of the distribution. This is generally useful, but widespread reliance on recursive AI systems could lead to a process we define as "knowledge collapse", and argue this could harm innovation and the richness of human understanding and culture. However, unlike AI models that cannot choose what data they are trained on, humans may strategically seek out diverse forms of knowledge if they perceive them to be worthwhile. To investigate this, we provide a simple model in which a community of learners or innovators choose to use traditional methods or to rely on a discounted AI-assisted process and identify conditions under which knowledge collapse occurs. In our default model, a 20% discount on AI-generated content generates public beliefs 2.3 times further from the truth than when there is no discount. An empirical approach to measuring the distribution of LLM outputs is provided in theoretical terms and illustrated through a specific example comparing the diversity of outputs across different models and prompting styles. Finally, based on the results, we consider further research directions to counteract such outcomes.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society
AI Safety: A Climb To Armageddon?

Herman Cappelen,Josh Dever,John Hawthorne

2024-06-03

Abstract:This paper presents an argument that certain AI safety measures, rather than mitigating existential risk, may instead exacerbate it. Under certain key assumptions - the inevitability of AI failure, the expected correlation between an AI system's power at the point of failure and the severity of the resulting harm, and the tendency of safety measures to enable AI systems to become more powerful before failing - safety efforts have negative expected utility. The paper examines three response strategies: Optimism, Mitigation, and Holism. Each faces challenges stemming from intrinsic features of the AI safety landscape that we term Bottlenecking, the Perfection Barrier, and Equilibrium Fluctuation. The surprising robustness of the argument forces a re-examination of core assumptions around AI safety and points to several avenues for further research.

Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Social Welfare: Some Ethical and Historical Perspectives on Technological Overstatement and Hyperbole

Jo Ann Oravec

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2018.1512142

2018-08-24

Ethics and Social Welfare

Abstract:The potential societal impacts of automation using intelligent control and communications technologies have emerged as topics in recent writings and public policy initiatives. Constructed entities labelled as ‘thinking machines’ (such as IBM’s Watson as well as intelligent chatbot and robotic systems) have also played significant roles in this discourse. This paper provides an historical sequencing then analyses a selection of writings produced since the 1940s concerning economic and social issues involving artificial intelligence (AI) research and applications. The paper explores how overstatements and hyperbolic themes and concepts, often stemming from AI’s early periods (including from Herbert Simon), are being employed in characterisations of current AI approaches in apparently opportunistic attempts to provide rhetorical support for various large-scale business and societal initiatives. It also addresses the relative neglect of consideration of many of AI’s sociotechnical failures and discontinued approaches in recent examinations of automation and social welfare issues. The paper discusses the moral logic of AI researchers and developers providing reasonable and measured narratives in public discourse rather than hyperbole, efforts that can empower decision makers to make sounder judgments concerning the technology’s current and future applications as well as allocate rewards of the technology more equitably.
From Protoscience to Epistemic Monoculture: How Benchmarking Set the Stage for the Deep Learning Revolution

Bernard J. Koch,David Peterson

2024-04-11

Abstract:Over the past decade, AI research has focused heavily on building ever-larger deep learning models. This approach has simultaneously unlocked incredible achievements in science and technology, and hindered AI from overcoming long-standing limitations with respect to explainability, ethical harms, and environmental efficiency. Drawing on qualitative interviews and computational analyses, our three-part history of AI research traces the creation of this "epistemic monoculture" back to a radical reconceptualization of scientific progress that began in the late 1980s. In the first era of AI research (1950s-late 1980s), researchers and patrons approached AI as a "basic" science that would advance through autonomous exploration and organic assessments of progress (e.g., peer-review, theoretical consensus). The failure of this approach led to a retrenchment of funding in the 1980s. Amid this "AI Winter," an intervention by the U.S. government reoriented the field towards measurable progress on tasks of military and commercial interest. A new evaluation system called "benchmarking" provided an objective way to quantify progress on tasks by focusing exclusively on increasing predictive accuracy on example datasets. Distilling science down to verifiable metrics clarified the roles of scientists, allowed the field to rapidly integrate talent, and provided clear signals of significance and progress. But history has also revealed a tradeoff to this streamlined approach to science: the consolidation around external interests and inherent conservatism of benchmarking has disincentivized exploration beyond scaling monoculture. In the discussion, we explain how AI's monoculture offers a compelling challenge to the belief that basic, exploration-driven research is needed for scientific progress. Implications for the spread of AI monoculture to other sciences in the era of generative AI are also discussed.

Computers and Society,Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning
Artificial Intelligence is stupid and causal reasoning won't fix it

John Mark Bishop

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2008.07371

2020-07-20

Computers and Society

Abstract:Artificial Neural Networks have reached Grandmaster and even super-human performance across a variety of games: from those involving perfect-information (such as Go) to those involving imperfect-information (such as Starcraft). Such technological developments from AI-labs have ushered concomitant applications across the world of business - where an AI brand tag is fast becoming ubiquitous. A corollary of such widespread commercial deployment is that when AI gets things wrong - an autonomous vehicle crashes; a chatbot exhibits racist behaviour; automated credit scoring processes discriminate on gender etc. - there are often significant financial, legal and brand consequences and the incident becomes major news. As Judea Pearl sees it, the underlying reason for such mistakes is that, 'all the impressive achievements of deep learning amount to just curve fitting'. The key, Judea Pearl suggests, is to replace reasoning by association with causal-reasoning - the ability to infer causes from observed phenomena. It is a point that was echoed by Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis in a recent piece for the New York Times: 'we need to stop building computer systems that merely get better and better at detecting statistical patterns in data sets - often using an approach known as Deep Learning - and start building computer systems that from the moment of their assembly innately grasp three basic concepts: time, space and causality'. In this paper, foregrounding what in 1949 Gilbert Ryle termed a category mistake, I will offer an alternative explanation for AI errors: it is not so much that AI machinery cannot grasp causality, but that AI machinery - qua computation - cannot understand anything at all.
AI TURNS FIFTY: REVISITING ITS ORIGINS

Roberto Cordeschi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08839510701252304

IF: 2.777

2007-04-25

Applied Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:The expression “artificial intelligence” (AI) was introduced by John McCarthy, and the official birth of AI is unanimously considered to be the 1956 Dartmouth Conference. Thus, AI turned fifty in 2006. How did AI begin? Several differently motivated analyses have been proposed as to its origins. In this paper a brief look at those that might be considered steps towards Dartmouth is attempted, with the aim of showing how a number of research topics and controversies that marked the short history of AI were touched on, or fairly well stated, during the year immediately preceding Dartmouth. The framework within which those steps were taken was the development of digital computers. Earlier computer applications in areas such as complex decision making and management, at that time dealt with by operations research techniques, were important in this story. The time was ripe for AI's intriguingly tumultuous development, marked as it has been by hopes and defeats, successes and difficulties.

computer science, artificial intelligence,engineering, electrical & electronic
Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy: Divergent Realities

David Vidal-Tomás,Silvia Bartolucci

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4589333

2023-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:After the release of ChatGPT on November 30, 2022, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a revolutionary technology capable of transforming many industries in the economy. Interestingly, AI expectations have not only impacted the real economy but also the digital economy represented by AI-related crypto tokens. In this context, we assessed whether the AI effect on the cryptocurrency market is merely a transient trend. To do so, we applied different empirical techniques to AI-related crypto sectors, including the PSY real-time bubble detection method, wavelet coherence analysis, Pearson correlations, and the minimum spanning tree approach. Our findings show that indeed, the AI impact on cryptocurrencies was short-lived, as we just identified a short bubble period in January-March 2023. Moreover, AI-related tokens were briefly driven by investor attention focused on crypto projects, while we did not identify any significant correlation with the increasing broader attention on AI. This could imply that investors hold different expectations for AI in various industries, and they tend to be more pessimistic about digital economy and cryptocurrencies, given the negative performance and decreasing social attention after the bubble period. These results hold relevance for both investors and the scientific community. Investors should exercise caution when considering future investments in AI-related tokens, and researchers should acknowledge that AI may not deeply impact all industries but rather only select ones.
The AAAI-86 conference exhibits: new directions for commercial AI

Jeffrey Stone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/AIMAG.V8I1.574

1987-03-01

Abstract:The annual conference of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) is the premier U.S. gathering for artificial intelligence (AI) theoreticians and practitioners. On the commercial side, AAAI is the only event with a comprehensive exhibition that includes most significant U.S. vendors of AI products and services. In 1986 some 5100 people attended AAAI- a very good showing considering that the 1987 International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) drew about the same number of people even with its substantial international support. The commercial exhibits at AAAI-86 (110 exhibitors; 80,000 square feet) gave us opportunity to take a snapshot of an industry in transition. What I saw was a dramatic increase in the commercialization of AI technology and a decrease in the mystique, smoke, and hype. A preliminary tour of the AAAI-86 exhibits indicated that participants could expect substantial changes from the situation at IJCAI-85.

Computer Science,Engineering
Expert Systems: Commercializing Artificial Intelligence

David C. Brock,Burton Grad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/mahc.2022.3149612

2022-01-01

IEEE Annals of the History of Computing

Abstract:The articles in this special section focus on expert systems as it applies to the commercial use of artificial intelligence in various industries. Thoroughly commercial AI is placed at the center of discussions about geopolitics, military affairs, finance, labor, health, and art. This Special Issue of the Annals began with the observation that today's commercial AI, and breathless discussions about its future implications, has a history. Starting in the 1970s, a very different form of AI from today's machine learning developed and gained great attention: expert systems. Expert systems used logical reasoning to draw conclusions based on large sets of "If, Then" rules, engineered to represent the knowledge of domain experts. The 1980s witnessed a wave of commercialization of expert systems, by startups, by private sector firms, and by the U.S. military and its contractors. Throughout the decade, and accompanying this commercialization wave, scientists, engineers, and commentators put forward sweeping views of the importance of commercial expert systems for industry, the military, and culture.

history & philosophy of science,computer science, theory & methods

How the AI Boom Went Bust

Between the Booms: AI in Winter

The 30-Year Cycle In The AI Debate

A Brief History of AI: How to Prevent Another Winter (A Critical Review)

The new AI spring: a deflationary view

Watching the Generative AI Hype Bubble Deflate

The laws of inflating the AI bubble

Why AI is Harder Than We Think

Artificial intelligence. Fears of an AI pioneer

Misrepresented Technological Solutions in Imagined Futures: The Origins and Dangers of AI Hype in the Research Community

AI in training (1980–2000): Foundation for the future or misplaced optimism?

Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It

AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse

AI Safety: A Climb To Armageddon?

Artificial Intelligence, Automation, and Social Welfare: Some Ethical and Historical Perspectives on Technological Overstatement and Hyperbole

From Protoscience to Epistemic Monoculture: How Benchmarking Set the Stage for the Deep Learning Revolution

Artificial Intelligence is stupid and causal reasoning won't fix it

AI TURNS FIFTY: REVISITING ITS ORIGINS

Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy: Divergent Realities

The AAAI-86 conference exhibits: new directions for commercial AI

Expert Systems: Commercializing Artificial Intelligence