Artificial intelligence needs a scientific method-driven reset

Luís A. Nunes Amaral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-024-02403-5

IF: 19.684

2024-02-24

Nature Physics

Abstract:AI needs to develop more solid assumptions, falsifiable hypotheses, and rigorous experimentation.

physics, multidisciplinary

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Artificial Intelligence Must Be Made More Scientific

Peter V Coveney,Roger Highfield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01091

2024-08-12

Abstract:The role of AI within science is growing. Here we assess its impact on research and argue that AI often lacks reproducibility, transparency, objectivity, and mechanistic understanding. To ensure AI benefits research, we need to develop forms of AI that are fully compatible with the scientific method.
Artificial Intelligence And The Scientific Method: How To Cope With A Complete Oxymoron

W. Clark Lambert,Muriel W Lambert,Mohammad Hassan Emamian,Michał Woźniak,Andrzej Grzybowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2023.12.021

IF: 2.797

2024-01-12

Clinics in Dermatology

Abstract:Artificial intelligence can be a powerful tool for data analysis, but it can also mislead investigators due in part to a fundamental difference between classic data analysis and data analysis using AI. A more or less limited data set is analyzed in classic data analysis, and a hypothesis is generated. That hypothesis is then tested using a separate data set, and the data are examined again. The premise was either accepted or rejected with a value "p," indicating that any difference observed was due merely to chance. In contrast, a new hypothesis is generated in artificial intelligence as each datum is added to the data set. We explore this discrepancy and suggest means to overcome it.

dermatology
Closing the AI Knowledge Gap

Ziv Epstein,Blakeley H. Payne,Judy Hanwen Shen,Abhimanyu Dubey,Bjarke Felbo,Matthew Groh,Nick Obradovich,Manuel Cebrian,Iyad Rahwan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1803.07233

2018-03-20

Computers and Society

Abstract:AI researchers employ not only the scientific method, but also methodology from mathematics and engineering. However, the use of the scientific method - specifically hypothesis testing - in AI is typically conducted in service of engineering objectives. Growing interest in topics such as fairness and algorithmic bias show that engineering-focused questions only comprise a subset of the important questions about AI systems. This results in the AI Knowledge Gap: the number of unique AI systems grows faster than the number of studies that characterize these systems' behavior. To close this gap, we argue that the study of AI could benefit from the greater inclusion of researchers who are well positioned to formulate and test hypotheses about the behavior of AI systems. We examine the barriers preventing social and behavioral scientists from conducting such studies. Our diagnosis suggests that accelerating the scientific study of AI systems requires new incentives for academia and industry, mediated by new tools and institutions. To address these needs, we propose a two-sided marketplace called TuringBox. On one side, AI contributors upload existing and novel algorithms to be studied scientifically by others. On the other side, AI examiners develop and post machine intelligence tasks designed to evaluate and characterize algorithmic behavior. We discuss this market's potential to democratize the scientific study of AI behavior, and thus narrow the AI Knowledge Gap.
Artificial Intelligence Inheriting the Historical Crisis in Psychology: An Epistemological and Methodological Investigation of Challenges and Alternatives

Mohamad El Maouch,Zheng Jin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.781730

IF: 3.8

2022-03-10

Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract:By following the arguments developed by Vygotsky and employing the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) in addition to dialectical logic, this paper attempts to investigate the interaction between psychology and artificial intelligence (AI) to confront the epistemological and methodological challenges encountered in AI research. The paper proposes that AI is facing an epistemological and methodological crisis inherited from psychology based on dualist ontology. The roots of this crisis lie in the duality between rationalism and objectivism or in the mind-body rupture that has governed the production of scientific thought and the proliferation of approaches. In addition, by highlighting the sociohistorical conditions of AI, this paper investigates the historical characteristics of the shift of the crisis from psychology to AI. Additionally, we examine the epistemological and methodological roots of the main challenges encountered in AI research by noting that empiricism is the dominant tendency in the field. Empiricism gives rise to methodological and practical challenges, including challenges related to the emergence of meaning, abstraction, generalization, the emergence of symbols, concept formation, functional reflection of reality, and the emergence of higher psychological functions. Furthermore, through discussing attempts to formalize dialectical logic, the paper, based on contradiction formation, proposes a qualitative epistemological, methodological, and formal alternative by using a preliminary algorithmic model that grasps the formation of meaning as an essential ability for the qualitative reflection of reality and the emergence of other mental functions.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Explain the Black Box for the Sake of Science: the Scientific Method in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Gianmarco Mengaldo

2024-09-25

Abstract:The scientific method is the cornerstone of human progress across all branches of the natural and applied sciences, from understanding the human body to explaining how the universe works. The scientific method is based on identifying systematic rules or principles that describe the phenomenon of interest in a reproducible way that can be validated through experimental evidence. In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), there are discussions on how AI systems may discover new knowledge. We argue that human complex reasoning for scientific discovery remains of vital importance, at least before the advent of artificial general intelligence. Yet, AI can be leveraged for scientific discovery via explainable AI. More specifically, knowing what data AI systems deemed important to make decisions can be a point of contact with domain experts and scientists, that can lead to divergent or convergent views on a given scientific problem. Divergent views may spark further scientific investigations leading to new scientific knowledge.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society,Dynamical Systems
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.
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.
Needs and artificial intelligence

Soheil Human,Ryan Watkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00206-z

2022-10-06

AI and Ethics

Abstract:Abstract Throughout our history, we, Homo sapiens, have used technologies to better satisfy our needs . The relation between needs and technology is so fundamental that the US National Research Council defines the distinguishing characteristic of technology as its goal “to make modifications in the world [in order] to meet human needs” [1]. Artificial intelligence (AI) is one of the most promising emerging technologies of our time. Similar to other technologies, AI is expected by many “to meet [human] needs”. In this article, we reflect on the relationship between needs and AI, and call for the realization of needs-aware AI systems. We argue that re-thinking needs for , through , by , and with AI can be a very useful means towards the development of realistic approaches for sustainable H uman-aware, A ccountable, L awful, and E thical (HALE) AI systems. We discuss some of the most critical gaps, barriers, enablers, and drivers of co-creating future AI-based sociotechnical systems in which [human] needs are well considered and met. Finally, we provide an overview of potential challenges and considerations that should be carefully taken into account; and call for joint, immediate, and interdisciplinary efforts and collaborations to start on the path to needs-aware AI.
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
Problems in AI, their roots in philosophy, and implications for science and society

Max Velthoven,Eric Marcus

2024-07-22

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) is one of today's most relevant emergent technologies. In view thereof, this paper proposes that more attention should be paid to the philosophical aspects of AI technology and its use. It is argued that this deficit is generally combined with philosophical misconceptions about the growth of knowledge. To identify these misconceptions, reference is made to the ideas of the philosopher of science Karl Popper and the physicist David Deutsch. The works of both thinkers aim against mistaken theories of knowledge, such as inductivism, empiricism, and instrumentalism. This paper shows that these theories bear similarities to how current AI technology operates. It also shows that these theories are very much alive in the (public) discourse on AI, often called Bayesianism. In line with Popper and Deutsch, it is proposed that all these theories are based on mistaken philosophies of knowledge. This includes an analysis of the implications of these mistaken philosophies for the use of AI in science and society, including some of the likely problem situations that will arise. This paper finally provides a realistic outlook on Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and three propositions on A(G)I and philosophy (i.e., epistemology).

Artificial Intelligence,Emerging Technologies,Human-Computer Interaction
Artificial intelligence for science: The easy and hard problems

Ruairidh M. Battleday,Samuel J. Gershman

2024-08-25

Abstract:A suite of impressive scientific discoveries have been driven by recent advances in artificial intelligence. These almost all result from training flexible algorithms to solve difficult optimization problems specified in advance by teams of domain scientists and engineers with access to large amounts of data. Although extremely useful, this kind of problem solving only corresponds to one part of science - the "easy problem." The other part of scientific research is coming up with the problem itself - the "hard problem." Solving the hard problem is beyond the capacities of current algorithms for scientific discovery because it requires continual conceptual revision based on poorly defined constraints. We can make progress on understanding how humans solve the hard problem by studying the cognitive science of scientists, and then use the results to design new computational agents that automatically infer and update their scientific paradigms.

Artificial Intelligence,Machine Learning,Neurons and Cognition
AI Risk Skepticism

Roman V. Yampolskiy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2105.02704

2021-07-18

Abstract:In this work, we survey skepticism regarding AI risk and show parallels with other types of scientific skepticism. We start by classifying different types of AI Risk skepticism and analyze their root causes. We conclude by suggesting some intervention approaches, which may be successful in reducing AI risk skepticism, at least amongst artificial intelligence researchers.

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society
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
"Turing Tests" For An AI Scientist

Xiaoxin Yin

2024-05-22

Abstract:While LLMs have shown impressive capabilities in solving math or coding problems, the ability to make scientific discoveries remains a distinct challenge. This paper proposes a "Turing test for an AI scientist" to assess whether an AI agent can conduct scientific research independently, without relying on human-generated knowledge. Drawing inspiration from the historical development of science, we propose seven benchmark tests that evaluate an AI agent's ability to make groundbreaking discoveries in various scientific domains. These tests include inferring the heliocentric model from celestial observations, discovering the laws of motion in a simulated environment, deriving the differential equation governing vibrating strings, inferring Maxwell's equations from electrodynamics simulations, inventing numerical methods for initial value problems, discovering Huffman coding for data compression, and developing efficient sorting algorithms. To ensure the validity of these tests, the AI agent is provided with interactive libraries or datasets specific to each problem, without access to human knowledge that could potentially contain information about the target discoveries. The ultimate goal is to create an AI scientist capable of making novel and impactful scientific discoveries, surpassing the best human experts in their respective fields. These "Turing tests" serve as intermediate milestones, assessing the AI agent's ability to make discoveries that were groundbreaking in their time. If an AI agent can pass the majority of these seven tests, it would indicate significant progress towards building an AI scientist, paving the way for future advancements in autonomous scientific discovery. This paper aims to establish a benchmark for the capabilities of AI in scientific research and to stimulate further research in this exciting field.

Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

Lisa Messeri,M. J. Crockett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07146-0

IF: 64.8

2024-03-07

Nature

Abstract:Scientists are enthusiastically imagining ways in which artificial intelligence (AI) tools might improve research. Why are AI tools so attractive and what are the risks of implementing them across the research pipeline? Here we develop a taxonomy of scientists' visions for AI, observing that their appeal comes from promises to improve productivity and objectivity by overcoming human shortcomings. But proposed AI solutions can also exploit our cognitive limitations, making us vulnerable to illusions of understanding in which we believe we understand more about the world than we actually do. Such illusions obscure the scientific community's ability to see the formation of scientific monocultures, in which some types of methods, questions and viewpoints come to dominate alternative approaches, making science less innovative and more vulnerable to errors. The proliferation of AI tools in science risks introducing a phase of scientific enquiry in which we produce more but understand less. By analysing the appeal of these tools, we provide a framework for advancing discussions of responsible knowledge production in the age of AI.

multidisciplinary sciences
What Can Artificial Intelligence Learn from Wittgenstein'S on Certainty?

Xu Yingjin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-003-014-0037-9

2014-01-01

Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Abstract:Meta-philosophically speaking, the philosophy of artificial intelligence (AI) is intended not only to explore the theoretical possibility of building "thinking machines," but also to reveal philosophical implications of specific AI approaches. Wittgenstein's comments on the analytic/empirical dichotomy may offer inspirations for AI in the second sense. According to his "river metaphor" in On Certainty, the analytic/empirical boundary should be delimited in a way sensitive to specific contexts of practical reasoning. His proposal seems to suggest that any cognitive modeling project needs to render the system context-sensitive by avoiding representing large amounts of truisms in its cognitive processes, otherwise neither representational compactness nor computational efficiency can be achieved. In this article, different AI approaches (like the Common Sense Law of Inertia approach, the Bayesian approach and the connectionist approach) will be critically evaluated under the afore-mentioned Wittgensteinian criteria, followed by the author's own constructive suggestion on what AI needs to try to do in the near future.
Position: Stop Making Unscientific AGI Performance Claims

Patrick Altmeyer,Andrew M. Demetriou,Antony Bartlett,Cynthia C. S. Liem

2024-05-31

Abstract:Developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and particularly large language models (LLMs), have created a 'perfect storm' for observing 'sparks' of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that are spurious. Like simpler models, LLMs distill meaningful representations in their latent embeddings that have been shown to correlate with external variables. Nonetheless, the correlation of such representations has often been linked to human-like intelligence in the latter but not the former. We probe models of varying complexity including random projections, matrix decompositions, deep autoencoders and transformers: all of them successfully distill information that can be used to predict latent or external variables and yet none of them have previously been linked to AGI. We argue and empirically demonstrate that the finding of meaningful patterns in latent spaces of models cannot be seen as evidence in favor of AGI. Additionally, we review literature from the social sciences that shows that humans are prone to seek such patterns and anthropomorphize. We conclude that both the methodological setup and common public image of AI are ideal for the misinterpretation that correlations between model representations and some variables of interest are 'caused' by the model's understanding of underlying 'ground truth' relationships. We, therefore, call for the academic community to exercise extra caution, and to be keenly aware of principles of academic integrity, in interpreting and communicating about AI research outcomes.

Artificial Intelligence,Computation and Language
A Critical Historic Overview of Artificial Intelligence: Issues, Challenges, Opportunities and Threats

Peter P. Groumpos,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47852/bonviewaia3202689

2023-01-01

Artificial Intelligence and Applications

Abstract:Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been considered a revolutionary and world-changing science, although it is still a young field and has a long way to go before it can be established as a viable theory. Every day, new knowledge is created at an unthinkable speed, and the Big Data Driven World is already upon us. AI has developed a wide range of theories and software tools that have shown remarkable success in addressing difficult and challenging societal problems. However, the field also faces many challenges and drawbacks that have led some people to view AI with skepticism. One of the main challenges facing AI is the difference between correlation and causation, which plays an important role in AI studies. Additionally, although the term Cybernetics should be a part of AI, it was ignored for many years in AI studies. To address these issues, the Cybernetic Artificial Intelligence (CAI) field has been proposed and analyzed here for the first time. Despite the optimism and enthusiasm surrounding AI, its future may turn out to be a "catastrophic Winter" for the whole world, depending on who controls its development. The only hope for the survival of the planet lies in the quick development of Cybernetic Artificial Intelligence and the Wise Anthropocentric Revolution. The text proposes specific solutions for achieving these two goals. Furthermore, the importance of differentiating between professional/personal ethics and eternal values is highlighted, and their importance in future AI applications is emphasized for solving challenging societal problems. Ultimately, the future of AI heavily depends on accepting certain ethical values.
The Return of Pseudosciences in Artificial Intelligence: Have Machine Learning and Deep Learning Forgotten Lessons from Statistics and History?

Jérémie Sublime

2024-11-27

Abstract:In today's world, AI programs powered by Machine Learning are ubiquitous, and have achieved seemingly exceptional performance across a broad range of tasks, from medical diagnosis and credit rating in banking, to theft detection via video analysis, and even predicting political or sexual orientation from facial images. These predominantly deep learning methods excel due to their extraordinary capacity to process vast amounts of complex data to extract complex correlations and relationship from different levels of features. In this paper, we contend that the designers and final users of these ML methods have forgotten a fundamental lesson from statistics: correlation does not imply causation. Not only do most state-of-the-art methods neglect this crucial principle, but by doing so they often produce nonsensical or flawed causal models, akin to social astrology or physiognomy. Consequently, we argue that current efforts to make AI models more ethical by merely reducing biases in the training data are insufficient. Through examples, we will demonstrate that the potential for harm posed by these methods can only be mitigated by a complete rethinking of their core models, improved quality assessment metrics and policies, and by maintaining humans oversight throughout the process.

Machine Learning,Artificial Intelligence
Minds, Brains, AI

Jay Seitz

2024-04-22

Abstract:In the last year or so and going back many decades there has been extensive claims by major computational scientists, engineers, and others that AGI, artificial general intelligence, is five or ten years away, but without a scintilla of scientific evidence, for a broad body of these claims. Computers will become conscious, have a theory of mind, think and reason, will become more intelligent than humans, and so on. But the claims are science fiction, not science. This article reviews evidence for the following three propositions using extensive body of scientific research and related sources from the cognitive and neurosciences, evolutionary evidence, linguistics, data science, comparative psychology, self-driving cars, robotics. and the learning sciences. (1) Do computing machines think or reason? (2) Are computing machines sentient or conscious? (3) Do computing machines have a theory of mind?

Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society

Artificial intelligence needs a scientific method-driven reset

Artificial Intelligence Must Be Made More Scientific

Artificial Intelligence And The Scientific Method: How To Cope With A Complete Oxymoron

Closing the AI Knowledge Gap

Artificial Intelligence Inheriting the Historical Crisis in Psychology: An Epistemological and Methodological Investigation of Challenges and Alternatives

Explain the Black Box for the Sake of Science: the Scientific Method in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence

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

Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It

Needs and artificial intelligence

Why AI is Harder Than We Think

Problems in AI, their roots in philosophy, and implications for science and society

Artificial intelligence for science: The easy and hard problems

AI Risk Skepticism

AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse

"Turing Tests" For An AI Scientist

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

What Can Artificial Intelligence Learn from Wittgenstein'S on Certainty?

Position: Stop Making Unscientific AGI Performance Claims

A Critical Historic Overview of Artificial Intelligence: Issues, Challenges, Opportunities and Threats

The Return of Pseudosciences in Artificial Intelligence: Have Machine Learning and Deep Learning Forgotten Lessons from Statistics and History?

Minds, Brains, AI