I wrote earlier about the threats that are currently attacking our computer systems in the society, and we can also see that there are new attempts at increasing the security in the systems. However, there is an inherent problem in computer security, namely the transparency and usability of the systems. It seems that it is very difficult to create security systems that are easy to use. We have been used to writing our passwords on sticky notes and paste them on the screen, and we put our PIN codes on small paper notes in the wallet so that we will not forget them when we really need them. The reason for this is of course that the passwords, in order to be strong, have to be more than impossible to remember. Even worse is that in order to be really safe (according to the professional advice), you should have different passwords everywhere. And there are also all the many PIN codes to all the cards we have.
One important property within the human being is the delimitation of the memory. We have problems remembering meaningless things, such as the recommended password: “gCjn*wZEZK^gN0HGFg4wUAws”. So people tend to not have that kind of passwords, which of course leads to a decreased security. Well, in some sense we also solved this problem by adding two-step verification, i.e., the “if-you-don’t-have-your-phone-you-are-lost”-verification. This, of course, has to be interleaved with “find a motorcycle” or “find the traffic lights” games, to prove that you are not a robot (!).
Now it has become better, we have biometric security. We use the fingerprint or facial recognition methods. Only problem is that after a day of work in the garden, the fingerprints are no longer recognizable, and after a severe accident, the face may not look at all like yourself anymore, so you cannot call your family to say that you are OK. Well, at least it is safe, isn’t it?
Yes, but not when it comes to the current means for BankID, the virtual identification used in Sweden. Yes, of course it works when you want to log into your bank in order to handle your affairs. It is an accepted identification method. BUT not when you want to move your BankID to a new telephone! To do so, you now (after the last change) have to scan your passport or national ID-card. The most common means of identification, which in Sweden is your driver’s license, is on the other hand NOT accepted.
You might think that that should not be any problems, since everybody will surely have a passport today? But, no, that is not the case. As an anecdotal evidence I will relate my fathers situation:
My father just turned 90 years old. He is still a young man in an old body, so he has an iMac, an iPad, a laser printer, etc. at home. He is in fact a quite heavy tech user for his age. He also had an old smartphone that started to lose its battery charging, so he was given a new smartphone as one of the birthday presents. The transfer of the data went smoothly and without any hiccups, until it was time to use the BankID on the new phone. It was of course not transferred. Thus, we ordered a new BankID on his bank and signed it with his BankID on his new phone. But now…
Who is being excluded by the design?
My father decided to quit driving several years ago. However, he still kept his drivers license and even had it renewed without problems. Although being an ex-globetrotter he also reckoned that he needs no passport any more. So, when I asked him for an ID, he produced the drivers license. That did of course not work, although it is valid as identification in most other places. It was not an option to go to the bank and identify himself. They cannot validate the BankID. It has to be done through the web page and the app. Sorry!
So, now I have to take my father through the heavy cold and snow to the police station to have a new passport, which is only going to be used one single time, that is, in order to install the BankID. Where is the user friendly procedure in this?
I would think that my father is not the only person who is using the driver’s license as identification. I assume that many older people, for example, will have a similar problem when they need to get a new BankID (provided that they even use a smartphone).
Where is the human-friendly procedure for establishing the identity? Why can we, for example, no longer trust the people at the bank to identify a person with a valid identification and flick a switch to accept the ID? To make the issue a bit more general: Where has the consequence analysis gone when we make this kind of decisions? Or even better stated:
Who is going to be excluded by the new design or decision?
This post was actually started in late 2023, when the Swedish Church had become the victim of a cyberattack with ransomware, which took place November 22. The church organization at that time decided that it will not pay the ransom (in order not to make this a successful attack) but will instead recover the systems manually over time. However, this recovery takes a lot of time, and as long as the systems are not completely recovered, it is not possible to make any bookings for baptizing and weddings. In case of a funeral, it has still been possible to make a booking, but, the data had to be taken down using pen and paper (i.e., post-it notes).
We are very vulnerable if we only depend on our digital systems.
Head of information services at the Swedish church
In Sweden, the church has been separated from the government, but it is also still responsible for a number of national and regional bookkeeping services, like funerals. Also, a large number of people will still use the church services for baptizing and weddings, where in the latter case it also fulfills its role as an official administrative unit, in parallel with the weddings that are registered by the government. Suffice it to say that the church depends heavily on digital administration for its work. Consequently, some parts of the Swedish society also depends on the same computer systems being intact.
More attacks…
In 2024, there has now been a number of similar events, mostly through the use of ransomware, but also with overloading web servers. The systems affected this time have been in other organizations and governmental institutions. The most famous of them this time is probably the HR management system Primula, which is also used by the defense organizations and industries, among many others (including universities). This time the attacks are suspected to be made Russian hackers, possibly as part of a destabilization campaign as part of the ongoing war in Ukraine.
Again, the main issue is not that there have been attacks that have been successful, but rather that the backup systems are insufficient or, in most cases seemingly missing. Hopefully the systems will soon be up and running again, but if there is an attack on systems that are more central to the functions in society, then the problem is not only in small organizations, but may affect larger systems including systems for money transfers. Recently shops have been forced to close, when there have been longer problems with the money services.
In this context it is also important to point to the problem with paying. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB), which is responsible for helping society prepare for major accidents, crises and the consequences of war, recently sent out a message to the public, advising them to always have at list 2000 SEK in cash at home. The question is whether the society is prepared to revert to using cash money for the transactions. A large number of shops and services no longer accept cash as payment.
What now
When interviewed, the head of the information service for the Swedish church said that one lesson they have learned from this event is that they have to be less dependent on computer services than before. He did not specify how in any more detailed way, but the message was more or less clear: “We are very vulnerable if we only depend on our digital systems”. His conclusion is neither new, nor especially controversial. When our computer systems or the Internet fails, we are more or less helpless in many places. However, most of the time, the threats are envisioned in terms of disk crashes, physical damage or other similar factors. The increased risk of cyber attacks is not mentioned to the public to any larger extent.
We depend on our IT-support units to handle any possible interrupt as fast as possible, but the question is whether this is enough. Are there backups of the data? Are there backup systems that are ready to be launched in case the old system is failing? Are there backup non-computer based procedures that can replace the computer systems if there is a longer breakdown of the computer systems? Even if it is costly to maintain these backup systems/procedures, it is quite likely that we will need to add a higher level of security in order to not end up with a social disaster, where a large part of the society is essentially incapacitated.
What are the consequences?
We can just imagine what would happen if, as mentioned above, the central systems for bank transfers fails badly or gets “cyber-kidnapped”. Credit cards will not work, neither will mobile money transfers or other electronic payment options. There will be no way to pay our bills, and we may not even get the bills at first hand. Probably even the ATM machines will cease to work, so that there is no possibility to get cash either. Imagine now that this failure will last for days and weeks. What are the consequences?
But we don’t have to look at this national disaster scenario. It is enough to think about what will happen if the computer systems in universities or other large organizations are attacked by cyber-criminals. Not to mention the effects on critical health care, where minutes and seconds can count. Do we have any possibilities to continue the work, reaching journals or other important documents, schedule meetings, planning operations and other important events? Are we really ready to start working on paper again, if necessary? I fear not!
With the current situation in the world, with wars and possible also challenges from deteriorating environmental factors, a lack of emergency plans for our digital systems may not only be causing serious problems, but may really turn out to be disastrous in case of any larger international crisis. Looking at what happens around the world currently, it is easy to see that the risk for cyber-attacks in international crisis situations has increased to a high degree. In many cases the (possible) plans on how to proceed are not known to people who work in the organizations. Is your work protected? Do you know what to do if the systems fail?
Unfortunately, we cannot continue to hope that “this will never happen”. Even if the most extreme of the possible scenarios may not happen, we are still very vulnerable to attacks, e.g., with ransomware or “Denial of service” from “normal cyber-criminals” and this can be just as bad on the local scene, when a whole organization is brought to a halt due to a computer system failing badly. Therefore we need to be acting proactively in order to not be stuck if/when the systems fail. Because, it is quite certain that they will fail at some point of time.
And how will YOUR organization handle that kind of situation? Do YOU know?
Information Technology is now being developed in a pace which is almost unbelievable. This is of course not always visible in the shape of computers, but also in the form of embedded technology, for example, in cars, home assistants, phones and so on. Much of this development is currently either driven by pure curiosity, or to cater for some perceived (sometimes imagined) user need. Among the former we may count the first version of the chatbots, where the initial research was mostly looking at how very large language models could be created. Once people became aware of the possibilities, that created a need for a service driven by the results, resulting in the new tools that are now being developed as a result.
Among the latter versions we have the development in the car industry as one example. Security has been a key issue among both drivers and car manufacturers for a long time. Most, if not all new cars today are equipped with intelligent non-locking brakes, anti-spin regulators, and even sensors that will support the driver in not crossing the lane borders involuntarily. The last feature is in fact more complex than might be thought at the beginning. Any course correction must be made in such a way that the driver feels that he or she is still in control of the car. The guiding systems have to interact seamlessly with the driver.
But there is one other ongoing development according to the latter version, which we can already see will have larger consequences for the society and for people in general. This development is also always announced as being of primary importance for the general public (at least for people with some financial funds). This is a product that resides at the far end of the ongoing development of car security systems. I am talking about the development of self-driving cars. The current attempts are still not successful enough to allow these cars to be let completely free in the normal traffic.
There are, however, some positive examples already, such as autonomous taxis in Dubai, and there are several car-driving systems that almost manage to behave in a safe manner. This is still not enough, as there have been a number of accidents with cars running in self-driving mode. But even when the cars become safe enough, one of the main remaining problems is the issue of responsibility. Who is responsible in the event of an accident? Currently, the driver is in most cases still responsible, since the law says that you cannot cease being aware of what happens in the surroundings. But, we are rapidly going towards a future where self driving cars may finally be a reality.
Why do we develop self-driving cars?
Enters the question: “Why?”. As a spoil sport I actually have to ask, why do we develop self driving cars? In the beginning, there was, of course, the curiosity aspect. There were competitions where cars were set to navigate long distances without human interception. But now, it seems to become more of a competition factor between car manufacturers. Who will be the first car producer that will cater for “the lazy driver who does not want to drive”?
It is, in fact, quite seldom that we hear any longer discussions about the target users of self-driving cars. For whom are they being developed? For the rich lazy driver? If so, that is in my opinion a very weak motivation. Everybody will of course benefit from a safer driving environment, and when (if) there is a time when there will only be self driving cars in the streets, it might be good for everybody, including cyclists and pedestrian. One other motivation mentioned has been that there are people who are unable to get a driver’s license, who would now be able to use a car.
But there is one group (or rather a number of groups) of people who would really benefit from this development when it is progressing further. Who are these people? Well, it is not very difficult to see that a group of people who would benefit the most of having self driving cars are people with severe impairments, and not least people with severe visual impairments. Today, blind people (among many others) are completely dependent on other people for their transport. In a self driving car, they could instead be free to go anywhere, anytime, just like everyone else today (if you have a valid driver’s license). This is in one sense the definition of freedom, as an extension of independence.
Despite this, we never hear this as an argument for the development of this fantastic supportive tool (as in fact, it could be). It is, as mentioned above, mostly presented as an interesting feature for techno-nerdy, rich and lazy drivers, who do not want to take the effort of driving themselves. Imagine what would happen if we could motivate this research from the perspective of supportive tools. Apart from raising the hope for millions of people who cannot drive, there would as a result also be millions of potential, eager new buyers only in the category of people who are blind or who have severe visual impairments. Adding to this also the possibility for older people who now have to stop driving due to age-related problems, who can now use the car much longer to a great personal benefit.
The self-driving car is indeed a very important supportive tool, and therefore I strongly support the current development!
This is, however, just one case among many others, on how we can motivate research also as a development of supportive tools. We just have to see the potentials in the research. Artificial Intelligence methods will allow us to “see” things without the help of our eye, make prostheses that move by will, and support people with dyslexia to read and write texts in a better way.
All it takes is a little bit of thinking outside of the box, some extra creativity, and, of course good knowledge about impairments and about the current rapid developments within (Information) Technology.
The education conference Frontiers in Education (FIE) 2023 was held in College Station, Texas. It is a quite large conference, and there were many tracks during the three days that the conference was on. College station is situated between Dallas and Houston, and it is a, well, lets say interesting city, and incorporates another apparently a bit older city, Bryant, in the close vicinity. There was not that much time for sight-seeing so it was mainly the road from the hotel to the conference centre that became the major view during the conference.
The conference offered a large number of very interesting presentations and I did in fact not sit through any bad or boring presentations, Before the main conference there was also one day of workshops, as usual so many that it was difficult to chose one of them. I attended one on inclusive mentoring, which was very inspiring as a supervisor/mentor in general . I am of course very happy to find that there were quite a few presentations, work shops and special sessions that dealt with the issue of inclusion of students on various levels.
The special session on “Disabled Students in Engineering” was held by four Ph.D. students, and was very well prepared, rendering lots of inspiration for the teaching. The organizers also shared very good working material, which can be reused, e.g., in course seminars (I have just started a 15 credit course on non-excluding design).
All in all, the conference felt well worth the effort and time spent. It is always a good feeling when you return home and feel inspired, and just long for putting all the experiences at work in your own teaching. I have already added several new ideas to the course, and I think that this will improve the course a lot.
Still, maybe the most inspiring part of the conference was the (positive and constructive) critique I received on my presentation and paper: “New Perspectives on Education and Examination in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” which I almost wanted to retitle as “Old perspectives…” since it looks back at older forms of examination, where there was a closer connection between teacher and student. This closer connection and the way it is achieved does make it more difficult for the student to “cheat” or use the AI chat bots.
An old Greek teacher and his student discussing some interesting problem during the examination
This post is already long enough, so I will not present the paper in any more detail here, but should you want to have a copy of the paper, please contact me with an email. You are also free to comment/criticize this post in the comment section below.
Note: This is a long article, written from a very personal take on Artificial Intelligence.
The current hype word seems to be “Artificial Intelligence” or in its short form “AI. If one is to believe what people say, AI is now everywhere, threatening everything from artists to industrial workers. There is even the (in)famous letter, written by some “experts” in the field, calling for an immediate halt to the development of new and better AI systems. But nothing really happened after that, and now the DANGER is apparently hovering over us all. Or is it?
Hint: Yes, it is, but also not in the way we might think!
The term “Artificial Intelligence” has recently been watered out in media and advertisements, so that the words almost don’t mean anything anymore. Despite this, the common ideas seem to be that we should 1) either be very, very afraid, or 2) hurriedly adapt to the new technology (AI) as fast as possible. But why should we be afraid at all, and for what? When asked, people often reply that AI will replace everybody at work, or that evil AI will take over anything from governments to the world as a whole. This latter is of course also a common theme for science fiction books and movies. Still, neither of these are really good reasons to fear the current development. But in order to understand why this is so, we need to go back to the historical roots of Artificial Intelligence.
What do we Mean by AI, then?
Artificial Intelligence started as a discipline in 1956 during a workshop at Dartmouth College, USA. During the discipline development, a distinction between two directions formed, that between strong and weak AI. Strong AI aims at replicating a human type of intelligence, whereas weak AI aimed at develop computations methods or algorithms that made use of ideas gained from Human Intelligence (often for specific areas of computation). Neural networks are, for example, representative of the weak AI directions. Today, strong AI is also referred to as AGI (Artificial General Intelligence), meaning a non-specialized artificial agent.
But in the 1950:s and 1960:s computers were neither as fast, nor as large as the current computers, which at that time imposed severe limitations on what you were able to do within the field. A large amount of work was theoretical, but there were some interesting implementations, such as Eliza, SHRDLU and not least Conceptual Dependencies (I have chosen these three examples carefully, since each of these poses some interesting properties with respect to AI, and I will explain this in the following and then follow up on the introduction):
Conceptual Dependencies : Conceptual Dependencies is an example of a very successful implementation of an artificial system with a very interesting take on knowledge representation. The system was written in the programming language LISP, and attempted to extract the essential knowledge that hid in the texts. The result was a conceptual dependency network, that could then be used successfully to summarize news articles on certain topics (the examples were taken from natural disasters and airplane hijacking). There were also attempts to make the system produce small (children’s) stories. All in all, the problem was that the computers were too small to be practically useful.
SHRDLU : SHRDLU was a virtual system that worked by having a small robot manipulating geometric shapes in a 3D modelling world. It was able to reason about the different possible or impossible moves, for example, that it is not possible to put a cube on top of a pyramid, but it is OK to do the reverse. The problem with SHRDLU was that there were some bugs in the representation and the reasoning, which ended in that it was pointed out that the examples shown were most likely preselected and did not display any general reasoning capabilities.
Eliza : The early chatbot Eliza is probably most known as the “Computer Psychologist”. It was able to keep up a conversation with a human for some time, pretending to be a Psychologist and it did so well that it was enough to actually convince some people that it was a real Psychologist behind the screen. “But, hold it!” someone may say here, “Eliza was not a real artificial intelligence! It was a complete fake!”. And yes, you would be perfectly right here. Eliza was a fraud, not so that it wasn’t a computer program, but in that it was faking the “understanding” of what the user wrote. But this is exactly the point with mentioning Eliza here. A intelligence-like behaviour may fool many, even though it does not have any “intelligent system” under the hood.
What can we Learn from AI History?
The properties of these three historical systems that I would like to point to in more detail are as follows:
Conceptual dependencies: AI needs some kind of knowledge representation. At least some basic knowledge must be stored in some way as a basis for the interpretation of the prompts.
SHRDLU : An artificial agent needs to be able to do some reasoning about this knowledge. Knowledge representation is only useful if it possible to use it for reasoning and possible generation of new data.
Eliza : Not all AI-like systems are to be considered to be real Artificial Intelligence. In fact Joseph Weizenbaum created Eliza in order to prove exactly how easy it was to emulate some “intelligent behaviour”.
To start with these three examples also have one interesting common property, namely that they are transparent since the theory and implementations have been made public. This is actually a major problem with many of the current generative AI agents, since they are based on large amounts of data, the source listings of which are not publicly available.
The three examples above also point to additional problems with the generative modelling approaches to AI (those that are currently considered so dangerous). In order to become an AGI (artificial general intelligence) it is most likely that there needs to be some kind of knowledge base, and an ability to reason about this knowledge. We could in fact regard the large generative AI agents as very advanced versions of Eliza, in some cases also enhanced with search abilities in order to give better answers, but as a matter of fact they don’t really produce “new” knowledge, just phrases that are the most probable continuations of the texts in the prompts. Considering the complexity of languages this is in itself no small feat, but it is definitely not a form of intelligent reasoning.
The similarity to Eliza is increased by the way the answers are given to a person, in that they are given in a very friendly form, even having the system apologize when it is pointed out that the answer it has given is not correct. This conversational style of interaction can easily fool users who are less knowledgeable about computers that there is a genie in the system, which is very intelligent and (very close to) a know-it-all. More about this problem later in this post.
Capabilities of and Risks with Generative AI?
The main problem that has arisen is that the generative AI systems cannot produce any real novelties, since the answers are based on (in the best case, extrapolation of) existing texts (or pictures). Should they by any chance produce new knowledge, there is no way to know whether this “new knowledge” is correct or not! And here is where, in my opinion, the real danger with generative AI lies. If we ask for information we either get correct “old” information, or new information which we cannot know whether it is correct or not. And we are only given one single answer per question. In this sense the chatbots could be compared to the first version of Google search, which contained a button marked “I’m feeling lucky!”, an option which just gave you one single answer, and not as now hundreds of pages to look through.
Googles search page with the “I’m feeling lucky!”-button, which has now been removed.
The chatbots also provide single answers (longer of course), but in Eliza manner wrapped in a conversational style that is supposed to convince the user that the answer is correct. Fortunately (or not?), the answers are often quite correct, so they will in most cases provide both good and useful information. However, all results still need to be “proof-read” in order to guarantee the validity of the contents. Thus, the users will have to apply critical thinking and reasoning to a high extent when using the results. Paradoxically, the better the systems become, i.e., the more of the results that are correct, the more we need to check the results in detail, especially when critical documents are to be produced where an error may have large consequences.
Impressive systems for sure!
Need we be worried about the AI development, then? No, today there is no real reason to worry about the development as such, but we need to be more concerned about the common usage of the results from AI systems. It is necessary to make sure that the users do understand that chatbots are not intelligent in the sense we normally think. They are good at (re-)producing text (and images), which most of the time make them very useful supportive tools for writers and programmers, for example. Using the bots to create text that can be used as a base for writing a document or an article is one interesting example of where this kind of systems will prove to be very important in the future. It will still be quite some time before they will be able to write an exiting and interesting novel, without the input and revision of a human author. Likewise, I would be very hesitant about using a chatbot to write a research article, or even worse, a text book in any topic. These latter usages will definitely require a significant amount or proof-reading, fact-checking and not least rewriting, before being released.
The AI systems that are under debate now are still very impressive creations, of course, and they manifest a significant progress in the engineering of software. The development of these systems is remarkable, and they have a potential to become very important in society, but they do not really produce really intelligent behaviour. The systems are very good statistical language generators, but with a very, very advanced form of Eliza at the controls
The future?
Will there be AGI, or strong AI beings in the future? Yes, undoubtedly, but this will take a long time still (I am prepared to be the laughing stock in five years, if they arrive. And these systems will most likely be integrated with the generative AI we have to day for the language management. Still, we will most likely not be able to get there, as long as we forget about the use of some kind of knowledge network underneath. It might not be in the classic form as mentioned above, but it seems that knowledge and reasoning strategies, rather than statistical models has to form some kind of underlying technology.
How probable is this different development path leading to strong AI, or AGI systems? Personally, I think it is quite probable and it seems to be doable, but I am also very curious about how the development will proceed over time. I would be extremely happy if an AGI could be born in my life time (being 61 at the time of writing).
And hopefully these new beings will be in the shape of benevolent, very intelligent agents, that can cooperate with humans in a constructive way. I still have the hope. Please feel free to add your thought in the comments below.
Last Friday, I was interviewed by the Swedish television (the local Uppland channel) about the reasons for this and the possible dangers with the application from a security perspective. The interview can be found here but it is only in Swedish. Therefore I will describe the problem in this post as well.
The municipality of Uppsala, together with a large number of other public actors (also in many other countries) have recently prohibited the use of TikTok on the work spade. Apart from that some people might think that there are very limited reasons to why you should need access to TikTok on your mobiles at all during your work, why would you prohibit the use of TikTok, when you can still use Youtube, Instagram and Facebook? What is different with TikTok?
There are actually some reasons for this, both the prohibition and the differences between the application. TikTok is an application that allows the users to record short videos (max 3 min) and publish these on the TikTok platform. This has become very popular among, above all, young people. There is also an ongoing critical discussion about the social aspects of the TikTok application, but it is not part of this post.
When the application is installed, it asks the user for permission to access photo and video storage, the camera and the microphone, which is of course quite reasonable, since the purpose of the app is exactly to record videos and store them in the user’s phone. However, it also asks for access to the contact lists, and the current location when used. And here is one of the problems, namely that this data is given by the user to an application we know very little about. But, one may object, this data is not dangerous, we give it to almost any of the social media applications (actually, that might be something we should not do either, without some consideration).
The data the users provide is, however, actually not that innocent as it might seem at first sight. If the application can collect the data as mentioned above, the data might form a much bigger collection of “innocent” data, which is not as innocent anymore. It contains your contacts, the places where you have been, and also when you where there. If the data of different people are correlated on the whole data set, there might be patterns that could show interesting things for people who are specifically interested. It could for example show regular visits to certain locations, or even that you meet some people regularly. Still, who would be interested of this information? Not everything might be interesting, but suppose that you are engaged in a civil defense organization. Then the meeting places, the people you meet at those meetings, and who these people meet in other contexts might be very important information for a possible enemy. So, there are quite a few people in a city that could be of interest in this kind of analysis.
But, as mentioned above, this information is provided to many different applications, so why has TikTok been singled out like this? Well, there is one additional argument for this, namely that it is very important that we know where the information is going in the larger perspective. This is where the history of TikTok becomes relevant. TikTok is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance, one of the biggest startup companies in the world, and this is where the main problem starts. The statement in the Privacy Policy gives an indication (my boldface added):
We may disclose any of the Information We Collect to respond to subpoenas, court orders, legal process, law enforcement requests, legal claims, or government inquiries, and to protect and defend the rights, interests, safety, and security of the Platform, our affiliates, users, or the public. We may also share any of the Information We Collect to enforce any terms applicable to the Platform, to exercise or defend any legal claims, and comply with any applicable law.
TiKToK Privacy Policy
The text in boldface provides a key to the problems. The data can be released in certain situations, which are not under our control. In 2017 China implemented a law that compels companies to turn over personal data relevant to China’s security. The question is then what this data might be. Depending on the situation, information pertaining other countries’ military and/or civil defenses might be very relevant to another country. The company can, through its mother company be forced to hand out any information under the conditions mentioned.
What are the odds? It is difficult to say, of course. However, since TikTok is not crucial to the work in public organizations, there is no reason even to take the chances. Especially in the current situation where there is such unrest over most of the world, there is definitely a reason for being careful in general with the handing out of data.
But, there are also some drawbacks with the general ban on the application. As mentioned above, the application is mostly used by young people. This also means that the proper use of the application can become an entry point to different youth groups, which could be invaluable to certain groups in the municipality, such as social workers, schools, and not least libraries. The libraries have used the application for some time to spread information to young people under the hashtag #BookTok, which allegedly has been very popular. This will now become difficult to handle with the current ban. Of course there may be ways around this ban, but in my opinion it all goes to show that a ban on an application like this has to be carefully considered, and that there should be an awareness of that there could be cases where there has to be exceptions. And, not least, there is a need for more information to potential users of social media about the possible risks that follow the usage.
To quote a famous detective in a famous TV-series:
The current extremely rapid development within Artificial Intelligence is the matter of a widespread debate, and in most cases it is discussed in terms of being potential dangers to humanity and providing increased possibilities for students to cheat on examinations. When it comes to Artificial Intelligence based art or image generators (AIAG) the questions are mostly focused on similar negative issues, such as whether it really is art or if this is even going to render artists out of business. For the topic of this blog, however, I will reverse the direction of these discussion to take on a more positive and, hopefully more constructive perspective on Artificial Intelligence (*).
A small girl being very afraid of riding the elevator. Her anxiety may become a large problem for her unless treated in an early stage.
Real prompt: a small girl in an elevator, the girl looks very afraid and stands in one corner, the buttons of the elevator are in a vertical row, pencil drawing
The interesting thing is that we don’t focus the discussions more on the possibilities for these tools to be really useful, adding positively to the work. However, I will in this blog post give an example of where the use of AIAG:s as a toolcan be very important within the area of health care, and more specifically within child psychiatry. The examples are collected from an information presentation for parents to children who suffer from panic disorder. The person who has asked for the illustrations works as a counselor at a psychiatric unit for children and young people (BUP) in Sweden. Using the popular, and very powerful AI art generation application MidJourney, I have then produced the different illustrations for the presentation, some of which are now reproduced in this post.
The main captions of the images in this post are taken from the requests made by the counselor, and do not show the actual prompts used, which are in many cases much less comprehensive (shown in smaller type below).
A boy hesitates at the far end of the landing-stage, showing some fear of the evil waves that are trying to catch him.
Real prompt: a boy dressed in swimming trunks::1 is standing at the end of a trampoline::2 , the boy looks anxious and bewildered::1, as if he fears jumping into the water::3, you can see his whole body::1 pencil drawing
It is often difficult to find visual material that is suitable as illustrations in this kind of situations, where there are high requirements on integrity and data safety. Clip art is often quite boring and may also not provide any direct engagement in the viewers. The high demands of integrity delimits the use of stock photos, and copyright issues add further to the problems. Here we can see a very important application area for the Artificial Intelligence Art Generators, since these images are more or less guaranteed not to show any real human beings.
A small girl showing an all but hidden insecurity, being alone in the crowd on a town square.
Real prompt: a small girl is standing in the middle of the town square with lots of people walking by, the girl looks anxious and bewildered, as if she fears being alone, pencil drawing
The images displayed in this post are all produced according to the wishes from the councellor which I have then converted into prompts that produce the desired results. Not all attempts succeeded at once, some images had have the prompts rewritten several times in order to reach the best images. This, of course, points to the simple fact that the role of the prompt writer will be very important in the future illustration creation.
Who does not recognize the classic scare of small children: “There is a wolf in my room!” It could of course also be a monster under the bed, or any other kind of scary imaginations that will prevent the child from sleeping.
Real prompt: a small boy being very anxious when the parent leaves his room for him to sleep, he believes that there is a wolf under his bed, pencil drawing,
In the end, it is also important to point out that a good artist could of course have created all these pictures, and in even better versions. The power of the AIAG:s is, in this example, that it can enable some people to make more and better illustrations as an integrated part of the production of presentations, information material, etc. The alternative is in many cases to just leave out the illustrations, since “I cannot draw anything at all, it just turns ugly”.
Even when there are no monsters in the bedroom, just the parent leaving the child alone, might be enough to invoke a very strong panic, which is difficult for the child to handle.
Real prompt: a small boy being very anxious when the parent leaves his room for him to sleep, pencil drawing
So, to conclude, this was just one example of when Artificial Intelligence systems can be very helpful and productive, if used properly. We just need to start thinking of all the possible usages we can find for the different systems, which, unfortunately is less common than we would want, to some extent due to the large amount of negative articles and discussions that concern the development of AI systems.
====================================
(*) Here in this post the term AI is used mostly in the classic sense of “weak AI”, namely the use of methods that are based on models that are imitating processes within human thinking, which does not necessarily mean that the system is indeed “intelligent”. In this way, the systems mentioned in this post are not really considered by me to be really intelligent, although they may well be advanced enough to emulate an intelligent being.
Can we believe what we see or read in the future? This polar bear walking in the desert does not exist, but can still affect our thoughts. (Picture: Oestreicher and MidJourney).
Recently there has been an open letter from a number of AI-experts advocating a pause in the development of new AI agents. The main reason for this is the very rapid development of chatbots based on generative networks, e.g., chatGPT and Brad, and a large number of competitors still in the starting blocks. These systems are now also publicly available at a fairly reasonable cost. The essence in the letter is that the current development is too fast for society (and humanity) to cope with it. This is of course an important statement, although we already have the social media, which when used in the wrong way has a serious impact on people in general (such as promoting absurd norms of beauty, or dangerous medical advice spreading in various groups).
The generative AI systems that are under discussion in the letter will undoubtedly have an impact on society, and we are definitely also taken by surprise in many realms already. Discussions are already here on how to “prevent students from cheating on their examinations by using chatGPT (see my earlier post about this here). The problem in that case is not the cheating, but that we teach in a way that makes it possible to cheat with these new tools. To prohibit the use is definitely not the right way to go.
The same holds for the dangers pointed to by the signers of the public letter mentioned above. A simple voluntary pausing of the development will not solve the problem at all. The systems are already here and being used. We will need to see other solutions to these dangers, and most important of all, we will need to study what these dangers really are. From my perspective the dangers have nothing to do with the singularity, or with the AI taking over the world, as some researchers claim. No, I can see at least two types of dangers, one immediate, and one that will/may appear within a few years or a decade.
Fact or fiction?
Did this chipmunk really exist? Well, in Narnia, he was a rat, named Ripipip (Picture: Oestreicher and MidJourney).
The generative AI systems are based on an advanced (basically statistical) analysis of a large number of data, either texts (as in chatBots), or pictures, as in AI art generators, (such as DALL-E or MidJourney). The output from the systems has to be generated with this data as a primary (or only) source. This means that the output will not be anything essentially new, but even more problematic, the models which are the kernel of the systems are completely non-transparent.Even if it is possible to detect some patterns in the in- and output sequences, it is quite safe to say that no human will understand the models themselves.
Furthermore, the actual text collections (or image bases, but I will leave these systems aside for a coming post) on which the systems are based, are not available to the public, which causes the first problem. We, as users, don’t know what the source of a certain detail of the result is based on, whether it is a scientific text or a purely fictitious description in a sci-fi novel. Any text generated by the chatBot needs to be thoroughly scanned with a critical mind, in order not to accept things that are not accurate (or even straightforwardly wrong). Even more problematic is that these errors are not the ones that may be simple to detect. In the words of chatGPT itself:
GPT distinguishes between real and fictitious facts by relying on the patterns and context it has learned during its training. It uses the knowledge it has acquired from the training data to infer whether a statement is likely to be factual or fictional. However, the model’s ability to differentiate between real and fictitious facts is not perfect and depends on the quality and comprehensiveness of the training data.
chatGPT 3.5
And the training data we know very little about. The solution to this problem is most of the time addressed as “wait for the next generation”. The problem here is that the next generation of models will not be more transparent, rather the opposite.
So, how is the ordinary user, who is not an expert in a field, supposed to be able to know whether the answers they get are correct or incorrect? For example, I had chatGPT producing two different texts; one giving the arguments that would prove God’s existence, and one that gave the arguments that would prove that God does not exist. Both versions were very much to the point, but what should we make of it? Today, when there are many topics that are the subjects of heated debates, such as the climate crisis, the necessity of vaccinations, etc., this “objectivity” could be very dangerous if it is not used with a fair amount of critical thinking.
Recursion into absurdity – or old stuff in new containers?
Infinite recursion inspired by M.C. Esher. (Picture: Oestreicher and MidJourney).
As mentioned above, the models are based on large amounts of texts, so far mostly produced by humans. However, today there is a large pool of productivity enhancers that provide AI support for the production of everything, from summaries to complete articles or book chapters. It is quite reasonable to assume that more and more people will start using these services for their own private creations, as well as, hopefully with some caution as per the first problem above, in the professional sphere. We can assume that when there is a tool, people will start using it.
Now, as more and more generated texts will appear on the public scene, it will undoubtedly mix in with the human-created text masses. Since the material for the chatBots needs to be updated regularly in order to keep up with the developments in the world, the generated texts will also slowly but steadily make their way into the materials and in the long run be recycled as new texts adding to the information content. The knowledge produced by the chatBots will be more and more based on the generated texts, and my fear is that this will be a very rapidly accelerating phenomenon that may greatly affect the forthcoming results. In the long run, we may not know whether a certain knowledge is created by humans or by chatbots that generate the new knowledge from the things we already know.
This recursive loop of traversing the human knowledge base mixed with the results from the generative AI-systems may not be as bad as might be considered, but it might also lead to a large amount of absurdity being produced as being factually correct knowledge. In the best case, we can be sure that most of the generated texts in the future will consist of old stuff being repackaged into new packages.
Conclusions
What can be seen through the knowledge lens of the chatbots that are emerging (Picture: Oestreicher and MidJourney).
So, what are my conclusions from this? Should we freeze the development of these systems, as proposed in the open letter? We could, but I do not think that this will solve any problems. We have opened the box of Pandora, and the genie is already out of his bottle. In my perspective, the issue is more on learning how to use this knowledge in order to have it work for us in the best way. Prohibitions and legal barriers have never proved to stop people from doing things. The solution is instead the promotion of knowledge, not least to the main sources of education, and I do not just mean the schools and universities, but journalists and writers in general, as well as people who will be using this.
Already with social media, the problem with “fake news” and “fake science” has been a big problem, but as long as people will regard information from external sources (such as social media, Google searches, facebook or reddit groups, and now chatBots) as truths, and swallow the information from these as plain truths, we can pause the development of GPTs as much as we like and the problem will not go away. We started on this path already with the fast developments of social media, and it will not go away just because we cover our eyes.
So, I urge you as a reader to read this article with a critical mind, and don’t just believe everything that is written here. You know, I just might be completely wrong about this, myself.
But will the new tools really make it possible to cheat that much? Well, if we maintain the old style of teaching and examining, the answer is undoubtedly “yes”. However, we can also see this as a possibility to improve, or even revolutionize both education and examination. This, of course, need some changes to be implemented. I will explain my thoughts a bit more in the following.
When we look at our teaching obligation, we need to pose the question: “What do we want our students to learn?”. Well, knowledge about the topic at hand, of course. But is that really true? In the first run, what do we define as knowledge? In many cases, the things that appear on the exams are questions about details, details that they will be able to google as soon as they get outside of the examination hall. Home exams are slightly better, since the students will have to synthesize the answers to the exam, rather than just look them up. But now you can ask a program like chatGPT to do the synthesis for you. And is that cheating? In our old apperception of examination, of course it is. What has the student done to get the piece of text written? Not very much!
Is the classical teaching doomed? No, but it needs to adapt to the new conditions. (Source: L. Oestreicher)
However, when we look closer at this, we can change the question a little, and see what happens? The new question would be something in the way of: “How could we change the way of teaching and examination so that this kind of helping tool will not be a cheating possibility (but maybe even a learning tool)?”. My answer to this question is to focus on understanding. My favourite meme for teaching is: “You can lead a camel to the water, but you cannot force it to drink”. As teachers in higher education, teaching will have to focus more on the “How it works” and “Why it works” of the topics, rather than the “How can I implement it”. The students’ understanding of the (role of the) acquired knowledge in the applicable context has to be the most important teaching goal.
But don’t we do this? Some people may already do so, but we still see many exam questions that focus on the student memorizing the content of the course, rather than understanding how to synthesize the answers through their understanding and their skills in reusing this understanding in transferring their knowledge to new domains.
I have in my teaching changed my examination of the students in my courses (one more theoretical, and two practical programming courses) changing the written examination into an oral “discussion”. That may sound like a lot of work, but in fact, it does not take more time than having a written exam. After 30 minutes of this “academic conversation” style of examination, I have most of the time no problem grading the student according to understanding and reasoning, rather than remembering a lot of details (which are most of the time forgotten fairly quickly after the course). This change was in fact introduced many years ago, way before the occurrence of chatGPT and similar systems.
The benefits here are also the new possibilities of actually allowing the students to use any kind of supportive tool, including in this case the chatGPT, for their projects and learning experiences. The only condition that they have to fulfill is that they themselveshave to understand the answers they get from the various tools they use. In the programming courses, that, e.g., means they will have to explain any piece of code that they have not written all by themselves. They will also be told that errors that stem from the information source that remain, will affect their grades negatively. This of course applies to both text and code.
With this approach both to teaching and examination we will turn this risk of “cheating” into an improved pedagogical view of courses and the role of the teacher. Of course, it will still require the teacher to be well educated in the topic, in order to both teach and examine the students.
Lars Oestreicher
In our research group, we study the relationships and dynamics of Human, Technology, and Organisation (HTO) to create knowledge that supports sustainable development and utilization of ICT.
