Category Archives: Issues in Science

Artificial Intelligence: Should we be concerned?

Faster, efficient and predictable. These are some of the qualities that make a computer better than humans at computation and analysis of data. Ever since the first computer was made, the key difference between a human and computer has been intelligence. It is the reason humans use computers and not the other way around. However, if a computer were to have intelligence, to what extent would it affect humans? And on how large a scale?

The most common conception of artificial intelligence is a computer of superhuman intelligence capable of outthinking a human. In reality, most of this is true. Take for example a complex game like chess, a chess grandmaster cannot beat AlphaZeroGo (AI). AlphaZeroGo was beaten 100-0 by AlphaZero. OpenAI’s bot managed to beat the world’s top Dota(online multiplayer game) players in 1-v-1 games. It is on course to beating them in 5-v-5 games where the five on the computer’s side is really a one.

Why should this be concerning? Proffessionals in these games have spent thousands of hours practicing. The computer has only spent a few hundred, if not less. The computer does not have the rules of these games written in it’s code. It is allowed to form them; an act of intelligence. The computer can train tirelessly against itself to get better.

Sebastian Thrun
Attribution: World Economic Forum [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The impact of artificial intelligence is not limited to games. Sebastian Thrun of Udacity (an online educational organization) and his colleagues have trained AI in various fields. One of them is an AI that drives car autonomously. This was done in a span of 3 months. Dermatologists train for several years to get proficient at identifying skin cancer. In late 2017, one of the world’s top dermatologists was looked at a mole on a patient’s skin and deduced that it was not cancer. To back their diagnosis, they used Thrun’s AI (different from self driving AI) through their phone which concluded that it was skin cancer. A biopsy revealed an aggressive form of melanoma. Link

Elon Musk
Attribution: Steve Jurvetson [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Why would this be a cause for concern? Elon Musk has been heavily involved in the field of artificial intelligence and he has been recorded stating his concerns about AI on multiple occassions. He has claimed that AI is more dangerous than nuclear weapons. Link Why do some share this concern while others do not? This can be answered by explaining what AI is and what it is not.

AI is most cases deals with a specialized domain. It is trained through a process called Deep Learning. It can be trained to get better than humans, but at specific tasks. For example, Thrun’s self driving AI cannot control a motorcyle on the same road or beat someone at Chess. An AI proficient in multiple domains does not exist at this time. Moreover, there is no governing body to monitor the fabrication of AI.

In conclusion, better communication of science behind AI can help curb the concerns over it and hopefully lead to formation of a body of governance.

This video describes the common misconceptions about artificial intelligence.
Attribution: TED Talks, via YouTube

https://youtu.be/B-Osn1gMNtw

Elon Musk is seen here expressing his concerns about AI.
Attribution: SXSW, via YouTube

Can one brain have two minds?

Imagine a knife slicing down right in the middle of your brain and splitting it into two separate halves. This is the result of a corpus callosotomy.

Picture

A summary of the functions for the left brain and right brain

The brain is commonly believed to be split into the left hemisphere, the logical side, and right hemisphere, the artistic side. These two halves are usually joined together by the corpus callosum, a fibre tissue that allows internal communication between the halves. However, people with refractory epilepsy or some traumatic accidents have the corpus callosum removed as a treatment and this creates a split brain.

There have been researches such as the one conducted by Roger Sperry that have proven the isolation of each half of the brain. This led to the proof that each hemisphere will have its own perception and impulses to act. Additionally, there have been cases where people with a split brain have reported conflicts in their lives. For instance, when one split-brain patient dressed, he sometimes pulled his pants up with one hand and down with the other due to the conflicting actions in each half of the brain. Luckily, conflicts like this seldom occur and even if a conflict does appear, one hemisphere usually takes control over the other half.

These results leave a lot of researchers questioning, do split-brain patients have two minds? Imagine having the one side of the brain deciding to punch someone with your left hand and the half of the brain controlling the right-hand tries to stop the action.

A study in 2017 found strong evidence against the split conscious theory. Yair Pinto and his team conducted a series of tests on two patients. In one of the tests, the patients were placed in front of a screen and shown various objects displayed in several locations. The patients were then asked to confirm whether an object appeared and to indicate its location. In another test, they had to correctly name the object they had seen, a notorious difficulty among spit-brain patients.  One of the patients went through all the tests using only his right visual field and the other patient only used his left visual field. Shockingly, the results have proven the unity of the two brains since the patients were able to respond correctly by using their left hand, right hand, or verbally. However, the experiment has not been replicated yet due to the difficulty in finding participants.

This new finding led to a new debate between the scientists regarding the existence of two separate minds in one brain. Here is a full video of the long debate on September, 18,2018 between Elizabeth Schechter, who stands for the two-mind view starts her explanation at 9:26, Yair Pinto, who debates for the one-mind view starts his point of view at 25:00, and Joseph Ledoux, who has an intermediate view starts at 47:27, (uploaded by NYU Center for Mind, Brain and Consciousness).

In all, even though the answer to this question is still undetermined. If the existence of two minds in one brain is proven, this leads to the question of, are we really the individual we think we are or is there someone else living within us?

– Eric Ma

Global Warming and Mountain living species Extinction. No place to live!

Scientists believe that the global temperature will continue to rise for future decades due to climate change and global warming, which will impact the whole ecosystem severely. One big issue that scientists found in recent years is called “Elevational Range Shift”. Each species that lives in a different range and altitude of mountains, together form a balance in mountain ecosystem. As the temperature continuously increase, many species, especially those living in the mid and high elevation of mountains, seek to escape from the warming original habitats and move towards higher ground. However, the living space in mountaintops is limited. What will happen to those creatures that have already lived at the highest levels and cannot go any higher? The only ending is the extension. In recent several years, more evidence have shown that species’ geographic range shift had arose and constituted an elevational extinction to species that live in mountains.

In November 2018, Dr Benjamin Freeman, from the University of British Columbia, published an article showing evidence about impacts of recent temperature warming on high-elevation birds species abundance declination and extinction in Peruvian Andes Mountains. Peruvian Andes is a tropical mountain located in the western edge of South America, with an average height of about 4,000m and host abundant types of species. Tropical species, especially birds, born and live within one particulate section of woods and don’t migrate.

A scarlet-breasted bird lives at high elevations on the Cerro de Pantiacolla in Peru. Source: BBC News

“It is only got a little bit warmer in the tropics and tropical animals seen to live a bit higher now than they used to,” told by Dr. Freeman to BBC News report.

The research team conducted a survey in 2017 of bird species that lived on a mountain peak by using same methods and at same time of year as a pervious survey carried out in 1985. They compared the results and found that the average living range had shifted upwards of the slope and most bird species that are found at the highest elevation had already declined in population and range significantly. Of the 16 species of tropical birds that had been recorded living at high elevation of the study area in previous survey, 8 had disappeared in the new survey in 2017.

Comparative species richness patterns for recent and historical. Source: PLOS

In contrast, scientists found that low elevation living bird species of the mountain get benefits from climate change by expanding their habitats range as they shift their upper living limits upslope. But current increasing in abundance still cannot guarantee that these birds will not face to the problem of run out of habitats.

What about the non-mobile species, like plants? Scientists believe that plants may be unable to shift according to the data showing that about 88% plant species show weak to no evidence of range shift. The main reason is due to plants’ dispersal limitation. Plant need other species, such as birds, or external force like wind to disperse seeds, which may not be quickly enough to keep peace with climate change.

In conclusion, the escalator to extinction will be even worse in the future if temperature continuously rising. “The way to deal with it is to maintain protected habitat corridors that stretch across large elevational gradients.” told by Dr. Freeman to BBC News.

– Jingyi Cheng

I agree to all terms and conditions … Or do I?

In this day and age so much of what we do is shared on different platforms of social media that the notion of privacy is limited to having a private account. We open an account by providing a name and a picture and once we are in the system, one by one we begin adding more insight into who we are and what we do. We snap a picture of our outfit, take google recommendations for where to dine out and post a story of the meal we eat. Our urge to participate so actively on social media isn’t solely rooted in our desire to share but stems from us being innately social creatures who are inherently curious.
It didn’t take long for corporation to cultivate our curiosity and take data collection to a whole new level. Genealogy and ancestry companies, in the name of providing us with medical information and lineage tracing, now have access to what’s most personal to us, the code to our being.
It has now become posh and trendy to pay $100 to companies such as 23andme to find out what diseases we are prone to and where we have originated from. What we get as a result may not necessarily add much significance to our lives, but it provides those companies with pools of golden data. I stress the word “necessarily” as tendencies do not translate to definite diagnosis and a long list of places we get, does not provide us with much insight of where we originate from. On the other hand, companies like 23andme now have access to data that once took researchers years to gather.

How it works by 23andme

One might argue that having a DNA bank has in fact facilitated research by providing more detailed data. Additionally, DNA banks have revolutionized solving of murder and rape crimes. It is also illegal in Canada for such companies to sell this data to insurance and employment companies. However, the controversy does not lie in what is done to the data once collected, but whether or not the selling of it is considered an invasion of our privacy. We might have quickly scrolled down to check the “agree with the terms” button; or have even read the terms fully and agreed- which I highly doubt- but does that provide them with jurisdiction to use such personal knowledge in a research I did not consent to? How does DNA sequencing deidentifies a subject and how is my anonymity preserved? I can delete my Facebook account, get a new credit card, change my name, but I can never reclaim my DNA data.