Today’s AI isn’t prepared for the messiness of reality

What began as a warning label on financial statements has become useful advice for how to think about almost anything: “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” So why do so many in the AI field insist on believing the opposite? Too many researchers and practitioners remain stuck on the idea that the data they gathered in the past will produce flawless predictions for future data. If the past data are good, then the outcome will also be good in the future. That line of thinking received a major wake-up call recently when an MIT study found that the 10 most-cited data sets were riddled with label errors (in the training dataset, a picture of a dog is labeled as a cat, for example). These data sets form the foundation of how many AI systems are built and tested, so pervasive errors could mean that AI isn’t as advanced as we may think. After all, if AI can’t tell the difference between a mushroom and a spoon, or between the sound of Ariana Grande hitting a high note and a whistle (as the MIT study found and this MIT Tech Review article denotes), then why should we trust it to make decisions about our health or to drive our cars? The knee-jerk response from academia has been to refocus on cleaning up these benchmark data sets. We can continue to obsess over creating clean data for AI to learn from in a sterile environment, or we can put AI in the real world and watch it grow. Currently, AI is like a mouse raised to thrive in a lab: If it’s let loose into a crowded, polluted city, its chances for surviving are pretty slim. Every AI Will Always Be Wrong Because AI started in academia, it suffers from a fundamental problem of that environment, which is the drive to control how things are tested. This, of course, becomes a problem when academia meets the real world, where conditions are anything but controlled. Tellingly, AI’s relative success in an academic setting has begun to work against it as businesses adopt it Read More …

Don’t get too excited about Apple Music’s ‘spatial’ and ‘lossless’ music

I’ve often gushed about my admiration for Apple’s commitment to music. The company employs a lot of musicians or ex-musicians, and even more music lovers. It’s not trivial: It says something about the company’s culture and the way it approaches creativity and collaboration. Apple has obviously made many important music-related announcements in its time, but this week’s announcement about Apple Music offering “lossless” and “spatial” audio probably won’t end up rocking the world. Spatial audio Apple has been working with Dolby to begin making some of the Apple Music catalog available in Dolby’s proprietary Atmos format. Those recordings are meant to sound something like the experience of watching a movie with surround-sound technology, where sounds might come from behind you, above you, or anywhere else within a spherical audio surface around you. And sounds can move around in that space, so a guitar solo might seem to slowly circle above your head (which is cool, because guitar solos are boring). Apple says it’s going to start off with a few thousand Atmos songs in June, including some from Ariana Grande, Kacey Musgraves, and others, and then add more tracks over time. When the spatial support launches next month, Apple devices will be set to play available songs by default, rather than the regular binaural mix. I’ve no doubt the Atmos mixes themselves will be true to the spatial concept. Read More …

Amid worker and regulator complaints, Google is facing a turning point

By any measure, Google is a colossus of the tech industry, with a market capitalization of nearly $1.5 trillion , a massive army of lobbyists , and elite academics at its disposal . But lately, its reputation has been hurt by a highly publicized feud with well-respected ethical AI researchers, and revelations about its toxic workplace, previously hidden under NDAs , are roiling the tech giant’s PR-spun Disneyland-like facade. Now, it’s facing a multitude of challenges including talent attrition, resistance from an increasingly influential union, and increased public scrutiny. Privacy-centered competitors are nipping at its ankles, antitrust regulations loom on the horizon, and user interest in de-Googling their online activities is mounting. These headwinds are threatening the tech giant’s seemingly unassailable industry dominance and may bring us closer to a “de-Googled” world, where Google is no longer the default. At war with its workers In December 2020, the tech giant dismissed eminent scholar Timnit Gebru over a research paper that analyzed the bias inherent in large AI models that analyze human language—a type of AI that undergirds Google Search. Google’s whiplash-inducing reversal on ethics and diversity as soon as its core business was threatened was not entirely surprising. However, its decision to cover this up with a bizarre story claiming that Gebru resigned sparked widespread incredulity. Since Gebru’s ouster, Google has since fired her colleague Margaret Mitchell and restructured its “responsible AI” division under the leadership of another Black woman , now known to have deep links to surveillance technologies. These events sent shock waves through the research community beholden to Google for funding and triggered much-needed introspection about the insidious influence of Big Tech in this space . Last week, the organizers of the Black in AI, Queer in AI, and Widening NLP groups announced their decision to end their sponsorship relationship with Google in response. While the prestige and lucrative compensation that comes from working at Google is still a huge draw for many who don’t consider these issues a dealbreaker, some, such as Black in AI cofounder and scholar Rediet Abebe , were always wary. As Abebe explained in a tweet, her decision to back out of an internship at the tech giant was triggered by Google’s mistreatment of BIPOC, involvement with military warfare technologies, and ouster of Meredith Whittaker , another well-known AI researcher who played a lead role in the Google Walkout in 2018 . Abebe is not the only one who has decided to walk away from Google. In response to this latest AI ethics debacle, leading researcher Luke Stark turned down a significant monetary award , other talented engineers resigned , and Gebru’s much-respected manager Samy Bengio also left the company. A few years back this level of pushback would be unimaginable given Google’s formidable clout, but the tech giant seems to have met its match in Gebru and other workers who refuse to back down. Even with its formidable PR machinery spinning out an announcement touting an expanded AI ethics team, the damage has been done, and Google’s misguided actions will hurt its ability to attract credible talent for the foreseeable future. More ex-employees are also coming out with details of their horrifying experience s, adding fuel to the rising calls for better employee protections. These disclosures have renewed support for tech workers as hundreds of Google employees unionized after many years of activism, despite union-busting efforts by their employer. Read More …

Why Apple will win its App Store antitrust case against Epic

Epic, the maker of the hugely popular Fortnite game, has gone to federal court to complain about the high fees and strict rules imposed by Apple in its App Store. Going to the App Store is currently the only way iOS users can get Fortnite and other Epic titles. Apple requires developers to use its own proprietary payment system to pay for apps and games, and it charges big developers like Epic 30% of their in-app revenue to do so. Apple says it uses the money to provide an easy-to-use and well-organized app store experience, invest in the platform and tools exclusive to iOS developers, as well as offer strong privacy and security measures to prevent customers from being exposed to financial fraud and apps containing malware. Epic’s case against Apple is highly nuanced and filled with gray areas. It has, to quote The Dude from the Big Lebowski, “a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s.” There are strengths and weaknesses to both sides’ main arguments. And with all antitrust cases, the burden lies with the plaintiff—in this case, Epic—to prove Apple’s actions harm competition and ultimately harm the consumer. These are the main points of the case so far, and why I think Apple has an edge over Epic as the trial heads into its final week. Tax or Commission? Apple argues that its 30% commission is the industry standard for digital transactions, and that retail commissions on apps and games have historically been north of 40%. Market forces drove app store operators including Microsoft, Sony, Steam, and Nintendo to converge on that common 30% rate, but just because that is the standard doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement Read More …

Inside Hulu’s Disney-style future

Just over a year into Hulu’s full integration with the Walt Disney Company—thanks to Disney’s $71 billion acquisition of 20th Century Fox in 2019—the seeds of that partnership are starting to bear significant fruit. This year’s Best Picture Oscar winner, Nomadland , is available on Hulu, because it is a Searchlight Pictures title. FX, meanwhile, created one of Hulu’s most popular series last year, The Teacher . And the upcoming How I Met Your Mother spin-off— How I Met Your Father , which will star Hilary Duff—is based on the hit sitcom from 20th Century Fox Television. As Hulu continues to grow—it added 2.2 million domestic subscribers in the most recent quarter, bringing its total to 41.6 million—its strategy is simple: lean even harder into the creative hubs of its parent company. And not just the Fox arteries. Hulu is working more closely with ABC News on content, such as the exclusive one-hour special, 24 Hours: Assault on the Capitol , that streamed last January. Through a new deal that Disney signed with the National Hockey League in March, select hockey games will stream not just on ESPN Plus but also on Hulu. More football is also coming to the streamer thanks to its parent company, which owns ESPN. Read More …