Autor: pdc

Robots struggle with the social cues that make up group
dynamics, and humans struggle to trust AI systems that are too
heavy-handed (Credit: Getty Images)

Collaborating usually makes our work better – but keeping a
team on task is not easy. Now, researchers are finding that
machines can bring out the best in group work.

Overview

In a key decision (that seems unlikely to be the final answer on
the topic), the US Patent and Trademark Office determined that an
artificial intelligence (AI) system can’t be an inventor of a
patent. This ruling follows similar rulings by the European Patent
Office and the UK Intellectual Property Office.

IN DEPTH

Normally, USPTO decisions on patent appeals do not generate
widespread press, but the decision on Application No. 16/524,350 is
an exception. As AI systems continue to advance and begin to look
more like human creators, the DABUS decision likely will not be the
last time the USPTO addresses the issue of inventorship by
machine.

The Artificial Inventor Project (AIP) comprises a team of
international patent attorneys dedicated to exploring the concept
of AI patentability. On July 29, 2019, the AIP filed patents with
the DABUS AI system listed as the inventor. The application (which
remains sealed, despite the publication of the USPTO’s DABUS
decision) described “Devices and Methods for Attracting
Enhanced Attention†(DABUS application). Specifically, the
DABUS application listed the inventor’s name as “[DABUS]
and the family name ‘(Invention generated by artificial
intelligence.’†The application also listed the applicant as
the assignee “Stephen L. Thaler.†Mr. Thaler submitted a
substitute statement under 37 CFR 1.64, enabling the application to
proceed without the signature of the inventor. The application also
contained assignment documentation, assigning the entire right,
title and interest of “DABUS, the Creativity machine that has
produced the . . . invention†to Mr. Thaler himself. Mr.
Thaler executed said document on behalf of DABUS, as the legal
representative of the assignor, and on behalf of himself.

Read more here

Originally posted by:
jdsupra.com
May 11th, 2020

MIT professor Daron Acemoglu is co-author of a new study showing
that each robot added to the workforce has the effect of replacing
3.3 jobs across the U.S.
Image: Stock image edited by MIT News

This is part 1 of a three-part series examining the effects of
robots and automation on employment, based on new research from
economist and Institute Professor Daron Acemoglu.

In many parts of the U.S., robots have been replacing workers
over the last few decades. But to what extent, really? Some
technologists have forecast that automation will lead to a future
without work, while other observers have been more skeptical about
such scenarios.

Now a study co-authored by an MIT professor puts firm numbers on
the trend, finding a very real impact — although one that
falls well short of a robot takeover. The study also finds that in
the U.S., the impact of robots varies widely by industry and
region, and may play a notable role in exacerbating income
inequality.

“We find fairly major negative employment effects,â€
MIT economist Daron Acemoglu says, although he notes that the
impact of the trend can be overstated.

From 1990 to 2007, the study shows, adding one additional robot
per 1,000 workers reduced the national employment-to-population
ratio by about 0.2 percent, with some areas of the U.S. affected
far more than others.

This means each additional robot added in manufacturing replaced
about 3.3 workers nationally, on average.

That increased use of robots in the workplace also lowered wages
by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period.

“We find negative wage effects, that workers are losing in
terms of real wages in more affected areas, because robots are
pretty good at competing against them,†Acemoglu says.

The paper, “Robots and Jobs: Evidence from U.S. Labor
Markets,†appears in advance online form in theJournal of
Political Economy. The authors are Acemoglu and Pascual Restrepo
PhD ’16, an assistant professor of economics at Boston
University.

Displaced in Detroit

To conduct the study, Acemoglu and Restrepo used data on 19
industries, compiled by the International Federation of Robotics
(IFR), a Frankfurt-based industry group that keeps detailed
statistics on robot deployments worldwide. The scholars combined
that with U.S.-based data on population, employment, business, and
wages, from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic
Analysis, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, among other
sources.

The researchers also compared robot deployment in the U.S. to
that of other countries, finding it lags behind that of Europe.
From 1993 to 2007, U.S. firms actually did introduce almost exactly
one new robot per 1,000 workers; in Europe, firms introduced 1.6
new robots per 1,000 workers.

“Even though the U.S. is a technologically very advanced
economy, in terms of industrial robots’ production and usage
and innovation, it’s behind many other advanced
economies,†Acemoglu says.

Read
more

Originally published by
Peter Dizikes | MIT News Office
May 4, 2020
MIT News

While the first phase will focus on deforestation, IIASA plans
to use the model for other environmental concerns where
crowdsourcing would be applicable.

Deforestation of the Amazon and other forest habitats is a major
cause of climate change, as these rainforests are a key generator
of oxygen and a sponge to absorb carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.

Tracking deforestation is a difficult process, especially in the
Amazon which spans 5.5 million km, roughly the size of Australia.
Satellite images are an excellent resource, providing researchers
with a tool to check real-time changes, but sifting through
thousands of images can be time-consuming.

Enter SAS, which has partnered with the International Institute
for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) to build an artificial
intelligence model to track deforestation at scale.

“The urgency required to address these transformations
requires the application of best of breed technology solutions,”
said IIASA Director General, Albert van Jaarsveld.

Read more here

Originally published by:
David Curry, April 28, 2020
RT Insights