CAPTIONS BEGIN IN PROGRESS SHORTLY
MANY YEARS IS ARCHIVED AND THE
LINK IS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE AND
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,
PLEASE GET IN TOUCH NOW WE HAVE
A RATHER SPECIAL ADDITIONAL
EVENT TODAY BECAUSE THE SPEAKERS
ARE GOING TO BE INTRODUCED BY
NINA SHORE WHO IN 2022 WAS
APPOINTED AS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
OF THE OFFICE OF INTRAMURAL
RESEARCH AT THE NIH.
NOW THOSE WHO WERE NOT ON THIS
CAMPUS OR EVEN VERY FAMILIAR
WITH IT, YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT
THE MAJORITY OF THE FUNDING, ALL
OF WHICH IS FROM PUBLIC SOURCES,
THE MAJORITY OF FUNDING TO NIH
GOES TO FUND ON A COMPETITIVE
PEER REVIEWED BASIS, RESEARCH
PROPOSALS, FROM INDIVIDUALS AND
INSTITUTIONS THROUGHOUT THE
COUNTRY AND OFTEN THROUGHOUT THE
WORLD.
BUT SOMETHING LIKE ABOUT 9% OF
THE BUDGET IS USED TO SUPPORT
THE INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM
WHICH IS BASED HERE AND AT
SEVERAL OTHER CENTERS THROUGHOUT
THE COUNTRY.
NOW, HERE, HERE IS 300-ACRES IN
BETHESDA, MARYLAND, ABOUT 15
MINUTES FROM DOWN TOWN
WASHINGTON.
THERE ARE ABOUT 15,000 PEOPLE
WHO WORK HERE AND THAT INCLUDES
SOMETHING LIKE 1200 PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATORS AND THEIR
ENTOURAGE, THERE ARE ABOUT 5000
POST DOCTORAL FELLOWS AND
CLINICAL FELLOWS AS WELL AS
MEDICAL STUDENTS WHO ROTATE,
SPEND A YEAR HERE WHILE THEY'RE
IN MEDICAL SCHOOL, THERE ARE 27
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS SO--AND
THIS IS ALSO THE HOME OF THE
WORLD'S LARGEST RESEARCH
HOSPITAL.
PEOPLE ARE ADMITTED ON THE BASIS
OF PROTOCOLS FOR RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THERE'S 250 BEDS AND A
HUGE NUMBER OF OUT PATIENT
ATTENDEES AND CLINICS AND
DR. SHORE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
GUIDING THIS ENORMOUS SHIP AND
IT'S A TREMENDOUS
RESPONSIBILITY.
THE MAJOR GOAL OF COURSE IS THAT
OF THE NIH ITSELF, TO DEVELOP,
PROMOTE RESEARCH THAT ADVANCES
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF DISEASE,
MECHANISMS, NEW TREATMENTS,
DIAGNOSIS AND ALL FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE WORLD'S PUBLIC.
SO WE'RE VERY DELIGHTED THAT
TODAY NINA IS GOING TO INTRODUCE
OUR ASPECTERS WHO WILL TALK TO
US ABOUT 1 OF THE MOST
CHALLENGING AND SEEMINGLY DAILY
CHANGING TOPICS AND THAT IS
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.
MAY I HAVE THE NEXT SLIDE,
PLEASE, NO, NEXT 1.
NEXT, PLEASE.
YES.
SO I USUALLY BEGIN THESE
SESSIONS BY WRITING A FEW
QUESTIONS OF THINGS THAT COME TO
MY MIND WHENEVER WE'VE HAD A
SESSION, SO THESE HAVE JUST OFF
THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT WE'RE
INTERESTED IN, AND THESE ARE
TOPICS THAT I'M SURE WILL BE
DISCUSSED.
HOW WILL AI AFFECT THE PRACTICE
OF MEDICINE IN THE ROLE OF A
PHYSICIAN?
WHO OWNS, WHO REGULATES AI AND
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DETERMINE
ITS COST.
HOW CAN YOU TELL IF AI WAS USED
TO GENERATE ANY KIND OF A
DOCUMENT?
SHOULD ALL PAPERS INDICATE THAT
AI WAS USED AND IF SO, HOW?
IS IT ETHICAL TO USE AI FOR
PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL
MANUSCRIPTS, GRANTS, ET CETERA.
AND I WONDER WHETHER ARTIFICIAL
INTELIENCE IN EDUCATION WILL
HAVE A FEEDBACK IN REDUCING OUR
STUDENTS ABILITY TO WRITE IN AND
WHERE DO YOU THINK AI IS
HEADING?
WHAT ARE YOUR FEARS ABOUT AI?
AND WE'RE FORTUNATE TODAY TO
HAVE 2 REMARKABLE INDIVIDUALS
WHOSE POSITION IN THEIR
PROFESSIONAL LIFE PERMITS THEM
TO NOT ONLY WORK AND CONSIDER
THESE ISSUES BUT TO SHARE THEIR
KNOWLEDGE WITH US.
SO MAY I PLEASE INTRODUCE TO YOU
NINA SHORE.
KD--SALLY APPROXIMATE CAUSE
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THANK YOU, DR. ARIAS, AND
THANKS TO YOU FOR COMING.
IT IS SO WONDERFUL TO SEE REAL
PEOPLE IN REAL SEATS IN THIS
AUDITORIUM AND THANKS TO THOSE
OF YOU WHO ARE TUNING IN ON
VIDEOCAST, WE ARE ALL IN FOR A
REAL TREAT TODAY BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO HEAR 2 EXPERTS TALK
WITH US ABOUT AS YOU'VE HEARD A
VERY, VERY CONTROVERSIAL AND
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TOPIC, THE
NOTION OF THE USE OF AI IN
PUBLICATIONS.
SO AS IS OUR USUAL PRACTICE, WE
HAVE 2 WONDERFUL SPEAKERS TODAY,
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS DR. HOLDEN
THORP, WHO IS AS MOST OF YOU
KNOW THE CURRENT EDITOR IN CHIEF
OF SCIENCE MAGAZINE.
DR. THORP IS PROFESSOR OF
CHEMISTRY AT GEORGE WASHINGTON
UNIVERSITY AND PRIOR TO HIS
CURRENT POSITIONS, HE WAS THE
TENTH CHANCELLOR OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT
CHAPEL HILL WHERE HE HAD BEEN
THE DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF ARTS
AND SCIENCES AND A KEENAN
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY.
HIS RESEARCH HAS WON PREOF THE
IEJOUS AWARDS AND FUNDING IN
BOTH ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY
EMPLOY DR. THORP HOLDS AN
UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE FROM UNC
AND A Ph.D. IN CHEMISTRY FROM
CAL TECH.
HE DID HIS POST DOCTORAL
TRAINING AT YALE UNIVERSITY.
A MULTITALENTED SCHOLAR, HE IS
ALSO A MASTER GUITARIST WHO
STUDIED AT BERKELEY COLLEGE OF
MUSIC AND A MUCH AWARDED RUBICS
CUBE OFFICKIANAD O.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DR. VARDIT
RSVITSKY.
SHE'S WITH THE HASTINGS CENTER,
SHE IS PROFESSOR THEA THE
UNIVERSITY OF MONTREAL AND A
SENIOR LECTURE ON GLOBAL HEALTH
AND SOCIAL MEDICINE AT HARVARD
MEDICAL SCHOOL.
SHE IS IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
AND CURRENT VICE PRESIDENT OF
THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
BIOETHICS AND THE DIRECTOR OF
ETHICS AND HEALTH AT THE CENTER
FOR RESEARCH ON ETHICS.
HE'S A FELLOW OF THE PEER
ELLIOTT TRUDEAU FOUNDATION WHERE
SHE CHAIRED THE COVID-19 IMPACT
COMMITTEE AND A FELLOW OF THE
HASTINGS CENTER.
DR. RAVITSKY HAS BEEN AWARDED A
Mc CONNELL UNIVERSITY OF
MONTREAL RESEARCH CHAIR AWARD
AND IS THE LEAD CENTER OF
PENN CENTER GUIDE TO BIOETHICS.
SHE'S REALLY HERE TODAY BECAUSE
HER RESEARCH HAS FOCUSED ON
BIOETHICS ASPECTS OF DISRUPTIVE
TECHNOLOGIES AND THE DISRUPTIVE
TECHNOLOGY FOR THIS ERA IS
WITHOUT A DOUBT AI AND LANGUAGE
MODELS.
DR. RAVITSKY HOLDS A BACHELOR'S
DEGREE IN PHILOSOPHY, AND A
MASTER'S DEGREE OF PHILOSOPHY
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
MEXICO.
SHE COMPLETED HER Ph.D. IN
PHILOSOPHY, WITH A
SPECIALIZATION IN BIOETHICS AT
[INDISCERNIBLE] UNIVERSITY IN
ISRAEL AND WAS A POST DOCTORAL
FELLOW AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
CLINICAL BIOETHICS, RIGHT HERE
AT THE NIH IN THE SOCIAL AND
BEHAVIORIAL RESEARCH BRANCH OF
NHGRI, SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I
AM GOING TO TURN THE PODIUM OVER
TO DR. THORP.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
[ APPLAUSE ]
>> THANK YOU NINA AND HELLO
INTERNET AND IT'S AN HONOR
THANKFUL FOR YOU INCLUDING ME
FOR THIS IMPORTANT PROGRAM AND
ALWAYS GOOD TO BE AROUND
DR. ARIAS AND THANK YOU FOR ALL
YOU'VE DONE AND YOU TOO, NINA,
THESE THINGS, MANAGING THEM IS
NOT EASY.
I KNOW A BIT ABOUT THAT, THANK
YOU FOR STEPPING UP AND DOING
THIS FOR ALL OF US.
SO LET ME JUST ADD A COUPLE
THINGS ABOUT THE INTRODUCTION,
SINCE THERE ARE SOME YOUNGER
SCIENTISTS HERE AND PROBABLY
MANY MORE ON THE SCREEN, SO I
DID DO ALL THOSE EXCITING THINGS
BUT IT WASN'T A STRAIGHT LINE,
WHEN I WAS A CHANCELLOR AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, I
HAD AN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF TROUBLE
BECAUSE MY SIDE LOST AN
CERTAINLY--CERTAINLY LEKS AND I
DISCOVERED AN AUTHENTICS SCANDAL
AT THE SAME TIME AND I WAS NOT
ABLE TO RESOLVE THOSE COMPLETELY
EVEN THOUGH THE SCALPEDDAL
STARTED WHEN I WAS IN MIDDLE
SCHOOL, I WAS STILL IN CHARGE
WHEN IT CAME TO LIGHT, SO I LEFT
CHAPEL HILL AND WENT TO
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN
ST. LOUIS WHERE I WAS A PROVOST
AND I HAD A GREAT TIME.
AND I WAS A RUBICS CUBE CHAMPION
IN THE 1980S WHICH IS A VERY
DIFFERENT THING BUT BEING A
RUBIC CUBE CHAMPION NOW BECAUSE
WE WERE EXCITED WHEN WE COULD DO
THE 3 BY 3 IN MAYBE, 30-SECONDS.
NOW, EXCELLENT TIME WOULD BE
5-SECONDS.
SO WHEN I MEET THESE YOUNG KIDS
WHO ARE DOING THIS, SOME OF THEM
THEY'VE STUDIED THE HISTORY AND
THEY'VE HEARD OF ME AND THEY'LL
SAY SOMETHING LIKE YOU'RE 1 OF
THOSE OLD GUYS FROM THE 80S
AFTER THEY STUDY ME AND I SAY
YES, THAT'S CORRECT, I CAN'T DO
WHAT DO YOU.
AND YOU MIGHT ALSO NOTICE THAT
MY HAND MOVE AMS ARE A LITTLE
AWKWARD AND THAT I HAVE A HARD
TIME MODULATING MY VOCAL TONE
AND THAT'S BECAUSE I'M ON THE
AUTISM SPECTRUM.
SO RATHER THAN BEING
SELF-CONSCIOUS ABOUT MODULATING
MY VOCAL TOWN, I WILL FOCUS ON
THE CONTENT INSTEAD, WE NEED
MORE NEURODIVERSITY IN SCIENCE
AND I'M PROUD TO HELP ADVOCATE
FOR THAT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT
LATER WITH QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT
BUT IN THE MEAN TIME, I HAVE THE
BEST JOB IN ALL OF SCIENCE
BECAUSE RUNNING SCIENCE
MAGAZINE, ALLOWS ME TO DO 3
THINGS, ANY OF WHICH WOULD BE
REALLY EXCITING ON THEIR OWN.
I'M IN CHARGE OF HANDLING
RESEARCH PAPERS AND I WORK WITH
SOME OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN
ALL OF SCIENCE WHO HANDLE OUR
PAPERS, THEY SEE--HERE'S 1 HERE,
I DIDN'T KNOW [INDISCERNIBLE] IS
GOING TO BE HERE, SO THE PERSON
WHO ACTUALLY DOES ALL THE WORK
DOES ALL THE WORK IS HERE.
THIS IS VALL DEVINCENTURE OUR
EXECUTIVE EDITOR.
THE PEOPLE I WORK WITH ARE SOME
OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE I'VE EVER
WORKED WITH AT ANY INSTITUTION,
THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT SCIENCE
THAN ANYBODY I'VE EVER ACTED
WITH AND THEY WORK EXTREMELY
HARD TO MAKE HUR THAT OUR PAPERS
ARE ACCURATE AND HANDLED FAIRLY
AND IT'S JUST A JOY TO DO GREAT
WORK AND WORK WITH THEM EVERY
DAY.
I ALSO WORK IN THE NEWS
DEPARTMENT, THE SCIENCE
DEPARTMENT HAS THE LARGEST
CONSCIENCE NEWS DIVISION LEFT,
IT'S A TOUGH TIME FOR
YOWRNALLISM AND WE'RE STILL 1 OF
THE FEW PLACES THAT CAN STILL DO
SCIENCE NEWS AT THE SCALE WE DO
IT.
THE WAY IT WORKS WITH NEWS IS
I'M THE BOSS BUT I DON'T GET TO
TELL THEM WHAT TO DO, THAT'S THE
WAY JOURNALISM WORKS IN AMERICA.
THEY'RE EDITORIALLY INDEPENDENT,
WHICH MEANS I CAN TELL THEM
THINGS, THEY USUALLY DON'T TELL
ME STUFF, I DON'T SEE THEIR
STORIES UNTIL THEY GET POSTED,
BUT IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE OR
HAVE SOME OTHER PROBLEM, I'M THE
1 WHO HAS TO HELP THEM FIGURE
OUT WHAT TO DO WITH ABOUT IT.
BUT IT'S A YOI TO DO THAT
BECAUSE THE WO, THEY DO IS
OUTSTANDING.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THE
COMMENTARY SECTION OF THE
YOWRNAL WHERE I USUALLY WRITE MY
EDITORIAL A COUPLE TIMES A
MONTH, SOMETIMES PEOPLE IN
BUILDING 1 ARE NOT THRILLED WITH
MY EDITORIALS BUT THAT'S THE WAY
YOWRNALLISM WORKS AND SOMETIMES
THEY'RE HAPPY WHEN THEY DO
SOMETHING I THINK IS REALLY
GOOD.
SO, I MONITORED THE NEWS IN
SCIENCE AND TALK ABOUT IT VERY
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF IT AND I
ALWAYS SAY TO PEOPLE WHEN THEY
ASK ME, WHAT'S IT LIKE TO WRITE
A COLUMN EVERY 2 WEEKS, YOU KNOW
HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THINGS,
I SAY, I DON'T KNOW, YOU DO HAVE
ANY IDEAS FOR NEXT WEEK BECAUSE
EVERY 2 WEEKS I TRY TO COME UP
WITH SOMETHING BUT I WORK WITH
AN OUTSTANDING EDITOR WHO MAKES
ME SOUND REALLY GOOD AND THAT'S
A REAL PRIVILEGE AND SHE RUNS
THE REST OF OUR COMMENTARY
SECTION WHICH I ENJOY IMMENSELY.
SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
CONTEXT IN WHICH AI HAS KIND OF
COMING TO US.
AND I'M MOSTLY GOING TO TALK
ABOUT USING AI AND PAPERS.
I WILL NOT TALK ABOUT USING AI
AND RESEARCH, THERE'S AMAZING
THINGS GOING ON WITH AI AND
RESEARCH, ESPECIALLY IN PROTEIN
FOLDING AND MATERIAL SCIENCE AND
OF COURSE HELPING PEOPLE CODE
WHICH IS PART OF RESEARCH FOR
SURE.
AND THIS STUFF HAS BEEN GOING
LONG BEFORE THIS KIND OF CRAZY
EXPLOSION HAPPENED.
SO I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON WHAT IT
MEANS THAT AI IS HERE AND WE'RE
TRYING TO PUBLISH JOURNALS AND
HOW WE KIND OF SEE THIS PLAYING
OUT, SO OF COURSE, WE'RE LIVING
THROUGH A TIME WHEN TRUST IN
SCIENCE IS BEING QUESTIONED, THE
GOOD NEWS IS THAT TRUST IN
CONSCIENCE IS ACTUALLY STILL
PRETTY HIGH, 77% OF THE COUNTRY
HAS CONFIDENCE THAT SCIENCE ACTS
IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE
PUBLIC, AND WE'RE DOING A WHOLE
LOT BETTER THAN ELECTED
OFFICIALS, BUSINESS LEADERS
JOURNALISTS, BUT SCIENCE,
THERE'S A PARTIS AN DIVIDE WHEN
IT COMES TO WEATHER SCIENCE
SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HELPING TO
IMPLEMENT SCIENCE POLICY, SO
CONSERVATIVES TEND TO BELIEVE
MORE THAT WE SHOULD JUST CREATE
EXCELLENT SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
AND LET THEM DECIDE WHAT TO DO
WITH IT AND LIBERALS ARE MORE
OPEN TO THE IDEA TAKEN--THEY WE
SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN HELPING
THEM AND I THINK THIS PARTIS AN
DIVIDE REALLY EXPLAINS A LOT OF
THINGS THAT WE'RE SEEING.
THERE IS A MODEST DROP IN
CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AS YOU CAN
SEE IN THIS DIAGRAM BUT IT'S
ABOUT THE SAME AS THE DROP IN
EVERY OTHER INSTITUTION.
SO WE'RE SEEING OVER THE LAST 4
OR 5 YEARS, EVEN RELIGIOUS
LEADERS AND THE MILITARY ARE
SEEING A SLIGHT EROSION IN
TRUST, BUT AND TRUST IN SCIENCE
AS FALLEN OFF ABOUT THE SAME
AMOUNT AND THIS LATEST POLL,
TRUSTED ELECTED OFFICIALS WAS
24%.
SO THAT'S FALLEN THE MOST.
NOW WE ALSO HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF
STUFF GOING ON AROUND SCIENTIFIC
INTEGRITY, AND AGAIN, AI IS
COMING IN THIS MOMENT WHEN
PEOPLE ARE ASKING QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHETHER WE'RE DOING A GOOD
JOB OF TAKING CARE OF THE
SCIENTIFIC RECORD.
THE THING THAT KIND OF KICKED
THIS MOMENT OFF IN THE MEDIA WAS
THE SITUATION AT STANFORD
UNIVERSITY WHERE MARK
[INDISCERNIBLE] WHO WAS THE
PRESIDENT HAD A SITUATION THAT'S
VERY COMMON THAT WE SEE QUITE
FREQUENTLY WHERE THERE WERE SOME
IMAGES IN SOME PAPERS IN HIS LAB
WHEN HE HAD A VERY LARGE LAB WAS
WAS DOING A LOT OF OTHER STUFF
THAT HE DIDN'T CATCH WHEN THEY
PUBLISHED IT AND THEN LATER SLEW
SOME PEOPLE ON PUB PIER, EXPOSED
THESE IMAGES AS HAVING BEEN
MANIPULATED AND UNFORTUNATELY
WHAT HAPPENS FREQUENTLY IN THESE
CASES IS THAT THEN RATHER THAN
SOMEBODY SAYING I CAN BE THE
BELIEVE I MISSED THAT AND
STRAIGHTENING THE WHOLE THING
OUT, A LOT OF DRAMA ENSUED AND
THIS IS VERY, VERY GOOD FOR THE
INVESTIGATIVE YOWRNALLISTS.
BECAUSE AS LONG AS THE
INSTITUTIONS AND THE PI ARE YOU
KNOW BEING DEFENSIVE AND
THROWING UP ROAD BLOCKS IN
EMERGING ITS OF GETTING
INFORMATION AND NOT TALKING TO
REPORTERS, THAT'S JUST AN
INVITATION FOR THE NATIONAL
NEWSPAPERS TO CONTINUE TO WRITE
ABOUT THIS AND IF THEY HAPPEN TO
BE AT A RITZY INTUITION LIKE
STANFORD OR HARVARD WHERE A LOT
THESE THINGS PLAYED OUT, BECAUSE
MOST PEOPLE WHO WORK AT THE
NEW YORK TIMES AND WASHINGTON
POST WENT TO THOSE SCHOOLS, THEY
LIKE TO DO IS PUT THE TICK TOCK,
NOT TIKTOK, THE APP BUT TICK
TOCK WITH SEASON TO WITH WORDS
TO BUILD UP TENSION TO MAKE
PEOPLE RESIGN OR HAVE TO
DO--HAVE THEIR CAREERS CAREERSD
IN SOME WAY.
OUR VIEW IS WE DON'T NEED ALL
THAT DRAMA, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO
CORRECT AND RETRACT PAPERS
WHENEVER WE'RE ASKED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE
DOING, VALL HAS DONE MOST OF THE
WORK ON THIS BUT WE'VE LAUNCHED
AN EFFORT WHERE WE USE THE
PROGRAM PROOF FIG TO FIND ALL
IMAGES AND WE'RE GOING TO TELL
YOU WHY IT'S UNLIKELY WE WILL
POLICE OURSELVES OUT OF THIS
PROBLEM, EVEN AT SCIENCE WHERE
WE ARE VERY SELECTIVE, WE SCREEN
300 PAPERS WITH PROOFIG, BEFORE
WE,A NOUNSED WE WERE DOING IT
AND WE FOUND 10 THAT WERE
PROBLEMATIC AND THIS WAS TOWARDS
THE END WHEN THEY WERE COMING
BACK FROM REVISION: EIGHT OF
THEM HAD PROBLEMS THAT WE FELT
HAD REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS THAT
COULD BE WORKED OUT AND 2 WE HAD
TO TELL THE AUTHORS THAT WE
WEREN'T GOING TO PUBLISH THEIR
PAPER, RIGHT?
SO IF CONSCIENCE IS GETTING 10
OUT OF 302 OF THOSE ARE SO
FRAUDULENT THAT WE CAN'T PUBLISH
THEM, JUST IMAGINE WHAT IT'S
LIKE AT PLUS OR SCIENTIFIC
REPORTS OR SOME JOURNAL THAT'S A
LOT LARGER WHERE THERE'S A LOT
LESS OVERSIGHT.
SO WE DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN
JUST CHANGE THE GUIDELINES AND
CHANGE THE RULES AND PROBLEM
PROGRAMS TO GET PROBLEMS LIKE
THIS, INSTEAD WE THINK WE HAVE
TO BE MORE FORTH RIGHT ABOUT
ADMITTING THE FACT THAT THERE
ARE PROBLEMS IN A PAPER AND
KREKING AND RETRACTING THEM AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE WITH AS
LITTLE DRAMA AS POSSIBLE AND IT
IS POSSIBLE TO DO IT THAT WAY,
YOU KNOW IT WAS A BIG--THERE WAS
A BIG SPLASH ABOUT A BUNCH OF
PROBLEMATIC PAPERS AT
DANA-FARBER, BUT MOST OF THEM
HAVE BEEN RETRACTED NOW AND YOU
DON'T EACH REALLY HEAR THAT MUCH
ABOUT THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE THE
DANA-FARBER PEOPLE ALL JUST
SAID, OH THIS IS--WE SHOULD HAVE
CAUGHT THESE AND THEY RETRACTED
THEM ALL AND IT'S OVER.
AND THEY DIDN'T REALLY GIVE THE
JOURNALISTS THAT MUCH NEW STUFF
WRITE.
THEY SAID OH IF PEOPLE WERE OUT
TO GET US, IT WE DIDN'T REALLY
DO THIS, OR IT WAS THE POST
DOC'S FAULT AND I DEPARTMENT
KNOW ABOUT IT, THEN THE
NEWSPAPERS WOULD HAVE WRITTEN A
WHOLE LOT MORE ABOUT THIS, SO IF
WE DO PROPERLY, EVEN ELIZABETH
CIBOL IS SOMEBODY WHO CRITICIZED
ME WHEN SHE DOESN'T LIKE WHAT WE
DO, BUT SHE ALSO IS FAIR WHEN WE
DO SOMETHING SHE LIKES, SHE
APPLAUDED THE WAY WE HANDLED THE
MARK TESSIER-LAVINE MATTER.
BUT UNFORT MATILY MOST
INSTITUTIONS DON'T CO THIS
BECAUSE THE ORI GUIDELINES ARE
VERY ELABORATE AS I'M SURE YOU
ALL KNOW WORKING HERE AND
THERE'S QUITE A LOT OF BACK AND
FORTH THAT HAPPENS WITH THE
INSTITUTION AND 1 OF THE WORST
EXAMPLES OF THIS HAS BEEN THIS
SUPER CONDUCTIVITY SCANDAL AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF ROUGH ATOM
CHESTER WHICH YOU KNOW MUCH TO
OUR CHAGRIN AND OUR NEWS
DEPARTMENT NATURE HAS DONE A
GREAT JOB COVERING BUT WE GIVE
THEM CREDIT WHEN THEY WRITE GOOD
NEWS STORIES AND IN THE CASE OF
THIS MATTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
ROCHESTER WHICH IS IN PHYSICS,
THEY HAD 4 INQUIRIES, THE FIRST
3 THEY CONCLUDED NOTHING WAS
WRONG AND FINALLY ON THE FOURTH
1 THEY DID A MORE THOROUGH
INVESTIGATION ONLY BECAUSE THEY
WERE REQUIRED TO BY THE NSF AND
ONLY THEN DID THEY INTRODUCE THE
STUDENTS AND SO, 1 OF THE THINGS
ABOUT THESE MATTERS IS THAT THE
STUDENTS ARE QUITE THE KAICIALTS
WHEN THESE THINGS HAPPEN BECAUSE
IF THERE'S A LOT OF DRAMA THEN
THEIR LAB GETS CALLED INTO
QUESTION AND THEY MAY HAVE
PROBLEMATIC DAT IN THEIR THESIS
AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO THIS IS THE STUFF THAT AI IS
COMING INTO, 1 WHERE THERE'S
PUBLIC TRUST IN CONSCIENCE IS
ERODING AND WHERE WE'RE HAVING A
VERY HARD TIME POLICING
OURSELVES AND SO HERE WE GO,
THIS IS A FAMOUS NOW
ILLUSTRATION THAT MADE IT INTO A
PAPER OF A SQUIRREL OR MOUSE
THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
THIS ACTUALLY PASSED ALL THE
PROCESSES, AND GOT INTO A
YOWRNAL BECAUSE IT WAS--SOMEBODY
TOLD 1 OF THESE PROGRAMS TO MAKE
A DIAGRAM OF THE SEX ORGANS OF A
MOUSE AND THIS IS WHAT IT CAME
UP WITH.
AND THE REVIEWERS DIDN'T CATCH
THIS, SO WHEN SOMETHING LIKE
THIS HAPPENS AND THIS IMAGE GETS
CIRCULATED ALL OVER THE INTERNET
THEN IT CAUSES PEOPLE TO LOSE A
LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN SCIENTIFIC
PUBLISHING.
BUT EVEN BEFORE THE DRAWING
PROGRAMS CAME ALONG, WE HAD
CHATGPT AND LARGE LANGUAGE
MODELS WHICH GENERATE TEXT FOR
PAPERS.
WE TOOK A VERY TOUGH STANCE AT
FIRST AND I PUBLISHED THIS
EDITORIAL WHICH I HAVE TO SAY,
IS ALSO ANOTHER INTERESTING
LESSON IN THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS
BECAUSE NORMALLY WHEN I PUBLISH
EDITORIALS, THEY DON'T GET A LOT
OF CITATIONS, THEY ARE INDEXED
ON PUB MED, OCCASIONALLY A
SCIENCE EFTHIMIOSORRIAL OR
SOMEBODY WILL CITE 1 AND I WILL
GET 4 OR 5 CITATIONS ON 1 EMPLOY
I LOOKED UP THIS EDITORIAL WHICH
HAS BEEN OUT FOR A YEAR WHICH
TOOK ME ABOUT 2 HOURS TO WRITE.
IT'S 720 WORDS LONG HAS NO
EQUATIONS OR ANYTHING AND IT
EVEN REFERS TO THE ELSA FROM THE
MOVIE FROZEN AND IT'S BEEN CITED
900 TIMES IN 1 YEAR, I GET THESE
E-MAILS FROM PREDATORY
PUBLISHERS SAYING, YOU'RE THE
MOST HIGHLY CITED AUTHOR IN CHAT
GPT, WILL YOU SEND US A PAPER
FOR OUR SPECIAL ISSUE, I SPENT
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND 15 YEARS
OF RESEARCH AND NOW I HAVE MORE
TIARASSIZATIONS THAN ANYTHING ON
THIS ARTICLE EMPLOY BUT WE TOOK
THE STANCE AT THE BEGIN
THAGOREAN WE DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE
THROUGH THE SAME THING WE'RE
LIVING THROUGH WITH BAD IMAGES
WITH BAD WORDS, THAT WE DIDN'T
WANT TO PUBLISH PAPERS WITH TEXT
THAT WAS GENERATED BY CHAT GPT
AND HAVE THE ELIZABETH BIK OF
WORDS, WHOEVER THAT TURNS OUT TO
BE, GO OUT ON PUB PEER AND SAY
THIS IS A BAD PAPER BECAUSE IT
WAS GENERATED BY CHAT GPT IF IT
TURNS OUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY DOESN'T
ACCEPT.
SO WE TOOK THE POSITION AT THE
BEGINNING THAT THERE WERE TO BE
NO IMAGES WHICH IS THE POSITION
WE TILL HAVE, GENERATED WITH AI,
UNLESS THERE WAS PERMISSION
FROM THE EDITOR BECAUSE THE AI
GENERATED IMAGE WAS PART OF THE
ARTICLE AND ALSO KNOW AI, LLM
GENERATED TEXT.
NOW WE FELT AT THE TIME AND WE
GOT A LOT OF AT THAT TIMIC FROM
PEOPLE WHO SAID, WELL, BUT THIS
CAN BE USED TO IMPROVE WRITING
AND THIS WAS A TOOL THAT WILL
EXPAND THE RATE AT WHICH PEOPLE
CAN PRODUCE PAPERS AND THEY WILL
SPEND LESS TIME WRITING THINGS
UP AND MORE TIME WORKING IN THE
LAB AND TELL BE GOOD FOR PEOPLE
WHOM ENGLISH IS NOT THEIR FIRST
LANGUAGE, AND OUR POSITION WAS
YEAH, BUT WE'VE GOT SKIN IN THE
GAME BECAUSE--AND THE COMMERCIAL
PUBLISHERS HAVE EVEN MORE SKIN
IN THE GAME BECAUSE THEY MAKE
MORE MONEY THE MORE PAPERS THERE
ARE.
SO FOR A PUBLISHER TO SAY, WE'RE
OKAY WITH THIS, WE HAVE A
CONFLICT BECAUSE THE PUBLISHERS
ARE GOING TO GET MORE REVENUE IF
THERE ARE MORE PAPERS SO WE TOOK
THE POSITION THAT WE WERE NOT
GOING TO START ALLOWING THIS
UNTIL OTHER MORE OBLIGATIONS
YECTIVE ENTITIES SAID IT WAS
OKAY TO USE CHAT GPT TO HELP
WRITE YOUR PAPER EMPLOY --PAPER.
SO WE DID THAT 8 MONTHS LATER
AND THIS IS THE PIECE THAT VALL
AND I WROTE SAYING THAT WE SAID
ON THE FIRST GO ROUND WE BELIEVE
IT'S PRUDENT TO WAIT UNTIL WE
HAVE MORE CLARITY FOR USES ON
WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
WILL FEEL IS PERMISSIBLE AND
BY THE TIME WE CHANGED THIS AND
LOOSENED UP OUR POLICY A BIT,
THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN A NUMBER
OF SOCIETIES WHO HAD TAKEN THE
INDEPENDENT POSITION THAT THERE
WERE PERMISSIBLE USES OF CHAT
GPT TO HELP IMPROVE YOUR TEXT
AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'M ACTUALLY NOT CONVINCED IT
SAVES YOU THAT MUCH TIME.
I GUESS TIME WILL TELL IF THAT'S
THE CASE, BECAUSE OF COURSE, WE
WOULD ALL ALLOW CHAT GPT TO BE
THE AUTHOR SO IF IT MAKES A
MISTAKE, IT'S ON THE PEOPLE WHO
SIGNED THE AUTHOR FORMS
REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT WAS
GENERATED BY AI OR NOT.
SO THEY'RE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE TEXT THAT'S IN THE PAPER
AS THEY WERE IF THEY WROTE IT
THEMSELVES.
SO DOES IT TAKE MORE TIME TO
WRITE IT YOURSELF, OR TO CHECK
WHAT CHAT GPT WRITES, I GUESS
YOUR MILEAGE WILL VARY ON THAT,
BUT I DO WORRY THAT PLACES THAT
A LOT OF PLACES THAT PUBLISH A
LOT MORE THAN WE DO ARE GOING TO
SEE A LOT OF AI GENERATED PAPERS
AND THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A LOT
OF PROBLEMS IN THERE, AND AS
THOSE PROBLEMS COME UP, THAT'S
GOING TO BOG EVERYBODY DOWN
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER
WE'RE GOING TO CORRECT THEM OR
RETRACT THEM OR WHAT WE'RE GOING
TO DO WITH THEM, JUST TO GIVE
YOU A WAY OF THINKING ABOUT
THIS, I WOULD SAY, WE PROBABLY
SPEND SAY 25% OF OUR TIME, 25%
OF OUR TIME ON PROBLEM PAPERS.
AND THAT IS A LOT OF TIME WE
COULD SPEND DOING OTHER THINGS
BUT BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE SO
CONTENTIOUS AND BECAUSE THERE'S
SO MUCH IN THE NEWS ABOUT THEM
AND BECAUSE THE SLEWS AND THE
PEOPLE WHO RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT
THEM ARE SO INSISTENT AND
BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITIES ARE SO
SLOW AT RESPONDING WE'RE
CONSTANTLY TRYING TO MEDIATE
THIS AND OUR VIEW IS WE DECIDED
TO PUBLISH THE PAPER.
WE PUSH THE BUTTON AND PUBLISHED
IT.
ONCE WE DO THAT, WE'RE
RESPONSIBLE FOR WHETHER IT'S
CORRECTED OR NOT.
YOU KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE,
CRITICS WILL SAY, WELL, NOBODY
WANTS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THESE.
WELL WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, IT'S ON
OUR WEBSITE, WE DECIDED TO
PUBLISH IT, IF IT NEEDS TO BE
CORRECTED IT'S OUR JOB TO DO
THAT BUT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE HELP
FROM THE AUTHORS AND THE
INSTITUTIONS TO DO THAT.
AND SO I HAVE BEEN RAISING A LOT
OF HELL FRANKLY WITH THE
INSTITUTIONS ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THEY'VE GOT TO GET A LOT BETTER
AT RESPONDING TO THIS AND
WHETHER THAT'S BECAUSE OF BAD
IMAGES OR SOMETHING HAPPENS WITH
CHAT GPT OR BECAUSE OF OUTRIGHT
FRAUD, IT DOESN'T MATTER ISSUES
OUR YOB CORPS IS TO MAKE SURE
THAT THE SCIENTIFIC RECORD IS AS
ACCURATE AS WE CAN MAKE IT.
SO I PUBLISHED ANOTHER PIECE AND
I GUESS THIS IS KIND OF OUR
SLOGAN, THAT CORRECTION IS
COURAGEOUS, BECAUSE IF WE CAN
SHOW AND THERE'S ACTUALLY SOCIAL
SCIENCE RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTS
THIS.
THAT YOU CAN OVERCOME THE
PERCEPTION THAT SCIENTISTS ARE
BIASED BECAUSE OF OUR POLITICS
OR BECAUSE WE DON'T DO A GOOD
JOB OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, CAN
YOU OVERCOME MOST OF THOSE
THINGS IN TERMS OF BUILDING
TRUST IF YOU CAN CONVINCE THE
PUBLIC THAT WE WILL MAKE
AJUSTMENTS AND BE HUMBLE WHEN WE
MAKE A MISTAKE AND IF THE
RESEARCH IS VERY CLEAR ON THAT
BUT THAT ISN'T HAPPENING EVERY
TIME 1 OF THESE MATTERS TURNS
INTO A YIENT MELODRAMA AND SO WE
REALLY HAVE TO HAVE THE
INSTITUTIONS SUPPORT IN DOING
THAT, AND 1 OF THE THINGS QUITE
FRANKLY, I WAS VERY DISMAYED
ABOUT, YOUR COLLEAGUES OVER AT
THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY
ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE
TRANSPARENCY AND THEIR POLICIES
AND ALL OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND
THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
UNIVERSITIES AND THE APLU, WHICH
IS THE AMERICAS PUBLIC LAND
GRANT UNIVERSITIES OPPOSED THE
ORI CHANGES WHICH IN MY VIEW,
EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOME OF
THEM IS JUST THE WORST POSSIBLE
OPTICS WE COULD HAVE, TO HAVE
THE INSTITUTION SAYING THANKS
FOR YOUR TAX MONEY BUOY WOO
DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE MORE
TRANSPARENCY IN HOW WE MANAGE
RETRACTION ANDS CORRECTIONS WHEN
THEY HAPPEN.
SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT
THING FOR US ALL AND AI ARRIVING
NOW IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE THIS
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT.
OKAY, SOME OF YOU MAY KNOW I HAD
AN INTERESTING WOWEEKS A COUPLE
MONTHS AGO BEFORE TESTIFYING ON
THE SUBMITEE CORONA VIRUS, I WAS
TALKING ABOUT E-MAILS BETWEEN ME
AND ESERVERS BETWEEN HERE AND
METHESTIMATE THAD DAILY BASIS AS
YOU ALL KNOW YOU WRITE FOIA-ABLE
E-MAILS, I DO TOO SO I DON'T
WRITE ANY E-MAILS THAT YOU THAT
I DON'T EXPECT TO BECOME A
PUBLIC RECORD AND ALL THE
E-MAILS I HAD WITH FRANCIS
COLLINS AND TONY FAUCI, WERE RED
IN CONGRESS.
THEY WERE TRYING TO PROVE THAT
SOMEHOW PROVED THAT I WAS TRYING
TO ENCOURAGE YOU FOR RESEARCH IN
THE CORONA VIRUS, AND THEY
WANTED ME TO TELL THEM UNDER
OATH AND I WAS ALSO ABLE TO
EXPLAIN AND LANCET AND NATURE
WERE CALLED IN, THEY DECIDED NOT
TO COME IN FAIRNESS THEY'RE IN
ENGLAND SO 1 PERSON SAID WOULD
YOU GO TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS IF
YOU WERE CALLED TO TESTIFY THERE
AND THOUGHT YEAH, WHY WOULDN'T I
GO TO THE HOUSE OF LORDS THAT
SOUNDS PRETTY EXSIGHING, THAT'S
THE 1 WHERE THEY YELL AT EACH
OTHER THE WHOLE TIME.
SO YES, I WOULD PROBABLY GO DO
THAT.
BUT THE NICE THING WAS I WAS
ABLE TO EXPLAIN A LOT ABOUT
EVERYTHING WE DO AND 1 THING'S
FOR SURE, THE MEMBERS OF THAT
COMMITTEE DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE
EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF WORK
THAT WE DO TO GO FROM A
SUBMITTED PAPER TO SOME THINGS
IN THE RECORD AND WHAT THEY
REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WAS WHAT WE
DO AFTER THE PAPER IS PUBLISHED
AND SO, I WAS ABLE TO TELL THEM
BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU HEAR PEOPLE
NOW SAY LET'S GET RID OF
YOWRNALS BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED
THE JOURNALS, INFORMATION CAN
JUST GOOT INTERNET, IT'S NOT
LIKE IN THE OLD DAYS WHEN THE
YOWRNAL'S MAIN ROLE WAS TO PRINT
THE YOWRNALS AND PUT THEM IN THE
LIBRARY BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL
THINGS THAT WE DO THAT ARE
REALLY IMPORTANT.
OF COURSE 1 OF THEM IS RUP THE
PEER REVIEW PROCESS, AND PLENTY
OF CRITICS OR JOURNALS ARE
TRYING TO IPT GREATER VENT THEIR
OWN WAYS OF DOING THAT, WE WILL
SEE IF THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL AT
THAT, BUT THE OTHER THING WE DO,
THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL IS WE
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT IS
PUBLISHED AND IF THERE'S A
PROBLEM AFTER THE FACT, THEN WE
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT AND
I SNEAKED A PEEK AT 1 OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT CHRIS HAD ON HIS
SCREEN, WE ALSO TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALL THE DATA
AND CODE THAT HAVE TO BE POSTED
TO GO ALONG WITH THE PAPER.
SO IF JOURNALS DON'T DO THAT, IF
THE JOURNALS DON'T TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CODE AND
ALL OF THAT AND THE DATA AND FOR
MAINTAINING THE PAPER, WHO ARE
YOU GOING TO WRITE TO WHEN YOU
HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PAPER WHEN
YOU KNOW THAT THE AUTHORS AND
THE INSTITUTIONS ARE UNLIKELY TO
BE RESPONSIVE AND SO, I WAS ABLE
TO EXPLAIN THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY LISTENED
BUT IT'S AT LEAST IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD NOW,
SOMEBODY WANTS TO READ IT 1 DAY,
SO IT WAS AN HONOR TO GO
REPRESENT MY COLLEAGUES IN
CONGRESS AND TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS
WORKS.
AND I GUESS MY MESSAGE HERE AT
THE END WOULD BE, AND WE CAN
TALK MORE ABOUT AI IN THE
QUESTIONS AND I'M SURE THE OTHER
SPEAKER WHO'S MUCH MORE
KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT IT WILL HAVE
A LOT MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT BUT
MY MESSAGE WOULD BE THAT WE HAVE
AN ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY TO
MAINTAIN AN EXCELLENT SCIENTIFIC
RECORD THAT CAN STAND THE TEST
OF TIME AND WE ARE ALL CALLED
TOGETHER TO DO THAT AND TO
EXPLAIN THE IMPORTANCE OF IT
WHICH FRANKLY WE'VE DONE A
PRETTY LOUSY YOB CORPS OF TR THE
LAST 50 YEARS OR SO.
SO WITH THEY WILL OF COURSE PLUG
OUR NEWS LETTER, HOPEFULLY
EVERYBODY HERE IS GETTING
SCIENCE ADVISOR, THE NEW LETTER
FROM SCIENCE, THERE'S A QR CODE
IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A PICTURE
BUT YOU SHOULD BE ANNOYED
WITHADS ON OUR WEBSITE WHEN YOU
COME TO IT SO PLEASE SIGN UP FOR
SCIENCE ADVISOR, GREAT RUN DOWN
OF THE NEWS IN CONSCIENCE AND WE
HAVE A REALLY GREAT PERSON WHO
WRITE ITS AND MAKE ITS
INCREDIBLY FUN AND I GET TO WORK
WITH EXTRAORDINARY PEOPLE EMPLOY
HERE IS OUR TEAM OF EDITORS, OF
SCIENCE PLUS OUR OTHER JOURNALS,
THESE PEOPLE ARE OUTSTANDING
COLLEAGUES WHO WORK TIRELESSLY
TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE BRING
YOU IS ACCURATE AND IMPORTANT
AND IT'S AN HONOR TO SEE THEM DO
THAT EVERY DAY.
THIS IS THE TEAM THAT MAKES SURE
THAT THESE--OUR PAPERS ARE
COVERED ACCURATELY BY THE NEWS
MEDIA BECAUSE AS MUCH AS WE
PROBABLY THINK SCIENCE HAS A
VERY--A LOT OF WATTAGE, THE
TRUTH IS MOST PEOPLE DON'T READ
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS BUT A LOT OF
PEOPLE READ NEWS STORIES ABOUT
SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND SO MAKING
SURE THAT THOSE ARE ACCURATE AND
AS WIDE SPREAD AS POSSIBLE IS
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT
SCIENCE AND THE AAAS DO TO HELP
THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF
SCIENCE AND I HOPE YOU ALSO
ADPREE THAT CONSCIENCE IS THE
MOST BEAUTIFUL YOWRNAL IN THE
WORLD AND HAS THE MOST
ILLUSTRATIVE FIGURES AND THIS IS
THE RELATIVELY LARGE TEAM THAT
IT TAKES TO MAKE ALL THOSE
MAGNIFICENT ILITRATIONS AND
BEAUTIFUL COVERS AND EVERYTHING
THAT YOU GET TO SEE EVERY WEEK
IN OUR MAGAZINE MAGAZINE.
SO IT'S REALLY AN HONOR TO BE
PART OF THIS EXTRAORDINARY
SERIES THAT'S RUN FOR ALL THIS
TIME AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE
DISCUSSION AFTERWARD ANDS
ESPECIALLY THE TALK FOR THE NEXT
SPEAKER, SO THANK YOU ALL VERY
MUCH.
[ APPLAUSE ]
NTHANK --
>> THANK YOU SO UPON FOR
INVITING ME TO SHARE SOME
THOUGHTS WITH YOU EMPLOY I HOPE
MY SLIDES ARE SHOWING UP OKAY
AND THANK YOU FOR THE KIND
INTRODUCTION AND THANK YOU FOR
THIS FASCINATING TALK AND I LOVE
IT SO MUCH AND I LOVE THE STORY
ABOUT THE OPED BEING CITED 900
TIMES.
THE IRONY OF OUR PROFESSION
TIMES.
I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU
SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT THE
BIOETHICS LITERATURE THAT IS
QUICKLY EMERGING IN RESPONSE TO
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AI IN
HEALTHCARE AND IN BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH WHICH HAS MANY ETHICAL
IMPLICATIONS AND WILL TOUCH
QUICKLY ON THE MAIN 1S IN ORDER
TO FEED INTO THE DISCUSSION.
THE FIRST THING I WILL LIKE TO
POINT OUT IS THAT THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF MEDICINE HAS AN
INITIATIVE TO DEVELOP A CODE OF
CONDUCT THAT WILL GUIDE THE USE
OF AI IN HEALTHCARE ACROSS EVERY
ASPECT OF OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
THERE'S A STEERING COMMITTEE
THAT STEERS THIS EFFORT, I'M
HONORED TO BE A MEMBER OF IT AND
WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN INITIAL
DOCUMENT FOR WHICH WE'RE
INVITING COMMENTS.
YOU CAN FIND IT IN THE LIRNG
THEY PUT ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS
REALLY A NATIONAL EFFORT WITH A
HOPE TO INSPIRE ALSO THE
RESPONSIBLE AND WISE AND
CAUTIOUS IMPLEMENTATION OF AI
GLOBALLY.
SO IT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO
NOTE THAT THESE--THE ISSUES THAT
I WILL DISCUSS TODAY ARE BEING
ADDRESSED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
SO WHEN I TAKE A VERY HIGH LEVEL
VIEW OF THE BIOETHICS LITERATURE
ON AI IN HEALTH, HERE ARE SOME
OF THE THEMES THAT EMERGE AND I
WILL DIVIDE THEM BETWEEN THE
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL AND SYSTEMIC
LEVEL TO TRY TO PUT ORDER IN
THIS RICHNESS OF CHALLENGES THAT
WE'RE SEEING ARISING.
AT THE INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, WHEN WE
USE AI TOOLS IN PATIENT CARE,
FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE RECORDING
THE CLINICAL ENCOUNTER, THEN
ALLOWING GENERATIVE AI TO
GENERATE THE CLINICAL NOTES IN
ORDER TO SAVE CLINICIANS A LOT
OF TIME AND THAT'S JUST 1
EXAMPLE OF COURSE, WE CAN USE AI
NOT JUST GENERATIVE ARK I, WE
CAN USE ALGORITHMS TO READ
IMAGES, THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST
ADVANCED USE OF AI IN CLINICAL
CARE TODAY, THERE ARE MULTIPLE
USES THAT ARE ALREADY HITTING
THE GROUND AS WE SPEAK.
SO 1 OF THE ISSUES THAT EMERGE
IS DO PATIENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO
KNOW, THAT AI IS INVOLVED IN
THEIR CARE AND IN THE FUTURE
MAYBE AI WILL BE SO EMBEDDED
INTO OUR SYSTEMS AND HOSPITALS
AND CLINICS THAT CLINICIANS WILL
HAVE TO BE INFORMED THAT AI IS
INVOLVED IN THE DELIVERY OF
CARE, SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN,
THE RIGHT TO KNOW, SHOULD EVERY
PATIENT GIVE INFORMED CONSENT
FOR EVERY USE OF AI IN THEIR
CARE?
IS INFORMED CONSENT ENOUGH?
AND WHAT DOES IT INCLUDE IN
SHOULD THEY KNOW WHAT AI TOOL?
HOW THE ALGORITHM WAS DEVELOPED?
WHAT DATA IT WAS TESTED ON?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE INFORMED
ENOUGH TO GIVE CONSENT WHEN
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE USE OF
AI IN YOUR OWN CARE?
AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE
STANDARD OF CARE SWITCHES FROM
NOT USING AI AND YOU SHOULD BE
TOLD IF IT IS USED TO USING IT
AND IF IT'S NOT USED, YOU SHOULD
CONSENT TO GETTING ONLY HUMAN
CARE.
SO MAYBE AROUND THE CORNER IS A
NEW CLINICAL REALITY WHERE WE'RE
EXPECTING AI TO DELIVER A PART
OF OUR CARE, BE INVOLVED IN THE
ASSPECS OF OUR CARE AND WE HAVE
A RIGHT TO KNOW WHEN IT IS NOT
INVOLVED.
WHEN DO WE KNOW THAT THAT SWITCH
OCCURRED.
ANOTHER CONCERN I'M SEEING IN
THE LITERATURE IS THE NOTION IF
I GO BACK TO THAT EXAMPLE OF A
RECORDING OF THE CLINICAL
CONVERSATION AND AI TAKING
NOTES.
AT WHAT POINT DO WE IDENTIFY
CLINICIANS OVER RELIANCE ON
GENERATIVE ARK I.
CLINICIANS SO FAR ARE VERY
EXCITED ABOUT THESE TOOLS, THEY
SAVE TIME, SOMETIMES THE TEDIOUS
TASK AT THE END OF A MEETING OR
AT THE END OF A DAY OF TAKING
NOTES IT ALLEGEDLY ALLOWS YOU TO
FOCUS MORE ON HUMAN INTERACTION
AND PATIENT CARE BUT SO FAR
CLINICIANS MUST EDIT THE NOTES,
APPROVE THEM, THEY CAN'T JUST
LET AI DO THE WORK, AT WHAT
POINT DO WE THINK THERE'S
OVERRELIANCE AND WHAT HAPPENS IF
CLIN IPGS GET OUT OF THE HABIT
OF CERTAIN THINGS AND AT THE
RISK OF DE-SKILLING, WHAT IF
CLIN 8 HOURSS LOSE CERTAIN
SKILLS BA YOU THEY GOT IMPORTANT
FOR AI DOING IT?
IS IT IMPORTANT THEY MAINTAIN
THESE SKILLS IN A WORLD WHERE AI
IS THE STANDARD OF CARE?
SO THIS IS JUST A FLAVOR OF
ISSUES WE'RE THINKING OF IN THE
CLINICAL CONTEXT.
OTHER INDIVIDUAL LEVEL CONCERNS
TOUCH ON WHAT THE LITERATURE
CALLS THE BLACK BOX NATURE OF
THE ALGORITHM, IF I GO FOR MY
MAMMOGRAPHY, AND I'M TOLD THAT I
SHOULD PROCEED TO A BIOPSY
BECAUSE AN ALGORITHM READ MY
IMAGE, AND THAT IS THE
RECOMMENDATION OF AN ALGORITHM,
AS A PATIENT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND
HOW AI GOT TO THAT CONCLUSION,
MAYBE MY CLINICIAN DOESN'T, THE
LITERATURE IS CONCERNED THAT
THIS BLACK BOX NATURE OF AI
POWER TOOLS IN THE CLINIC MAY BE
A SOURCE OF LACK OF TRUST AND
SLOWER UPTAKE.
WE'RE NOT SEEING IT, SO FAR
PATIENTS TEND TO TRUST AI
POWERED TOOLS AND WE KNOW THAT
HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES AS WELL BUT
THERE'S ENTIRE LITERATURE
EMERGING ON WHETHER AI
HEALTHCARE SHOULD BE
EXPLAINABLE, SHOULD BE
TRANSPARENT, SHOULD BE SOME
EFFORT TO OPEN THE BLACK BOX AND
THROW LIGHT IN THERE SO THAT
PATIENTS AND THEIR CLINICIANS
UNDERSTAND HOW AI DELIVERED
RECOMMENDATIONS, DECISIONS AND
SO THIS WILL INCREASE TRUST,
INCREASE THE UPTAKE OF THESE
TOOLS AND INCREASE THE
ACCOUNTABILITY OF THOSE USING
THEM EMPLOY BUT THIS NOTION OF
TRANSPARENT AI AND STANDS WITH
THE TENSION OF MORE RELIABILITY,
MORE ACCURACY, TOOLS THAT ARE
MORE EFFECTIVE AND SAFER, I'M
NOT AN AI DEVELOPER, I'M AN
ETHICIST BUT WHEN I SPEAK TO THE
DEVELOPERS THEY PRESENT IT AS IF
MORE EXPLAINABILITY MEANS
REDUCED RELIABILITY AND WE HAVE
TO ACTUALLY NEGOTIATE BETWEEN
THESE 2 VALUES TO THINGS THAT WE
CARE ABOUT AND THAT'S DEFINITELY
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PATIENTS AND
PHYSICIANS PREFERENCES IF WE'RE
GOING TO SACRIFICE A LITTLE BIT
OF 1 FOR THE SAKE OF THE OTHER.
ANOTHER SET OF CONCERNS TOUCHES
ON PRIVACY PROTECTIONS.
AI ALLOWS US MORE TRIANGULATION
OF DATA FROM MULTIPLE SOURCES,
HIPAA PROTECTION IS LIMITED, IT
ALL DEPENDS ON THE USE OF THE AI
TOOL AND THERE'S THE RISK OF
REIDENTIFIABILITY EVEN IF DATA
WAS ANONYMIZED, IT'S A CONCERN
FOR RESEARCH OF COURSE, WE WILL
TOUCH ON THAT IN A MINUTE BUT -
ALSO A CONCERN FOR PROTECTING
PATIENT PRIVACY IN CLINICAL
CARE.
NOW I WANT TO TRANSITION TO SOME
ISSUES AT THE SYSTEMIC LEVEL, SO
FIRST OF ALL CURRENTLY BECAUSE
WE'RE STILL BUILDING THE
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES
SURROUNDING THE DELIVERY OF AI
POWER TOOLS IN THE CLINIC AND IN
RESEARCH, THERE'S LACK OF
CLARITY REGARDING WHO WILL BE
LIABLE FOR AI BASED MEDICAL
HARM.
WOULD IT BE THE INDIVIDUAL
CLINICIAN WHO USED THE TOOL, I
DOUBT IT?
WILL IT BE THE ORGANIZATION FOR
EXAMPLE, THE HOSPITAL, OR THE
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM?
DO WE WANT TO BUILD SYSTEMIC
COMPENSATION FOR THE FIRST
GENERATION OF PATIENT WHO IS ARE
HARMED BY THE LIMITS OF AI BASED
TOOLS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE
WITH VACCINE COMPENSATION.
THERE'S A NEED TO BUILD
GOVERNANCE AROUND ALL OF THESE
QUESTIONS, THERE ARE LEGAL BUT
THERE ARE ALSO ETHICAL, ANOTHER
ISSUE AT THE SYSTEMIC LEVEL IS
ALGORITHMIC BIAS, MANY OF THE
ALGORITHMS HAVE BEEN TRAIN
OFFICE OF DIVERSITY DATA SETS
THAT HAVE LIMITED DIVERSITY JUST
LIKE WE'VE SEEN IN GENOMICS AND
IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH IN
GENERAL, CERTAIN POPULATIONS ARE
OVERREPRESENTED.
MINORITIES ARE UNDERREPRESENTED.
IF AN ALGORITHM WAS TRAINED ON
WHITE SKIN, IT WILL PERFORM
LESS WELL, IDENTIFYING MELANOMA
AND DARKER SKIN TONES SO
ALGORITHMIC BIAS IS AN ISSUE
EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF AND TRYING
TO TACKLE THROUGH DIVERSIFYING
DATA SETS AND IN A SECOND, I
WILL TELL YOU TO A BRIDGE TO THE
INITIATIVE THAT ADDRESSES THIS
HEAD ON.
ANOTHER FASCINATING QUESTION AT
THE SYSTEMIC LEVEL IS WHEN WE
INTEGRATE AI INTO CLINICAL CARE,
ARE THERE CERTAIN TASKS, ROLES,
RESPONSIBILITIES THAT SHOULD
REMAIN SOLELY IN THE HANDS OF
HUMANS EVEN IF AI CAN PERFORM
THEM PRETTY WELL, THINGS RELATED
TO COMPASSION AND CARE AND
ADVICE AND EMERGING RESEARCH
SHOWS THAT CHAT BOTS FOR
EXAMPLE, ARE PERFOR THE
PURPOSING VERY WELL, IN TERMS OF
GIVING PARENTS THE IMPRESSION
THAT THEY'RE VERY COMPASSIONATE,
THEY'RE VERY PATIENT SYSTEMS,
THEY HAVE ENDLESS AMOUNT OF TIME
UPLIKE HUMAN CLINICIANS.
DO WE FEEL RESISTANCE TO
INTEGRATING AI IN SOME CAPACITY,
CERTAIN ROLES WE BELIEVE SHOULD
REMAIN HUMAN ROLES?
THIS WILL REMAIN TO BE SEEN AND
OVERALL, I THINK 1 OF THE
GREATEST CHALLENGES ACROSS THE
BOARD IS THE PACE OF DEVELOPMENT
OF ALL THESE TOOLS.
THIS PRESENTS A CHALLENGE FOR
RESEARCH, GOVERNANCE, IMP
LEMMATION, SOMETIMES WHEN WE DO
OUR RESEARCH ON THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF AI, WE PEEL
LIKE BY THE TIME WE FIGURE OUT
WHAT TO ASK PATIENTS AND
CLINICIANS ABOUT THEIR
PREFERENCES, THE TECHNOLOGY
SHIFTED AND WE HAVE TO REDESIGN
OUR SURVEYS AND DEFINITELY OUR
GOVERNMENT IS DRAFT FRAMEWORKS.
SO THIS IS FAIRLY RAPID PACE OF
DEVELOPMENT PRESENTS CHALLENGES
FOR USER ANDS FOR US RESEARCHERS
WHO ARE TRYING TO ROLL OUT THESE
TECHNOLOGIES IN A WAY THAT IS
RESPONSIBILITY AND CAUTIOUS.
SO I WANT TO NOW GIVE YOU THE
EXAMPLE OF OUR NIH FUNDED BRIDGE
TO AI INITIATIVE BECAUSE I
WANT--I SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THE
BIOETHICS LITERATURE IN THE
CONTEXT OF CLINICAL CARE AND NOW
I WANT TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES OF
USING AI IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH.
SO BRIDGE 2 AI IS AN INITIATIVE
MEANT TO AS THE TIELT SAYS BUILD
A BRIDGE FROM BIOMEDICAL AND
BEHAVIORIAL RESEARCH TO
ARTIFICIAL INTELIENCE AND IT'S
REALLY BASED ON THE NOTION THAT
IN ORDER TO PERFORM WELL AND
RESPONSIBLY AI MUST BE CREATED,
TRAINED, DEVELOPED BASED ON DATA
SETS THAT ARE AI READY AND THAT
MEANS A LOT OF THINGS, THE DATA
WAS ETHICALLY SOURCED, THAT WE
HAVE ETHICAL BEST PRACTICES, AND
THAT DIVERSITY OF THE DATA AND
OF THE TEAMS, THAT GENERATE THE
DATA IS GUARANTEED, SO THIS IS
INITIATIVE THAT CURRENTLY HAS 4
PROGECS RUNNING, EACH 1 OF THEM
COLLECTS DATA, A DIFFERENT TYPE
OF DATA, EMPHASIZES THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DATA,
DIVERSE, FAIR, AI-READY, ETHICAL
CONSIDERATIONS, PEOPLE, TRAINING
OF THE TEAMS TO DO THIS WELL,
THE INITIATIVE IS SUPPOSED TO
GENERATE FLAGSHIP DATA SETS THAT
WERE REALLY TEACH THE BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH COMMUNITY HOW TO
GENERATE GOOD HIGH QUALITY
RESPONSIBLE DATA FOR AI POWERED
RESEARCH.
SO I WANT TO SHARE THE EXAMPLE
OF 1 OF THOSE 4 PROJECTS, THE
VOICE AS A BIOMARKER OF HEALTH
PROJECT.
IN QUICKLY, A FEW WORDS, ABOUT
VOICE AS A BIOMARKER, THIS IS
OUR TEAM AND I WOULD LIKE TO
THANK THEM FIRST OF ALL BECAUSE
SOME OF THE SLIDES I WILL SHARE
NOW WERE GENERATED BY THE TEAM.
YOU KNOW WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THE
FACT THAT THE HUMAN VOICE IS THE
MOST BEAUTIFUL TRIEWMENT BUT THE
MOST DIFFICULT TO PLAY.
THE HUMAN VOICE CARRIES
IDENTITY, LOVE, EMOTIONS, THIS
IS THE PICTURE OF OUR TWINS OF
OUR PI AND SHE SAYS THAT FROM AN
EARLY AGE SHE COULDN'T TELL
WHICH 1 WAS CRYING BECAUSE VOICE
REALLY CONVEYS IDENTITY SO WHEN
I SPEAK TO YOU NOW, I'M DOING
ALL THOSE THINGS YOU SEE ON
SCREEN SPEAKING, GENERATING
HUMAN VOICES ACTUALLY AN
INCREDIBLY COMPLEX ACTIVITY CAN
SO MANY THINGS CAN GO WRONG, THE
NOTION OF VOICES OF BIOMARKER IS
TO USE RECORDINGS, SPEECH,
COUGH, BREATHING, CRIES, AS A
BIOMARKER OF DISEASE USING AI TO
ALLOW TO USE THE VOICE IN ORDER
TO DIAGNOSE DEC EARLY, HAD IS AN
EXPANDING MARK THAT'S PREDICTED
TO REACH 5 MILLION IN JUST A FEW
YEARS AND VOICE AS YOU KNOW IS
USED BEYOND HEALTH.
WE'RE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT
DEEP FAKE VOICE THAT'S ALREADY
HAPPENING, PEOPLE GETTING A CALL
AND YOU KNOW THEY THINK THEY'RE
SPEAKING TO THEIR CHILD WHO WAS
KIDNAPPED BUT ACTUALLY THIS IS A
CLONING OF THE VOICE, SO WE'RE
LOOKING AT THESE CATEGORIES AS
CANDIDATES FOR FASTER DIAGNOSIS
AND FOLLOW UP OF DISEASE
PROGRESSION BASED ON VOICE
RECORDINGS.
THESE ARE THE TYPES OF DISEASES
WE CAN LOOK AT UNDER EACH OF
THESE CATEGORIES, SO WE CAN SEE
THAT WE'RE REALLY CASTING A WIDE
NET AND THE CURRENT ISSUE IS
THAT THERE ARE DATA SETS OF
VOICE, SAMPLES BUT THEY'RE SO
THEY'RE REALLY NOT READY IN THAT
SENSE, SO THEY WORK IN SILOS OF
DIFFERENT DISEASES, WE WANT TO
WORK ACROSS DISEASES, SO OUR
MISSION IS TO BUILD A LARGE
SCALE, ETHICALLY SOURCED DIVERSE
HUMAN VOICE DATABASE THAT IS AI
READY TO FUEL VOICE AI RESEARCH.
I JUST CAME BACK FROM ORLANDO WE
HAD OUR SECOND VOICE SYMPOSIUM
WITH A COUPLE HUNDRED PEOPLE
FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD
INCLUDING CEOs OF START UPS
THAT TRY TO ALREADY ROLL THIS
OUT AS A PRODUCT IN MENTAL
HEALTH AND CANCER THIS IS AN
INCREDIBLY BUSY SPACE, SO THESE
ARE ISSUES AND CREATE A VOICE
FOR AI, FIRST OF ALL WHAT DOES
IT MEAN TO COLLECT DIVERSE VOICE
SAMPLES TO AVOID ALGORITHMIC
BIAS, USUALLY WHEN WE THINK
ABOUT GENOMICS WE THINK ABOUT
ETHNICITY, HEAR WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER AGE, WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER ACCENT, AND REALLY
SHEDS NEW LIGHT ON THE NOTION OF
DIVERSITY, IF YOU WANT THE
PRODUCT TO BE BENEFICIAL TO
VARIOUS POPULATIONS, WE NEED TO
THINK REALLY HARD ABOUT WHAT DID
IT MEAN TO BE REPRESENTATIVE
WITH YOUR COLLECTIVE VOICES.
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY,
VOICE IS COST EFFECTIVE,
NONINVASIVE, AND SAFE TO
COLLECT, WE'RE DEVELOPING AN
ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS
ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS SO
TAKEN--THEY PEOPLE CAN RECORD
THEMSELVES AT HOME AND UPLOAD
THEIR VOICE RECORDING TO A CLOUD
SO THAT THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO
GO TO A MEDICAL FACILITY TO GET
THE BENEFITS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY
BUT CAN THESE RECORDINGS EXPOSE
THEIR INDIVIDUAL IDENTITY, CAN
THEIR VOICE BE USED WITHOUT
THEIR CONSENT, WHAT ABOUT
SHARING IT WITH A COMMERCIAL
SPACE, IF WE CREATE THIS
INCREDIBLE HIGH QUALITY DATA
SET, PRIVATE PARTNERS MAY WANT
ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION, THIS
MAY ENHANCE THE BENEFITS THAT WE
GENERATE BUT IS IT OKAY TO DO,
HOW DO WE GET CONSENT FOR IT.
THE ISSUE OF EXPLAINABILITY THAT
I ALREADY TOUCHED UPON, IF WE
CAN DEVELOP BETTER ALGORITHMS
BUT WE CAN'T EXPLAIN THEM TO
PATIENTS WHAT DO WE CHOOSE TO DO
AND FINALLY, BACK TO THE POINT
THAT WAS JUST MADE, SCIENCE
COMMUNICATION TO BUILD TRUST,
HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE TO THE
PUBLIC WHAT IT IS WE'RE DOING
AND HOW THE BENEFITS ARE SO
PROMISING WITHOUT HYPING THE
OVERHYPING THEM AND WITHOUT
LOSING THE TRUST OF THE PUBLIC,
SO JUST A MENU OF ISSUES THAT
WE'RE DEALING WITH IN ORDER ON
DO ALL THIS RESPONSIBLY, THIS IS
OUR MANTRA, OUR VOICE, OUR
HEALTH, OUR FUTURE AND I THANK
YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION
AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE
DISCUSSION.
NTHANK YOU FOR EXCITING
PRESENTATIONS AND THERE ARE A
LOT OF QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO
CONSIDER.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE ASKED--THERE
SEEMS TO BE AN ANALOGY BETWEEN
THE DRIVERLESS CAR AND THE
DRIVERLESS DIAGNOSIS.
BOTH PREMISES, BOTH PROMISE
FEWER ACCIDENTS, WHY IS THERE
SUCH A WORRY THAT AI WILL MAKE
AN INCORRECT DIAGNOSIS, SAY 1%
OF THE TIME WHEN DOCTORS MAKE AN
INCORRECT DIAGNOSIS, 10% OF THE
TIME.
THESE ARE RANDOM NUMBERS OF
COURSE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THE
QUESTIONER THAT--
>> IT'S SO IMPORTANT IS THAT YOU
KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ASK, A LOT
OF PEOPLE ARE SKEPTICAL ABOUT
WHY WE NEED REPRESENTATION OF
EVERY GROUP WHY DOES IT MATTER,
IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S
INDEPENDENT OF RACE AND GENDER
AND IDENTITY OF WHO DOESN'T BUT
WE'VE NEVER HAD IN MY OPINION A
STRONGER ARGUMENT FOR WHY WE
NEED A DIVERSE SCIENTIFIC
WORKFORCE THAN THE FACT THAT WE
NEED TO MAKE AI THAT HELPS
EVERYBODY AND DOESN'T JUST MAKE
LIFE BETTER FOR THOSE OF US WHO
ARE ALREADY DOING WELL--BUT 1
THING I IT WILL HAVE TO PROVE
FOR MEDICINE AND DIAGNOSIS, AND
SINCE MEDICINE NEVER REALLY
WORKED WELL FOR EVERYBODY TO
BEGIN WITH, THIS COULD JUST MAKE
THE WHOLE THING WORSE, SO THAT
WOULD BE 1 ARGUMENT FOR NOT
USING IT, IF I WERE FROM A
MARGINALIZED GROUP, I MIGHT BE
VERY, VERY SUSPICIOUS.
>> VARDIT, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT
ABOUT THAT?
>> YES, I THINK 1 OF THE
GREATEST PROMISES OF AI IS THAT
IT COULD BECOME THE BIG
EQUALIZER THAT IT COULD MAKE
INTERVENTIONS MORE ACCESS
CLINICAL COMMUNITY, THAT IT CAN
BRIDGE ACROSS GEOGRAPHIC
BARRIERS AND THAT IT CAN
BE--WE'RE ALL STILL UNDER THE
SPELL OF TELEHEALTH, AND
THINKING THIS IS AMAZING, THIS
OPENS THE DOORS TO POPULATIONS
THAT ARE MARGINALIZED FOR
VARIOUS REASONS, AI CAN PUSH
THAT EVEN FURTHER, BUT IF AND
THAT IS WHEN THE BENEFIT BECOMES
A RISK, IF WE DON'T DO THIS
RIGHT AND AI THAT IS DEFINITELY
GOING TO SOME DEGREE
REVOLUTIONIZE THE WAY WE DELIVER
CARE IS DOING THE OPPOSITE,AX
ASKER BAITING HEALTH GAPS, THAT
WOULD BE--NOT JUST BREAK TRUST
BUT JUST MAKE THE ENTIRE
ENTERPRISE ETHICALLY
UNACCEPTABLE AND IRRESPONSIBLE.
SO MUCH OF IT IS ABOUT THE DATA
SETS AND HOW THESE ALGORITHMS
ARE TAUGHT BUT SOME OF IT IS
JUST THE INTENTIONALITY OF
DESIGNING, THE USE, THE
IMPLEMENTATION, THE DELIVERY, SO
I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE BACK
TO THE VOICE PROJECT, WE'RE
DESIGNING AN APP, SO THAT
PATIENTS CAN RECORD THEIR VOICE
SAMPLE AT HOME.
YOU KNOW THE FIRST GENERATION
THAT WHILE WE'RE DEVELOPING THE
ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS
ACTIVITIES AND PROJECTS, WE ARE
BRINGING PEOPLE INTO THE CLINIC
TO FINE TUNE THE DESIGN OF THE
APP SO THAT WE CAN CONTROL
EXACTLY THE MICROPHONE THAT THEY
USE AND THE DANCE BETWEEN THE
MOUTH AND THE MICROPHONE AND THE
ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY'RE
RECORDING, BUT OUR HOPE IS TO
DESIGN IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT
ANYBODY CAN DO IT AT HOME.
DOES EVERYBODY HAVE A SMART
PHONE IN CAN ANYBODY FOLLOW
WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING
WHAT TO RECORD?
YOU KNOW WHAT TEXT WE WANT THEM
TO READ, WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
SPEAK DIFFERENT LANGUAGES THAT
ARE NOT SORT OF THE MAIN
LANGUAGES, SO THERE'S SO MUCH TO
THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU TRY TO
BRING DOWN THOSE BARRIERS AND
REALLY USE SUCH A PROMISING TOOL
IN A WAY THAT REMOVES--THAT
ENHANCES EQUITY.
IT'S MORE THAN JUST DATA
DIVERSITY, THERE'S LOTS TO
CONSIDER AND I THINK HAVING THE
DIVERSE TEAMS MEANS YOU NEED TO
GET A LOT OF PERSPECTS INTO
THE DESIGN SO YOU CAN THINK NOT
JUST ABOUT AGAIN THE DESIGN OF
THE ALGORITHM, YOU CAN THINK
ABOUT THE DELIVERY METHOD AND
ALL THOSE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS I
JUST NAMED.
YOU NEED MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAMS
TO FEED INTO THAT THINKING.
SO I'M--I'M JUST ADDING MORE
PERSPECTIVES ON THIS ISSUE OF
YESTERDAY AND EQUITY BUT THIS IS
A KEY ELEMENT IN THE WISE AND
RESPONSIBLE DELIVERY OF THIS
PROMISING TOOL.
>> THANK YOU.
HOLDEN, WE HAVE A QUESTION HERE,
WHAT ARE JOURNALS DOING TO
ENFORCE OR ENCOURAGE AUTHORS TO
MAKE AVAILABLE NOT ONLY THE CODE
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY THE MODEL
WEIGHTS AND IF POSSIBLE OR
FEASIBLE, THE TRAINING DATA THE
QUESTIONER IS OF THE OPINION
THAT THE MODEL WEIGHTS ARE THE
SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR TO
TESTING REPRODUCIBILITY AS THAT
IS THE QUOTE MAGIC SAUCE AS IT
WERE TO RUN ANY MODEL.
>> YEAH, SO, THIS IS SOMETHING
ON PAPERS, THIS IS SOMETHING WE
SPENT QUITE A LOT OF TIME ON AND
YOU KNOW I--I STOPPED PUBLISHING
BACK WHEN A PDF OF SUPPORTING
INFORMATION WAS THE MAX YOU
WOULD PUT IN THE PAPER AND THEN
I GOT THIS YOB CORPS AND 15
YEARS LATER AND CAME TO A
TOTALLY DIFFERENT WORLD WHERE
TONS AND TONS OF DATA AND CODE
ARE POSTED ALONG WITH THE PAPER
SO WE'RE ALWAYS FINDING NEW
KINDS OF DATA AND CODE WE CAN
USE, AND IT'S AN ONION AND YOU
KEEP PEELING IT AND PEELING IT
AND PEELING IT AND THERE'S
ALWAYS SOMETHING YOU HAVEN'T
THOUGHT OF THAT YOU HAVE TO
LEARN TO ARCHIVE SOMEHOW SO THAT
PEOPLE CAN COME BACK ASK REPEAT
THE PAPER.
AND OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE
EVERYTHING YOU NEED THERE AND WE
TRY TO BE AS TOUGH AS WE CAN BE
ABOUT REQUIRING AUTHORS TO
INCLUDE THAT AND WE ALLOW
AUTHORS TO USE WHATEVER
REPOSITORY THEY WANT BUT WE ALSO
HAVE A PROGRAM WHERE IF THE
AUTHORS WANT TO USE DRYAD WHICH
IS 1 OF THE OPTIONS THEN SCIENCE
HAS A PROGRAM THAT WOULD ARK LOW
AUTHORS TO USE DRYAD VERY
CONVENIENTLY, BUT IF FOR SOME
REASON THEY'RE ON GITHUB OR
ZENOTO, THEN THEY CAN DO THAT
TOO.
YES, THIS IS ANOTHER THING THAT
HELPS EXPLAIN WHY PUBLISHING A
PEER REVIEWED PAPER IS SO
IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF IT'S JUST A
PREPRINT, THERE'S NOBODY THERE
TO HOLD THE AUTHORS ACCOUNTABLE,
IF THEY DON'T POST EVERYTHING
THAT SHOULD GO ALONG WITH THE
PAPER INCLUDING THE CODE OF
COURSE.
THERE'S A QUESTION IN THE
AUDIENCE HERE.
>> THERE'S A QUESTION FROM THE
AUDIENCE.
>> YES, HI, SO REALLY GREAT
TOPIC, IT'S EASY FOR US TO MAKE
[INDISCERNIBLE] THOSE AND GITHUB
AND THE REPOSITORY WHERE WE DUMP
EVERYTHING AND IT SHOULD BE
RUNNING BUT [INDISCERNIBLE] AS
THE SOFTWARE HAS BECOME NEW
VERSION AND SO ON, IT'S
PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO RUN
THE ANALYSIS PEOPLE HAVE DONE SO
IN A WAY THAT'S BRINGING IT BACK
TO YOU, THE PUBLISHING ENTITY
RIGHT, SHOULD YOU HAVE SOME
QUALITY CONTROL TO MAKE SURE THE
CODE CANS KEEP RUNNING AT LEAST
ON SOME TIME MACHINE SO THATY WE
CAN REALLY REDO [INDISCERNIBLE]?
>> YEAH, SO I MET SOME GUYS FROM
THE NIH WHO WERE WORKING ON A
NEW SET OF POLICIES UNDER THIS,
I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT STANDS.
IT WAS A COUPLE YEARING AGO WHEN
THEY CAME TO TALK TO ME EMPLOY
THE HARSH FACT RIGHT NOW IS, YOU
COULD POST EVERYTHING AT THE
TIME OF THE PAPER AND AFTER THE
PAPER'S PUBLISHED, YOU COULD
TAKE IT ALL DONE AND NOBODY
WOULD FIGURE IT OUT UNLESS
SOMEBODY WANTED TO GO LOOK FOR
IT AGAIN.
AND TO SOMEHOW MAINTAIN THAT IN
A WAY THAT MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO
DO THAT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE
PROPOSITION.
I DON'T THINK THE JOURNALS COULD
DO THAT ON OUR OWN.
IT WOULD REQUIRE THE FUNDING
AGENCIES TO HELP FIGURE OUT HOW
WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT BUT
YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
THERE COULD BE OUTDATED CODE YOU
CAN'T RUN ANYMORE OR THERE COULD
BE REPOSITORIES THAT GO AWAY
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE SUPER
STRICT RULES ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO USE.
AND THIS IS A COST AND ACTIVITY
OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING THAT
NOBODY HAS PUT AS MUCH TIME INTO
AS IT DESERVES, THAT'S FOR SURE.
>> LET'S CONSIDER QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE PROPRIETARY ASPECT OF
AI, WHO OWNS IT AND IF IT'S
GOING TO BE PROPRIETARY, WHAT
ARE THE GUARANTEES FOR
TRANSPARENCY?
>> WELL I WILL LET VARDIT TAKE
FIRST CRACK AT THAT.
>> OKAY.
>> THAT IS 1 OF THE MILLION
DOLLAR QUESTIONS, IN THIS SPACE,
AND INTERESTINGLY, THIS NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF MEDICINE INITIATIVE
THAT I STARTED WITH, INVITED TO
THE TABLE PARTNERS SUCH AS
GOOGLE AND MICROSOFT BECAUSE ON
SOME AI AND HEALTH APPLICATIONS,
THEY'RE VERY ADVANCED IN THEIR
RESEARCH AND IT'S OBVIOUS THAT
THIS SPACE WILL REQUIRE
PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN PUBLISH AND
PRIVATE ENTITIES, ANY GOVERNANCE
THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THOSE
TENSIONS BETWEEN PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE PLAYERS WILL--YOU KNOW
WILL HAVE SHORT COMINGS AND WILL
NOT PROTECT PATIENTS AND
CLINICIAN ANDS HEALTHCARE
SYSTEMS APPROPRIATELY, SO
OBVIOUSLY IF A TOOL IS DEVELOPED
IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, IT HAS
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT LIMITATIONS
TO ACCESS, THAN IF IT IS FOR
EXAMPLE, DEVELOPED BY US WITHIN
THE BRIDGE TO AI PROJECT WITH
COMPLETELY PUBLIC FUNDING BUT AS
I JUST NOTED IN MY EXAMPLE, A
PART OF WHAT WE DO WITHIN THIS
INITIATIVE THAT IS A PUBLIC
INITIATIVE IS TO INVITE THE
START-UPS AND THE PRIVATE SECTOR
TO JOIN US AROUND THE TABLE TO
THINK TOGETHER ABOUT GOVERNANCE
AND ABOUT ISSUES OF ACCESS AND
EQUITY.
I THINK IT'S A BIT EARLY TO KNOW
HOW THIS WILL ALL PLAY OUT AND
AGAIN, I'M NOT A LAWYER, AND
I--I WOULD STRUGGLE TO DESCRIBE
THE VARIOUS MODELS THAT ARE
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE, BUT THIS IS
ALL FAST MOVING, UNDER
DEVELOPMENT AND WE HAVE MORE
QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.
WHAT ENCOURAGES ME IS THAT I SEE
TABLES WHERE THE PUBLIC AND THE
PRIVATE SECTOR ARE TALKING TO
EACH OTHER AND IT'S LESS SILOED
THAN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH USED TO
BE BECAUSE OF THIS
ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT WE CAN'T DO
IT WITHOUT EACH OTHER, SO, I
DIDN'T FULLY ANSWER THE
QUESTION, I JUST LAID OUT SOME
CONTEXT.
>> YEAH, AND I THINK, WELL,
FIRST OF ALL OPEN AI IS A VERY
IRONIC NAME FOR THEIR COMPANY
BECAUSE IT'S ANYTHING BUT OPEN
AS FAR AS THE CODE IS CONCERNED
AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
WORRY BODY WHEN WE WERE PUTTING
OUR POLICIES TOGETHER FOR CHAT
GPT BUT WE ALSO WORRY ABOUT WITH
RESEARCH, BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY
USES A COMMERCIAL AI PROGRAM, AS
PART OF THEIR RESEARCH EFFORT,
THEN, YOU KNOW JUST AS WAS ASKED
BEFORE ABOUT THE ALGORITHMS,
NOW, THAT'S A PROPRIETARY
ALGORITHM THAT'S BEEN USED AND
HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEPOSIT THAT
ON GITHUB IF WE DON'T HAVE THE
CODE AND DO WE ALLOW THAT IN
BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO
SOMEHOW ACCESS THE PROPRIETARY
LLM IN ORDER TO REPEAT THE
ANALYSIS IN THE PAPER.
AND YOU KNOW MY PREDICTION FOR
WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS
EVENTUALLY, WE WILL HAVE ENOUGH
OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE OPEN
SOURCE THAT THIS WON'T BE AS BIG
OF A DEAL AS IT IS RIGHT NOW BUT
THE PROPRIETARY NATURE OF THESE
COMMERCIAL ALGORITHMS IS A
CHALLENGE FOR US ALL BUT WE'RE
SEEING THAT ACROSS, YOU KNOW IN
SOCIAL SCIENCE WE HAVE A RELATED
PROBLEM WHICH IS THAT FACEBOOK
AND LINKED IN HAVE MORE SOCIAL
SCIENCE DATA THAN ANY ACADEMIC
HAD EVER GENERATED.
WE ARE CONITANTLY HAVING TO
DECIDE, DO WE PUBLISH PAPERS
THAT ANALYZE THOSE DATA NOT
BEING COMPLETELY ASSURED THAT
THE COMPANIES HAVE ALLOWED THE
ACADEMICS WHO HAVE DONE THE
ANALYSIS FULL ACCESS TO THE
DATA.
NOW MOSTLY IF IT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT FINDING, WE WILL COME
DOWN ON THE SIDE THAT IT'S
BETTER FOR THE WORLD TO SEE THAT
AND DO THE BEST WE CAN AT
WORKING THAT OUT, BUT I THINK
WOOR IN
WE'RE IN A MOMENT NOW WHICH IS
PROBABLY UNUSUAL IN MY TIME AND
I GUESS MAYBE WE'RE IN A SIMILAR
MOMENT A FEW OTHER TIMES BUT
RIGHT NOW, BETWEEN THE SOCIAL
MEDIA COMPANIES HAVING ALL THE
SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA, THE HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVING ALL
THE HEALTH INSURANCE DATA AND
THE AI COMPANIES HAVING THE AI
ALGORITHMS, YOU KNOW, DOING THE
MOST AMAZING SCIENCE THAT WE CAN
DO, USING THOSE ASSETS IS ALWAYS
A CHALLENGE FOR US IN TERMS OF
HOW WE MAKE THIS ACCESSIBLE TO
THE PUBLIC AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
>> ALONG THAT LINE, IF YOU
VISUALIZE A MODEL OF PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE CREATION OF AI SYSTEMS,
HOW DO YOU SEE WE COULD BE
REGULATED?
IS THAT A FEDERAL
RESPONSIBILITY, I REALIZE
NEITHER REVIEW TRUSTEES
[INDISCERNIBLE] I THINK BUT JUST
FROM THE STANDPOINT OF YOUR IMUT
FEELING ABOUT IT, HOW WOULD YOU
LIKE TO SEE IT REGULATED?
>> WELL, THE CLINICAL SIDE IS
WHERE WE'RE PROBABLY LIKELY TO
SEE THAT THE SOONEST, I WOULD
THINK GIVEN THE LICENSING AND
EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON.
SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART IT
THINKS ABOUT THAT?
>> I WILL NOTE AGAIN THAT IT'S
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
THAT IS LOOKING AT THIS.
I THINK RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SEEING
A SITUATION WHERE DIFFERENT
TOOLS ARE BEING ROLLED OUT IN
DIFFERENT SYSTEMS BASED ON
PRETTY LOCAL GOVERNANCE
APPROACHES, BUT EVERYBODY'S
AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS
NEEDS TO BE SYSTEMIC, THERE'S
EVEN TALK ABOUT AI IN HELT AS A
GLOBAL CHALLENGE AND THAT THE
BEST APPROACH WOULD BE
INTERNATIONAL GOVERNANCE, YOU
KNOW THAT'S ALWAYS HARD TO
ACHIEVE BUT I THINK THERE'S AN
OVERALL RECOGNITION FROM AN
ETHICAL PERSPECTIVE IN TERMS OF
PROTECTION AND PRIVACY, IN TERMS
OF PREVENTION AND BIAS, IN TERMS
OF RIGHT TO KNOW, ALL THOSE
CHALLENGES THAT I STARTED WITH,
THAT THE MORE LOCAL GOVERNANCE
FRAMEWORK, THE MORE IT'S A PATCH
WORK, THE LESS IT WILL BE GOOD
FOR PATIENTS, SO THERE'S THIS
AMBITION TO MAKE THIS A NATIONAL
EFFORT, HOW IT WILL ACTUALLY
PLAY OUT, I REALLY DON'T KNOW.
>> YEAH, I MEAN, IN
PSYCHOTHERAPY, THERE ARE A LOT
OF ALGORITHMS BEING DEPLOYED
WITH VERY LITTLE REGULATION, IT
SEEMS TO ME, UNLESS I'M MISSING
SOMETHING, AND YOU KNOW, THAT
COULD BE PRETTY WORRISOME.
I WENT TO A MEETING WITH A BUNCH
OF AI MENTAL HEALTH FOLKS AND
YOU KNOW THE AI ALGORITHMS,
THERE ARE GREAT THINGS THEY CAN
DO IN COGNITIVE BEHAVIORIAL
THERAPY AND PROBABLY A FEW OTHER
THINGS BUT THE AI'S JOB IS TO
KEEP YOU FROM HANGING UP, RIGHT?
AND SO, IN THE END, IT'S
PROGRAMMED TO TELL YOU TOUGH
THAT WILL KEEP YOU RESPONDING TO
IT WHICH MAY MEAN THAT IT WILL
TELL YOU THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO
HEAR THAT WILL KEEP YOU ON THE
HOOK THAT MAY NOT BE THE THINGS
A TRAINED THERAPIST WOULD TELL
YOU AND HOW PRECISELY WE'RE
GOING TO FIX THAT, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT THERE ARE IN MY OPINION VERY
LIGHTLY REGULATED ALGORITHMS
BEING USED FOR PSYCHOTHERAPY
RIGHT NOW.
AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW
HOW MUCH WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT
THEY'RE DOING, I AM GLAD THAT
NAM IS WORKING ON THIS KIND OF
THING.
>> ARE EITHER OF YOU CONCERNED
ABOUT A POSSIBLY INCREASING
PRESENCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA AS THE
MEANS OF MAKING SOME KIND OF AI
AVAILABLE EN MASS WITHOUT ANY
REGULATION AT ALL?
IS THAT A PRACTICAL MATTER YOU
MIGHT SEE ARISING IN THE NEAR
FUTURE?
>> SO HOW EXACTLY ARE YOU SAYING
SOCIAL MEDIA WOULD--ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT FREE ON SOME
WEBSITE?
OR SOCIAL MEDIA PROMOTING IT?
>> YEAH.
>> YEAH, WELL, SOCIAL MEDIA'S
GOOD AT PROMOTING THING ANDS SO,
YEAH, IT COULD BE EASILY BE
PROMOTING THE WRONG THING FOR
WHO CONVINCE THEMSELVES AS
EVERYONE DOES WITH THE INTERNET
THAT THEY'VE DORPHED SOMETHING
USEFUL.
>> ON THAT NOTE, WE ALL KNOW HOW
DR. GOOGLE CHANGED CLINICAL
CONVERSATIONS WITH PATIENTS COME
AND THEY'VE ALREADY PRETTY MUCH
DIAGNOSED THEMSELVES AND THEY
TELL THEIR CLINICIAN WHAT
MEDICATION THEY WANT PRESCRIBED,
WITH CHAT GPT, THE STAKES ARE
HIGHER, THE ASKING CHAT GPT FOR
CLINICAL ADVICE IS MANAGE THAT'S
ALREADY HAPPENING AND IT'S
GIVING MUCH BETTER ADVICE THAN
THE TRADITIONAL SEARCH ENGINES
BUT WHEN IT HALLUCINATES, WHEN
IT MAKES UP THINGS, THEY SOUND
VERY GOOD.
THEY SOUND VERY CONVINCING.
SO, THIS IS VERY RISKY IN TERMS
OF CONVINCING PATIENTS AND
POTENTIALLY EEIVET CONVINCING
CLINICIANS THAT THE ADVICE IS
SOUND.
WE ALL KNOW THAT GENERATIVE AI
CAN MAKE UP SCIENTIFIC
REFERENCES THAT DOESN'T EXIST,
IT CAN MAKE UP AN ENTIRE BODY OF
LITERATURE THAT DOESN'T EXIST
AND SEEM TO RELY ON THAT
EVIDENCE IS IN THERE, SO I WOULD
SAY THAT IN TERMS OF PATIENTS
GOING ONLINE FOR HELP, THE RISK
IS BIGGER BECAUSE THE QUALITY IS
BETTER PARADOXICALLY, AND THEN,
GOING BACK TO SOCIAL MEDIA, IT'S
NOT JUST THE SOCIAL MEDIA CAN
AMPLIFY OR HYPE UP WHAT AI CAN
DELIVER, IT'S ALSO THE USE OF AI
TO CREATE SOCIAL MEDIA MESSAGING
THAT COULD BE BASED ON
MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION
AND WELL, WE'RE IN AN ELECTION
YEAR, AND ACTUALLY IMPACT
DEMOCRATIC POSTS THAT GO WAY
BEYOND HEALTH AND IMPACT THE
TRUST NOT JUST IN SCIENCE BUT IN
OUR ENTIRE SOCIAL FABRIC.
SO, AGAIN, THE RISKS ARE--I KNOW
A LOT OF PEOPLE CALL THEM
EXSTENTIAL RISK BECAUSE BEYOND
HEALTH, OF THE POWER OF ARK I TO
FRAME, ENHANCE AND DELIVER
MESSAGES IS UNPRECEDENTED.
>> OKAY.
>> I WAS WONDERING IF THE 2 OF
YOU CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF
HOW LIKELY CHATGPT WHEN YOU ASK
A QUESTION, CAN DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN FAKE NEWS AND REAL NEWS,
IN SCIENCE OR IN HEALTH AND IN
MEDICINE ?
WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD IT CAN
GIVE YOU BOTH SIDES OR IS IT
GOING TO TAKE JUST WHATEVER THIS
IN THE MEDIA MORE LIKELY TO BE
INCLUDED IN THE RESPONSE?
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT?
>> WELL, I'M ALWAYS IMPRESSED
WHEN I ASK--THIS IS PURLY
ANECDOTAL, I MEAN SOMEBODY WILL
STUDY THIS BUT IT DOES SEEM TO
DO A CONSCIENTIOUS JOB IF YOU
ASK IT A QUESTION THAT IS BASED
ON MISINFORMATION, IT'LL USUALLY
CORRECT YOU.
NOW WILL IT KEEP DOING THAT IF
YOU ARGUE WITH IT BUT CRITERIA I
DON'T KNOW, I MEAN IT'S
PROGRAMMED TO KEEP YOU ENGAGED
SO YOU GO, I DON'T KNOW WELL, I
DO THINK VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM
AND HERE'S WHY, WHAT IT WILL DO
IF YOU STAY IN CONVERSATION WITH
IT BUT IF YOU ASK IT, DO
VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM, IT WILL
SAY NO, WAKE FIELD'S PAPER WAS
WRONG AND IT WAS RETRACTED AND
IT USUALLY GETS ALL THAT
CORRECT.
I TEACH A CLASS ABOUT SCIENCE
AND POLITICS AT GW AND I HAVE MY
STUDENTS DO A LOT OF THESE THING
AND IT--AGAIN, THIS PURELY
ANECDOTA, BOUND TO BE A WAY, A
SERIOUS ANALYSIS OF THIS COULD
BE DONE BUT FOR MY STUDENTS WHEN
THEY ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE
VARIOUS THINGS WE GO OVER, IT AT
LEAST STARTS TRYING TO GIVE YOU
THE RIGHT ANSWER.
NOW WHAT WORRIES ME IS IF YOU
GET IN AN ARGUMENT WITH IT, WHAT
WILL IT DO TO KEEP YOU--TO KEEP
YOU ENGAGED.
I THINK THAT COULD GO ALL KINDS
OF CRAZY PLACES.
>> SO I RECENTLY PARTICIPATED IN
A PANEL WITH PETER LEE,
MICROSOFT PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH
IN INCUBATION AND HE ALSO
PROVIDED THOSE ANECDOTAL STORIES
ABOUT HIS OWN ATTEMPTS TO
MISLEAD CHATGPT4, SO HE GAVE A
LIST OF SYMPTOMS AND HE NUBBING
IN SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T ALIGN
AND THEN A RECOMMENDATION FOR
TREATMENT THAT HAD A MISTAKE
BUILD-IN, AND ALL THOSE THINGS
WERE PICKED UP.
THE ISSUE IS WITH GENERAL MODELS
IS THAT THEY'RE TRAINING ON DATA
SETS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFIC AND
PARTICULAR.
SO WITH SIMPLE MISTAKES IT PICKS
UP, BUT I THINK THE WAY THAT
SOME PEOPLE ARGUE WE SHOULD GO
FORWARD IS REALLY CURATE DATA
SETS FOR SPECIFIC USES AND NOT
ALLOW--IS NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH
VERY IMNL MODELS FOR PARTICULAR
MEDICAL KNOLLS, OBJECTIVES,
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT BRIDGE 2 AI
IS TRYING TO DO, CURATE THIS
GOLD DATA SET FOR TRAINING.
SO I TEND TO AGREE THAT AT A
SUPERFICIAL LEVEL BASED ON
ANECDOTAL REPORTING THAT WE'RE
HEARING EVERYWHERE, IT'S PRETTY
GOOD AT PICKING UP
MISINFORMATION OR MISTAKES THAT
ARE BUILT IN TO TEST IT, BUT HOW
RELIABLE IT IS, I DON'T THINK
ANYBODY KNOWS AT THIS POINT AND
THE TECHNOLOGY IS IMPROVING
LITERALLY EVERY DAY.
>> SO, IF WE HAVE A QUESTION, IF
AI CONTINUES ITS PRESENT RATE OF
DEVELOPMENT AND EXTENSION AND
EVERYTHING, WHAT DO YOU THINK
THE EFFECT OF THE SAY WITHIN
ABOUT 5 YEARS ON MEDICAL CARE IS
GOING TO BE?
>> MY CRYSTAL BALL SAYS THAT I
THINK 1 OF THE PLACES WHERE
PEOPLE ARE REALLY EXCITED IS THE
NOTION OF REDUCING
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON
CLINICIANS, SO, SYSTEMS THAT
GENERATE NOTES, AMBIENT
REPORTING OF CONVERSATIONS,
SYNTHESIS, PROPOSING TREATMENT,
ACCOMMODATIONS AND TESTS THAT
THE CLINICIAN CAN THEN EDIT
INSTEAD OF GENERATE, THESE
THINGS ARE ALREADY HERE, THEY'RE
WORKING QUITE WELL, AS I SAID,
THERE'S THE RISK OF DE-SKILLING,
WE DON'T WANT TO OVERRELY ON
THEM BUT I THINK 1 OF THE FIRST
IMPACS WE WILL SEE IS IN
REDUCING BURN OUT AND REDUCING
ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.
OF COURSE, WE WOULD LIKE THOSE
RESOURCES THAT ARE LIBERATED TO
GO INTO PATIENT CARE AND HUMAN
CONTACT AND NOT JUST YOU KNOW
INCREASE THE BURDEN ON
CLINICIANS BY EXPECTING THEM TO
SEE MORE PATIENTS BECAUSE THEY
HAVE TO WRITE LESS NOTES IS
SOMETHING ABOUT THE CLENICAL,
SOMETHING ABOUT THE CLINICAL
INTEGRATION WILL BE A BIG CHANGE
PROBABLY IN THE FIRST 5 YEARS
AND THEN IMAGING, THE POWER OF
THE ALGORITHMS AND ACCURATELY,
READING AND INTRURP RETINAL
LOCATIONING IMAGES BETTER THAN
THE HUMAN EYE IS ALSO BECOMING,
YOU KNOW VERY WELL TEABED SO
THIS IS PROBABLY ANOTHER CHANGE
THAT WE WILL SEE IN THE COMING 5
YEARS WHERE, THE STANDARD OF
CARE WILL SWITCH FROM AI WITH
SPECIFIC IMAGES AND SOMETIMES TO
ALMOST STANDARD OF CARE OF
CAPACITY IN CERTAIN DIAGNOSTIC
IMAGES AND SOME CONTEXT THAT AI
USED WILL BECOME THE STANDARD OF
CARE, SO THESE ARE THE 2 THINGS
THAT I'M HEARING, ARE THE MOST
ADVANCED AND THEREFORE WE CAN
EXPECT REAL DIFFERENCE IN THE
DELIVERY OF CARE EMPLOY OTHER
THINGS, IT'S JUST NOBODY KNOWS,
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A 6 MONTH
HORIZON OR A 6 YEAR HORIZON.
PEOPLE REALLY STRUGGLE WITH THIS
ANSWER, EVEN THE DEVELOPERS
THEMSELVES BECAUSE AGAIN, THE
PACE OF LEARNING OF THE
ALGORITHMS IS SO ALMOST
UNPREDICTABLE, THAT I'VE HEARD
VERY DIVERSE PREDICTIONS BUT
THOSE 2 THAT I NAMED, I THINK ON
A 5 YEAR HORIZON ARE PRETTY--I
KNOW PEOPLE ARE PRETTY CONFIDENT
WE WILL SEE THAT DIFFERENCE
ALREADY PRESENT IN OUR
HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
>> YEAH, I THINK--I JUST CAME
FROM A MEETING WITH A BUNCH OF
JOURNALIST WHO IS COVER THIS,
AND I THINK A LOT OF THEM
BELIEVE THAT THE PACE OF DORPHY
-DISCOVERY IS GOING TO
DEPEND ON WHETHER PEOPLE CAN
FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR THIS.
RIGHT NOW COMPANIES ARE PUTTING
UP BILLIONS AND BILLIONS IN
FRONT IS IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW THIS
STUFF IS GOING TO GET PAID FOR
AND EEIVETTUALLY THEY'RE GOING
TO TIRE OF DOING THAT, SO YOU
KNOW THE SERVERS EAT A LOT OF
ENERGY AND IT TAKES A LOT OF
HIGH QUALITY PROGRAMMERS TO MAKE
THESE THINGS, AND TO MAKE THEM
AVAILABLE AND MAINTAIN THE
SERVERS AND ALL THAT STUFF, AND
SO, HOW EXACTLY ARE THEY GETTING
MONEY?
I MEAN YOU CAN GO USE CHAT GPT
FOR FREE, THESE THINGS THAT MAKE
CODE OR THESE THINGS THAT MAKE
IMAGES, YOU KNOW THEY'RE SLOWLY
TARTING TO CHARGE FOR THAT BUT
WILL THEY BE ABLE TO DO THAT
FAST ENOUGH TO CONTINUE TO PAY
FOR THE RESEARCH?
THAT'S AN UNKNOWN.
IT'S A LOT LIKE WHEN THE
INTERNET FIRST CAME ALONG AND
MOST OF THE WEBSITES THAT
STARTED DIDN'T MAKE IT UNTIL
AMAZON AND GOOGLE FIGURED OUT
HOW TO SCALE ADs AND AMAZON
FIGURED OUT HOW TO BUILD ALL
THOSE WAREHOUSES AND STUFF.
>> WE HAVE A QUESTION IN THE
AUDIENCE.
>> YEAH, I JUST WANT TO PUSH A
LITTLE BIT ON THE NOTION OF
CURATING THE DATA SET THAT YOU
ACCRUE.
BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS TO ME AS I
THINK ABOUT IT THAT I'VE
ALWAYS--ALWAYS, THIS IS LIKE IN
THE LAST WHATEVER 2 YEARS WHEN
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT
THIS, CURATING THIS DATA SET AS
KIND OF A WEIGHTED AVERAGE SO
THAT YOU COME UP WITH THE
PERFECT ANSWER FOR THE WHOLE
POPULATION, BUT IN OUR CLINICS,
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING AI
IN MEDICINE, WE'RE SEEING THE
INDIVIDUAL WHO MAY BE AT 1 END
OR OTHER OF THE BELL SHAPED
CURVE, RIGHT?
SO SOMEHOW THE WAY TO DO THIS
MUST BE AT SOME SET POINT
BETWEEN PERFECT PERSONALIZED
MEDICINE SO THAT YOU PARSE OUT
BY DOZENS OF CHARACTERISTICS
WHERE IN THE SPECTRUM THIS
PERSON ACTUALLY FITS AND AT THE
OTHER EXTREME, GETTING THIS
WEIGHTED AVERAGE WHERE YOU HAVE
A PERFECT ANSWER FOR EVERYBODY
THAT WORKS--WALKS INTO YOUR
OFFICE THAT IS AN AVERAGE, AND I
MEAN CLEARLY NOT SO PERFEC,
IT'S A POPULATION ANSWER SO--SO
HOW DO WE FIGURE OUT WHAT WE DO
WITH THIS VERY DIVERSE DATA SET
I MEAN, DO WE--DO WE ACCRUE A
SET THAT IS A CUMULATIVE SET AND
THEN PARSE IT OUT BY SUBSETS OF
CHARACTERISTICS?
AND IF SO, WHAT CHARACTERISTICS
DO WE USE TO PARSE IT OUT OR DO
WE TAKE THIS WHOLE DATA SET AND
SAY THE ANSWER IS ISSUE THE
WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF EVERYBODY.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WE KNOW WHERE
THAT SITS.
>> YEAH, 1 THING THAT WORRIES ME
IN TERMS OF THE SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE IS WE DON'T PUBLISH
CASE REPORTS THAT SAY, SO AND SO
PRESENTED WITH SUCH AND SUCH,
WAS OBVIOUS DIAGNOSIS, WAS GIIVE
STANDARD OF CARE AND DID FINE,
RIGHT?
SO WE ONLY PUBLISHED, YOU KNOW
THIS PERSON CAME IN, WE DIDN'T
KNOW WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THEM,
IT WAS THIS EXOTIC THING AND WE
CAME UP WITH THIS WAY OF
TREATING IT, IS IT
GOING--BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE
MORE PREVALENT IN THE SCIENTIFIC
LITERATURE, IS IT GOING TO
OVERWEIGHT THEM COMPARED TO
PEOPLE JUST COME IN AND GET THE
STANDARD OF CARE AND DO OKAY,
AND ARE EASY TO DIAGNOSE, I
DON'T KNOW.
NI MEAN WE ENCOUNTERED THIS IN A
MUCH LESS TECHNOLOGIC LOAMACYY
COMPLEX UNIVERSE WHEN WE WENT TO
ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS AND
WE WERE ASKED TO WRITE, WE WERE
ASKED TO WRITE MACROS FOR HOW
YOU TREAT DEC X BUT IN
THAT--DISEASE X BUT IN THAT
ALGORITHM THAT WE PUT INTO THE
ELECTRONIC DATABASE WE FORGOT
THAT SOME OF OUR PATIENTS ARE 25
WEEK PREMIES, OR THAT SOME OF
OUR PATIENTS WEIGH 900 KILOS OR
WHATEVER IT IS AND YOU KNOW
THE--WE MAKE MAKE MISTAKES LESS
FREQUENTLY OVER ALL BUT WE MAY
MAKE THEM PREFERENTIALLY IN THE
OUTLIER POPULATIONS AND I JUST
WORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> VARDIT?
NI AM THE BIOETHICISTOT TEAM SO
I FEEL LIKE THIS QUESTION DRAGS
ME OUT OF MY SCOPE AND
DEFINITELY OUT OF MY COMFORT
ZONE BUT IT'S INTERESTING WHEN I
LISTEN TO THE OTHER PARTS, THE
OTHER TEAM MEMBERS DISCUSS THE
DATA COLLECTION, HOW ON 1 HAND
THEY'RE SPEAKING BASED ON
DISEASE CATEGORIES, SO, YOU KNOW
WHAT IS TYPICAL FOR PARKINSON'S,
WHAT VOICE DEVIATION CAN BE
EXPECTED AND BECOME PREDICTIVE
OF DISEASE PROGRESSION FOR
EXAMPLE, ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY
TALK ABOUT AGE GROUPS, OBVIOUSLY
A CHILD DOESN'T SOUND LIKE AN
ELDERLY PERSON, ET CETERA, SO
AGAIN, THE DIVERSITY OF THE DATA
HERE IS MULTIDIMENSIONAL AND I
THINK THE GOAL IS TO COME UP
WITH CHARACTERISTICS THAT WOULD
ARK LOW EARLIER DIAGNOSIS ASK
FOLLOW UP AT THE LEVEL OF
PRECISION MEDICINE, SO, IF WE
KNOW THAT A TYPICAL--THE TYPICAL
CHANGES TO VOICE AND SPEECH
ASSOCIATED WITH ALZHEIMER'S OR
LARYNGIAL CANCER, OR LOOK LIKE
THAT, IT THEN--IT THEN ALLOWS
YOU TO TAILOR THAT TO THE BASE
LINE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT.
I AM REPORTING SECTD HAND MY
UNDERSTANDING.
I HAVE OF THOSE GOALS, IT'S
REALLY NOT WHAT I DO ON THE
PROJECT BUT I THINK YOU'RE
PUTTING YOUR FINGER ON AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE AND AN IMPORTANT
CHALLENGE.
I WILL JUST KEEP MY ANSWER AT
THAT LEVEL SO I DON'T SPEAK TOO
MUCH OUT OF MY ZONE OF
EXPERTISE.
>> THANK YOU DR. SHORE.
WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION IN THE
AUDIENCE.
>> KIND OF A QUICK 1.
YOU KIND OF ALLUDED TO THIS, I
THINK BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S
GOING STOP THIS ALL FROM DOING
INTO BOEING, SO MY UNDERSTAND
SUGGEST THAT BOEING STARTED WITH
ENGINEERS AND PEOPLE WHO WANTED
TO MAKE THE BEST PRODUCT, AND
OVER TIME LEADERSHIP DISAPPEARED
AND THEN THEY GOT TAKEN OVER BY
BEAN COUNTERS SO WHAT WILL STOP
THAT FROM HAPPENING HERE, IT
COULD REALLY GO HAYWIRE?
>> WELL, HAS BT THAT ALREADY
HAPPENED TO SOME EXTENT, BETWEEN
THE HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES
AND THE HOSPITAL ADMIN TRAITORS,
PROBABLY ALREADY THE CASE, SO,
YEAH, HOW DO YOU IMAGINE THIS
MAKING IT WORSE?
>> BECAUSE IT'S MORE POWERFUL, I
THINK.
>> IT COULD BE DONE FASTER, I
GUESS.
>> YEAH.
>> AND IT WILL GIVE THE BEAN
COUNTERS MORE DATA TO COUNT.
>> YEAH, I'M SURE OUR
BIOETHICIST IS THINK BEING THIS
A LOT.
>> YEAH, SO EVERYBODY'S THINKING
ABOUT GOVERNANCE AS GUARD RAILS.
EVERYBODY'S ACUTELY AWARE OF
THESE RISKS AND EVERYBODY'S ALSO
WORRIED THAT A REGULATORY
APPROACH IS INSUFFICIENT.
THE COMMERCIAL DRIVE AS ALREADY
NOTED IS IMMENSE, AND
EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT
PATIENT-CENTERED AND
HUMAN-CENTERED CENTERED AI DEVET
AND DELIVERING THE BENEFITS IN A
WAY THAT OUTWAYS THE RISKS, HOW
TO GET THERE, IT'S REALLY OUR
SOCIETY DECIDING THAT THIS
DESERVES THE RIGHT KIND OF
REGULATORY APPROACHES, TO KEEP
BAD ACTORS UNDER CONTROL, LIKE
IN ANY OTHER OF SCIENCE, THE
TOOL IS JUST A TOOL, IT'S WHAT
WE DO WITH IT AND I THINK
EVERYBODY REALIZES THAT WITHOUT
GOOD GOVERNANCE, THIS--THE HARM
THAT COULD BE GENERATED, AGAIN
I'M USING THE SAME TERM, IS
UNPRECEDENTED.
SO THERE'S ALL THOSE NATIONAL
AROUND THE WORLD AND GLOBAL
INITIATIVES TO WORKING GROUPS
AND THINK TANKS AND MEDICAL
SOCIETIES, EVERYBODY'S PUTTING
THEIR HEADS TOGETHER TO TRY AND
COME UP WITH THOSE GUARD RAILS,
BUT IT'S EARLY DAYS AND I THINK
WHAT POLICY APPROACHES WILL END
UP BEING EFFECTIVE, AND WILL BE
PICKED UP, TIME WILL TELL NI'M
ALSO VERY SURPRISED BY TRULY
INTELIENT PEOPLE WHO DEEPLY
BELIEVE THAT GOVERNMENT IS
TAKING OVER OUR MINDS AND OUR
BODIES AND THERE'S A VERY
SIZABLE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO
I KNOW INTELLIGENT PEOPLE AND
THEY REALLY, REALLY BELIEVE THIS
AND SO I THINK THERE'S GOING TO
BE A LOT OF BLOW BACK TO THIS AS
WELL.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FIGHT
AGAINST IT, THAT'S MY FEELING.
>> YEAH, I'M WORRY BODY THAT
ALSO.
>> BOTH OF YOU USE THE WORD
RIGHT IN 1 OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT
WRITING AND SO 1 OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT BE
INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEWS, HOW IS
THE--ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE
AVAILABILITY OF AI IN TERMS OF
EFFECTING THE ABILITY OF OUR
FUTURE OF OUR STUDENTS AT ALL TO
BE ABLE TO WRITE WHETHER THEY'RE
WRITING FOR A JOURNAL LIKE
SCIENCE OR SOCIAL SCIENCE AREA,
IS THERE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE
IMPACT ON THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
PARTICULARLY INFLUENCING THEIR
ABILITY TO WRITE?
>> YEAH, SO, MY CLASS AT GW IS
BASED ON WRITING ASSIGNMENTS AND
IT'S FOR FRESH MEN AND SO THIS
WAS THE FIRST YEAR I DID THAT
SINCE CHAT GPT HAD COME ALONG.
AND SO WHAT I DECIDED TO DO WAS
TO GIVE THEM AND THE PROMPTS,
YOU KNOW FOR FIRST YEAR
UNDERGRADUATES, YOU CAN'T GIVE
THEM SUPER COMPLICATED PROMPTS
THAT--ON THEIR FIRST DAY OF
COLLEGE.
SO MOST OF THE PROMPTS CHAT GPT
COULD PROBABLY GET A B ON PRETTY
EASILY THAT YOU COULD USE, SO
WHAT I DID WAS AND THE STUDENTS
DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS SO I
GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE NO 1
DROPPED WHEN I TOLD THEM THIS
WAS THE PLAN.
SO IF YOU WANT THE OPTIMISTIC
PIECE, THAT WOULD BE IT.
I GAVE THEM THE PROMPT AND I
GAVE THEM WHAT CHAT GPT CAME UP
WITH, AND I SAID, YOU KNOW YOUR
JOB IS TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING
MORE CREATIVE THAN THIS, I WILL
GRADE IT AGAINST WHAT THE
COMPUTER DID, AND YOU GET TO
BRING 1 PIECE OF PAPER TO CLASS
THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY COMPLETE
SENTENCES ON THIS, BUT YOU HAVE
TO TURN IN WITH YOUR ESSAY AND
IN THE LAST HOUR OF CLASS, YOU
WILL WRITE RAIN SHOWER ESSAY IN
LONG HAND AND YOU WILL GIVE ME
THAT AND THIS PIECE OF PAPER
THAT YOU PUT YOUR NOTES ON, AND
YOU KNOW MY MAIN GOAL IS ALWAYS
TO FIND THE STUDENTS WHO NEED TO
GO TO THE WRITING CENTER, AND
BECAUSE THESE UNIVERSITY WRITING
CENTERS DO A GREAT JOB, THE MAIN
PROBLEM WITH THEM IS NOT AS MANY
OPPORTUNITIES GET TO THEM AS
NEEDED.
AND WHEN I DID THAT, I FOUND THE
SAME NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT
NEED TO GO TO THE WRITING CENTER
THAT I DID THE YEAR BEFORE WHEN
THEY WERE TYPING THEIR
ASSIGNMENTS AND OVER THE COURSE
OF THE SEMESTER THEY ALL GOT TO
THE POINT WHERE THEY WERE DOING
A FINE JOB WRITING THEIR
ASSIGNMENTS.
SO I THINK IT'S A CHALLENGE FOR
FACULTY TO INNOVATE BUT I THINK
IT'S DOABLE, AND I DON'T THINK
IT'S ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE PORD
PROCESSOR OR THE CARD CATALOG
GOING AWAY OR ANY OF THESE OTHER
THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH.
SOMEHOW WE STILL CONTINUE TO
EDUCATE PEOPLE AND THEY STILL
WANT TO COME TO COLLEGE AND
LEARN.
O I GUESS I'M NOT AS PESSIMISTIC
ABOUT THAT AS A LOT OF PEOPLE
ARE NWHAT IS YOUR VIEW, VARDIT?
>> WELL, MY TEENAGE KIDS AGREE
WITH THIS ASSESSMENT, TELLING
MOOY THAT, YOU KNOW MOM, WHEN
YOU HAD THE QUESTION, YOU HAD TO
GO TO THE LIBRARY, NOW HAVE TO
KNOW HOW TO ASK GOOGLE AND NOW
WE'RE LEARNING WHAT PROMPTS GIVE
US THE BEST OUTCOMES SO THE ART
OF HOW TO ASK GOOGLE IS BECOMING
THE ART OF PROMPTING BUT THIS IS
ONLY ENHANCING OUR RESEARCH
CAPACITY AND OUR ABILITY TO MAKE
ARGUE AMS THAT ARE MORE
SOPHISTICATED AND BETTER
ARTICULATED.
SO I TEND TO AGREE, THINKING
WILL REMAIN A HUMAN ACTIVITY AND
THIS IS MAYBE SHORT CUTS.
I HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT RECENTLY
BEFORE WE--MY RESEARCH TEAM,
BEFORE WE SUBMIT A PAPER TO A
YOWRNAL, WE ASK GPT TOAC AS A
PEER REVIEWER AND WE JUST FEED
THE PAPER AND SAY, IF YOU WERE A
REVIEWER WHAT WOULD YOU ASK US?
AND IT'S ASKING DARN GOOD
QUESTIONS THAT ALLOW US TO
UPGRADE THE PAPER BEFORE PEER
REVIEW.
SO I TOTALLY AGREE, IT'S ABOUT
FINDING AS TEACHERS, IT'S ABOUT
PED GOGY AND CREATING THE NEW
WAYS WITH THIS TOOL TO ENHANCE
OUR CRITICAL THINKING, OUR
ARTICULATION OF ARGUMENTS, I
THINK THE WAY TO DEVELOP THIS IS
MORE MAJARRISM, CHAT GPT, THE
BRIGHT STUDENTS WILL FIND WAYS
TO OVERCOME THOSE DETECTION
TOOLS AND SO IT'S REALLY ABOUT
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THEY'RE THERE
AND PLAYING WITH THEM INSTEAD OF
TRYING TO BAN THEM OR PLAY
AGAINST THEM.
IT'S NOT JUST A SHORT CUT, WE
HAVE TO FIND CREATIVE WAY FOR
THEM TO ACTUALLY ENHANCE AND
DEEPEN OUR THINKING AND OUR
RESEARCH CAPACITY.
IT FORCES US AS PROFESSORS AND
YOU KNOW HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS TO
BE--TO STAY IN TOUCH WITH
TECHNOLOGY AND WITH FAST PACED
DEVELOPMENT OF THESE TOOLS AND
IT FORCES US TO BE VERY CREATIVE
IN OUR TEACHING SO THAT'S
PROBABLY OUR A GOOD THING,
KEEPING US ON OUR TOES.
>> I THINK THE WORST THING YOU
WOULD BE WOULD BE TO GIVE TO THE
ASSIGNMENT, TO THE STUDENTSA THE
HOME, TELL THEM THEY CAN'T USE
THESE TOOLS AND TO SIGN
SOMETHING SAYING THAT
DIDN'T,OOSE A HORRIBLE POSITION
TO PUT THEM IN, SO I WOULD NOT
DO THAT, I DON'T THINK THESE
TOOLS EXIST, THEY'RE NO
DIFFERENT FROM A TYPE WRITER OR
ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S COME ALONG,
AND TO SAY THAT IT'S CHEATING IF
YOU USE IT WILL JUST NOT WORK
OUT VERY WELL, SO THAT'S WHY I
CAME UP WITH A SCHEME OF HAVING
MY STUDENTS WRITE THEIR ESSAYS
IN CLASS IS BY THE WAY OUT OF 16
STUDENTS I HAD 1 WHO WROTE IN
CURSIVE.
FIFTEEN PRINT.
SO SOME PEOPLE ARE SURPRISED
THERE'S EVEN 1 AND SOME PEOPLE
WHO THINK CURSIVE HAND WRITING
AND IMPORTANT OR HORRIFIED BY
THAT.
>> SO, DO YOU HAVE ANY
TECHNIQUES THAT YOU--EITHER OF
YOU USE TO DETERMINE WHETHER,
LET'S SAY A DOCUMENT OR LETTER
OF RECOMMENDATION, AN ESSAY FOR
ADMISSION TO COLLEGE OR DO HAVE
YOU ANY TECHNIQUES THAT YOU USE
TO TRY AND EVALUATE AT A
DISTANCE WHETHER THIS IS
GENERATED BY AI OR BY THE
INDIVIDUAL.
>> NOT ME, I THINK THE PERSON
SIGNS IT, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE
FOR WHAT'S IN THERE, AND IF YOU
HAVEN'T TOLD THEM NOT TO USE THE
TOOL, THEN YOU JUDGE IT AS
THOUGH THEY WROTE IT AND YOU
HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT'S
IN THERE.
IF IT'S NOT VERY--IF IT'S BORING
AND IT'S GOT ERRORS IN IT, THEN
IT WAS PROBABLY WRITTEN BY CHAT
GPT.
>> SO I KNOW THERE ARE ONLINE
TOOLS THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO RUN
A TEXT THROUGH AND GET CLUES,
OBVIOUSLY IF A PAPER INCLUDES
REFERENCES THAT DON'T EXIST,
THAT'S AN INTERESTING SIGN.
WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, IF
STUDENT IMPROVED IN SURPRISING
SPEED OVER THE COURSE OF THIS
SEMESTER, I SAT DOWN TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION EMPLOY I WANTED TO
SEE AND SPEECH THEY CAN
ARTICULATE WHAT THEY ARTICULATED
IN THE WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT,
SOMETIMES IT'S A LANGUAGE
BARRIER, AT HARVARD MEDICAL
SCHOOL, WE HAVE MANY
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS AND THESE
TOOLS ACTUALLY HELP OVERCOME
LANGUAGE BARRIERS AND THEY ARE
EQUALIZING, RATHER THAN CHEATING
TOOLS BUT IT'S REALLY ABOUT
ASSESSING THE THINKING PROCESSES
BEHIND THE WRITING TO SEE IF THE
STUDENT COULD HAVE COME UP WITH
THIS THEMSELVES.
SO, YOU KNOW TALKING,
CONVERSATIONAL ASSESSMENT FOR ME
IS SOMETHING THAT I TEND TO RELY
ON.
>> WE HAVE A QUESTION IN A
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT DIMENSION,
DEALING WITH YOUR DISCUSSION OR
VOICE AS A UNIQUE IDENTIFIER,
THE QUESTIONER SAYS THAT'S VERY
INTERESTING AND SHE BRINGS
ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT
TENNESSEE WAS THE FIRST STATE TO
BRING A LAW PROTECTIONS ARTISTS
AND OTHERS AGAINST AI.
DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE
MORE PROTECTIONS FOR THOSE
PEOPLE IN THOSE CATEGORIES?
>> I KNOW THAT MY ARTIST FRIENDS
ARE VERY WORRIED.
THE MUSICIANS THE PAINTERS, THE
GRAPHIC DESIGNERS ARE VERY
WORRIED.
AGAIN IT'S A MATTER OF
GOVERNANCE AND I THINK WE HAVE
VERY TOUGH DECISIONWHAT
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY MEANS IN
THIS DAY AND ANAL, WHAT IS
INNOVATION, WHAT IS CREATION,
WHAT IS REPLICATION, WHAT IS
INSPIRATION, I MEAN TO SOME
DEGREE, WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS IN
THE PAST BUT THIS IS A TOTALLY
NEW LEVEL OF CHALLENGE EMPLOY SO
I KEEP GOING BACK TO GOVERNANCE,
GOVERNANCE, POLICY, BUT THE
ETHICS IS EMBEDDED IN ALL OF
THAT AND YOU KNOW THESE ARE
VALUE BASED DECISIONS THAT WE
WILL HAVE TO MAKE ABOUT WHAT IT
MEANS TO BE A HUMAN CREATOR AND
WHAT IS--WHAT IT THAT WE WANT TO
PROTECT?
DON'T HAVE ANSWERS, BUT I'M
SEEING A LOT OF THINKING AROUND
ME AT LEAST, A LOT OF INVESTMENT
IN KIND OF FIGURING OUT THE
CONCEPTUAL CHALLENGES BEHIND
THIS.
>> YEAH, IN MUSIC WE'VE HAD
CONSTANT EVOLUTION OF
TECHNOLOGY, YOU KNOW WE HAVE
MULTITRACK RECORDING AND THEN WE
HAVE--THEN IT WENT DIGITAL AND
NOW WE HAVE AUTOTUNE THAT MAKES
AUTOTUNE SINGERS SOUND IN TUNE,
MOST OF THOSE SONGS YOU LISTEN
TO ON THE RADIO ARE AUTOTUNED, A
LOT OF THOSE FOLKS YOU'RE
LISTENING TO AREN'T SUPER GREAT
SINGERS IN TUNE; YOU KNOW WE
HAVE PROGRAMS THAT--DIGITAL
PROGRAMS THAT YOU RECORD ON THAT
FIX ALL THE MISTAKES, WHEN WE GO
ON PODCASTS, THEY TAKE THE
UMs, AND THE YOU KNOWs OUT,
THE DIFFERENCE--AND IT STILL
TAKES CREATIVITY TO DO THAT ALL
THAT BUT THE DIFFERENCE WITH
THIS IS IT'S SOMEBODY'S
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BEING USED
TO TRAIN THE ALGORITHM THAT'S
PRODUCING THE RESULT.
AND SO, ESPECIALLY IN
ILLUSTRATIONS AND IN MUSIC AND
STUFF, WE HAVE A LOT OF ROAD,A
HEAD OF US AS EVERYBODY ARGUES
OVER WHAT THAT MEANS.
I MEAN YOU SEIZE NEWS
ORGANIZATIONS SUING THE
COMPANIES BECAUSE THEY KNOW
THEIR ARTICLES ARE BEING USED TO
TRAIN THE ALGORITHMS AND YOU
KNOW, THE COURTS WILL FIGURE OUT
A WAY TO DEAL WITH ALL THAT BUT
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE
NTHERE IS AN INTERESTING ANALOGY
WITH OUR RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS,
WE'RE WONDERING SHOULD THEY BE
COMPENSATED FOR GIVING US THEIR
VOICE IF THIS, YOU KNOW, THE USE
OF THIS DATA ENDS UP PRODUCING A
VERY PROFITABLE DIAGNOSTIC TOOL
FOR EXAMPLE, ESPECIALLY FOR
PARTNERING WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE
PORTAISS--SYNTH PARTICIPATE IN A
TRIALING IN RESEARCH TO
CONTRIBUTE TO GENERALIZABLE
KNOWLEDGE AND HELP FUTURE
GENERATED RAYINGS BUT WHAT ABOUT
COMPENSATION, SO THIS IS 1 OF
THE REQUESTIES THAT WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT AND I FIND AN
INTERESTING ANALOGY BETWEEN THAT
AND THE NOTION THAT IF YOUR
CREATION HELPS TRAIN THE
ALGORITHM, YOU NEED TO BE
COMPENSATED FOR THAT.
>> WE HAVE AN INTERESTING
QUESTION HERE THAT LINKS THE
PUBLIC HEALTH STATUS IN THE
UNITED STATES, THE PUBLIC HEALTH
SYSTEM, THE AVAILABILITY OF
MEDICAL CARE PARTICULARLY THOSE
AT THE LOWER END OF THE ECONOMIC
LADDER.
HOW DO YOU THINK AI COULD
INTERACT IN ENHANCING THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SYSTEM BUT ALSO IS THERE
A FEAR THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF
ARK I MAY BE USED IN--AI MAY BE
USED IN PERHAPS SOME POLITICAL
MANNER TO NOT DEVELOP THE PUBLIC
HEALTH SYSTEM AS FAST OR AS
BADLY AS WE NEED IT.
>> I WILL LET THE BIOETHICIST
START THAT 1.
>> I WAS GOING TO BOUNCE THAT
BACK TO YOU.
I DON'T EACH KNOW WHERE TO
START.
>> YEAH, I MEAN, WHO KNOWS?
I THINK THERE ARE POLITICAL
FORCES THAT DISAGREE ABOUT THE
EXTENT TO WHICH WE'RE OBLIGATED
TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE TO
EVERYONE AND THIS WILL BE 1 MORE
ACCESS ACROSS WHICH THAT
ARGUMENT IS GOING TO OCCUR.
SO WILL THAT MAKE IT BETTER OR
WORSE, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T
THINK WE KNOW YET, WE'RE IN A
VICIOUS FIGHT ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO GO AWAY
BECAUSE OF THESE TOOLS.
THAT WILL BE MY--BECAUSE THOSE
ARE IDEOLOGICAL THINGS.
>> YEAH, I'M GOING TO SIGN-OFF
ON THAT SMART ANSWER.
AS I SAID COULD BE A BIG
EQUALIZER, COULD BE AN
EXACERBATER, AND THAT DEPENDS ON
OUR VALUE BASED DECISIONS ON
WHAT TO PRIORITIZE WHEN WE
CHOOSE WHAT TO DEVELOP AND HOW
TO IMPLEMENT, SO WE KNOW, THE
ANSWER STAYED VERY HIGH LEVEL
BECAUSE I THINK NOBODY KNOWS AT
THIS POINT.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO, I'M GOING TO
TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER TO
DR. SHORE WHO WILL CONCLUDE THIS
SESSION BUT LET ME THANK YOU ON
BEHALF OF EVERYBODY HERE AND THE
MANY, MANY PEOPLE AROUND THE
WORLD WHO HAVE TUNED IN OR WILL
TUNE IN AND HEAR THIS
DISCUSSION, I'M SURE THEY WILL
APPRECIATE IT AS MUCH AS ALL OF
US DO, SO THANK YOU DR. SHORE.
>> WELL, I REALLY WANT TO THANK
BOTH OF OUR SPEAKERS TODAY, ALL
OF YOU WHO CAME AND ALL OF YOU
ON VIDEOCAST WHO REALLY MADE
THIS SESSION MUCH FOOD FOR
THOUGHT.
I THINK, YOU KNOW AS THEY SAY ON
MSNBC, WATCH THE SPACE.
THIS WILL BE VERY, VERY INTENSE
OVER THE NEXT MANY YEARS AND I
DARE SAY IT'S GOING TO BE AN
ITERATIVE WALK TO WHATEVER IS
THE BEST OUTCOME FOR THIS SO
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR
CONTRIBUTING REALLY NOT JUST TO
OUR KNOWLEDGE BUT TO THE
QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT
THIS.
[ APPLAUSE ]