AI and the Problem of Knowledge Collapse
2404.03502
189
0
🤖
Abstract
While artificial intelligence has the potential to process vast amounts of data, generate new insights, and unlock greater productivity, its widespread adoption may entail unforeseen consequences. We identify conditions under which AI, by reducing the cost of access to certain modes of knowledge, can paradoxically harm public understanding. While large language models are trained on vast amounts of diverse data, they naturally generate output towards the 'center' of the distribution. This is generally useful, but widespread reliance on recursive AI systems could lead to a process we define as knowledge collapse, and argue this could harm innovation and the richness of human understanding and culture. However, unlike AI models that cannot choose what data they are trained on, humans may strategically seek out diverse forms of knowledge if they perceive them to be worthwhile. To investigate this, we provide a simple model in which a community of learners or innovators choose to use traditional methods or to rely on a discounted AI-assisted process and identify conditions under which knowledge collapse occurs. In our default model, a 20% discount on AI-generated content generates public beliefs 2.3 times further from the truth than when there is no discount. An empirical approach to measuring the distribution of LLM outputs is provided in theoretical terms and illustrated through a specific example comparing the diversity of outputs across different models and prompting styles. Finally, based on the results, we consider further research directions to counteract such outcomes.
Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:
Overview
- Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to process vast amounts of data, generate new insights, and unlock greater productivity.
- However, widespread adoption of AI could also lead to unforeseen consequences, such as harming public understanding.
- The paper identifies conditions under which AI, by reducing the cost of access to certain modes of knowledge, can paradoxically harm public understanding.
Plain English Explanation
AI systems, such as large language models, are trained on massive amounts of diverse data. While this allows them to generate a wide range of content, they naturally tend to produce output that is "centered" around the most common patterns in the data. This is generally useful, but if people start relying too heavily on these AI systems, it could lead to a phenomenon called "knowledge collapse."
Knowledge collapse occurs when the diversity of knowledge and understanding in a community starts to diminish, as people become increasingly reliant on the AI-generated "average" content rather than seeking out more diverse and nuanced information. This could harm innovation and the richness of human culture and understanding.
However, unlike AI models that are limited to the data they are trained on, humans have the ability to strategically seek out diverse forms of knowledge if they perceive them to be valuable. The paper provides a simple model to explore the conditions under which knowledge collapse might occur in a community of learners or innovators.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a model in which a community of learners or innovators can choose to use traditional methods or rely on a discounted AI-assisted process. The researchers found that a 20% discount on the cost of using the AI-assisted process can lead to public beliefs that are 2.3 times further from the truth compared to a scenario with no discount.
This suggests that widespread reliance on AI-generated content, even if it is slightly cheaper or more convenient, could paradoxically undermine the diversity and accuracy of the knowledge held by the community. The paper discusses various factors that could influence this dynamic and proposes several research directions to further investigate and potentially counteract such outcomes.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important concerns about the potential unintended consequences of widespread AI adoption, even in cases where the AI systems themselves are not biased or malicious. The proposed model is relatively simple, and the researchers acknowledge that more complex real-world dynamics would need to be considered.
Additionally, the paper does not address the potential benefits of AI-assisted knowledge generation, such as its ability to unlock new insights and creativity. A more nuanced analysis would weigh the costs and benefits of AI-assisted knowledge production to better understand the tradeoffs involved.
Further research is needed to empirically validate the model's predictions and explore more sophisticated mechanisms by which AI could impact the diversity and richness of human knowledge and understanding.
Conclusion
This paper highlights a potentially concerning phenomenon where the widespread adoption of AI systems, despite their potential benefits, could paradoxically lead to a collapse in the diversity of knowledge and understanding within a community. The researchers provide a simple model to explore this dynamic and suggest further research to better understand and mitigate such outcomes. As AI systems become increasingly prevalent, it will be crucial to consider their broader societal impacts and ensure they enhance, rather than diminish, the richness of human knowledge and culture.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
⛏️
Not a Swiss Army Knife: Academics' Perceptions of Trade-Offs Around Generative Artificial Intelligence Use
Afsaneh Razi, Layla Bouzoubaa, Aria Pessianzadeh, John S. Seberger, Rezvaneh Rezapour
0
0
In the rapidly evolving landscape of computing disciplines, substantial efforts are being dedicated to unraveling the sociotechnical implications of generative AI (Gen AI). While existing research has manifested in various forms, there remains a notable gap concerning the direct engagement of knowledge workers in academia with Gen AI. We interviewed 18 knowledge workers, including faculty and students, to investigate the social and technical dimensions of Gen AI from their perspective. Our participants raised concerns about the opacity of the data used to train Gen AI. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to identify and address inaccurate, biased, and potentially harmful, information generated by these models. Knowledge workers also expressed worries about Gen AI undermining trust in the relationship between instructor and student and discussed potential solutions, such as pedagogy readiness, to mitigate them. Additionally, participants recognized Gen AI's potential to democratize knowledge by accelerating the learning process and act as an accessible research assistant. However, there were also concerns about potential social and power imbalances stemming from unequal access to such technologies. Our study offers insights into the concerns and hopes of knowledge workers about the ethical use of Gen AI in educational settings and beyond, with implications for navigating this new landscape.
5/3/2024
🤖
Public Computing Intellectuals in the Age of AI Crisis
Randy Connolly
0
0
The belief that AI technology is on the cusp of causing a generalized social crisis became a popular one in 2023. Interestingly, some of these worries were voiced from within the tech sector itself. While there was no doubt an element of hype and exaggeration to some of these accounts, they do reflect the fact that there are troubling ramifications to this technology stack. This conjunction of shared concerns about social, political, and personal futures presaged by current developments in machine learning and data science presents the academic discipline of computing with a rare opportunity for self-examination and reconfiguration. This position paper endeavors to do so in four sections. The first expands on the nature of the AI crisis for computing. The second articulates possible critical responses to this crisis and advocates for a broader analytic focus on power relations. The third section presents a novel characterization of academic computing's epistemological field, one which includes not only the discipline's usual instrumental forms of knowledge but reflexive knowledge as well. This reflexive dimension integrates both the critical and public functions of the discipline as equal intellectual partners and a necessary component of any contemporary academic field. The final section will advocate for a conceptual archetype--the Public Computer Intellectual--as a way of practically imagining the expanded possibilities of academic practice in our discipline, one that provides both self-critique and an outward-facing orientation towards the public good. It will argue that the computer education research community can play a vital role in this regard.
5/3/2024
AI Knowledge and Reasoning: Emulating Expert Creativity in Scientific Research
Anirban Mukherjee, Hannah Hanwen Chang
0
0
We investigate whether modern AI can emulate expert creativity in complex scientific endeavors. We introduce novel methodology that utilizes original research articles published after the AI's training cutoff, ensuring no prior exposure, mitigating concerns of rote memorization and prior training. The AI are tasked with redacting findings, predicting outcomes from redacted research, and assessing prediction accuracy against reported results. Analysis on 589 published studies in four leading psychology journals over a 28-month period, showcase the AI's proficiency in understanding specialized research, deductive reasoning, and evaluating evidentiary alignment--cognitive hallmarks of human subject matter expertise and creativity. These findings suggest the potential of general-purpose AI to transform academia, with roles requiring knowledge-based creativity become increasingly susceptible to technological substitution.
4/9/2024
Unraveling the Dilemma of AI Errors: Exploring the Effectiveness of Human and Machine Explanations for Large Language Models
Marvin Pafla, Kate Larson, Mark Hancock
0
0
The field of eXplainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has produced a plethora of methods (e.g., saliency-maps) to gain insight into artificial intelligence (AI) models, and has exploded with the rise of deep learning (DL). However, human-participant studies question the efficacy of these methods, particularly when the AI output is wrong. In this study, we collected and analyzed 156 human-generated text and saliency-based explanations collected in a question-answering task (N=40) and compared them empirically to state-of-the-art XAI explanations (integrated gradients, conservative LRP, and ChatGPT) in a human-participant study (N=136). Our findings show that participants found human saliency maps to be more helpful in explaining AI answers than machine saliency maps, but performance negatively correlated with trust in the AI model and explanations. This finding hints at the dilemma of AI errors in explanation, where helpful explanations can lead to lower task performance when they support wrong AI predictions.
4/12/2024