Author: Paul Curzon

Virtual reality goggles for mice

by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

Mouse wearing VR goggles adapted from an Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
Adapted from mouse Image Image 
by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from 
Pixabay 

Conjure up a stereotypical image of a scientist and they likely will have a white coat. If not brandishing test tubes, you might imagine them working with mice scurrying around a maze. In future the scientists may well be doing a lot of programming, and the mice for their part will be scurrying around in their own virtual world wearing Virtual Reality goggles.

Scientists have long used mazes as away to test the intelligence of mice, to the point it has entered popular culture as a stereotypical thing that scientists in white lab coats do. Mazes do give ways to test intelligence of animals, including exploring their memory and decision making ability in controlled experiments. That can ultimately help us better understand how our brains work too, and give us a better understanding of intelligence. The more we understand animal cognition as well as human cognition, the more computer scientists can use that improved understanding to create more intelligent machines. It can also help neurobiologists find ways to improve our intelligence too.

Flowers for Algernon is a brilliant short story and later novel based on the idea, there using experiments on mice and humans to test surgery intended to improve intelligence. In a slightly different take on mice-maze experiments, Douglas Adams, in ‘The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy’, famously claimed that the mice were actually pan-dimensional beings and these experiments were really incredibly subtle experiments the mice were performing on humans. Whatever the truth of who is experimenting on who, the experiments just took a great leap forward because scientists at Northwestern University have created Virtual Reality goggles for their mice.

For a long time researchers at Northwestern have used a virtual reality version of maze experiments, with mice running on treadmills with screens around them projecting what the researchers want them to see, whether mazes, predators or prey. This has the advantage of being much easier to control than using physical mazes, and as the mice are actually stationary the whole time , just running on a treadmill, brain-scanning technology can be used to see what is actually happening in their brains while facing these virtual trials. The problem though is that the mice, with their 180 degree vision, can still see beyond the edges of the screens. The screens also give no sense of 3 dimensions, when like us the mice naturally see in 3D. As the screens are not fully immersive, they are not fully natural and that could affect the behaviour of the mice and so invalidate the experimental results.

That is why the Northwestern researchers invented the mousey VR googles, the idea being that they would give a way to totally immerse the mice in their online world, and so improve the reliability of the experiments. In the current version the goggles are not actually worn by the mice, as they are still too heavy. Instead, the mouse’s head is held in place really close to them, but with the same effect of total immersion. Future versions may be small enough for the mice to wear them though.

The scientists have already found that the mice react more quickly to events, like the sight of a predator, than in the old set-up, suggesting that being able to see they were in a lab was affecting their behaviour. Better still, there are new kinds of experiment that can be done with this set up. In particular, the researchers have run experiments where an aerial predator like an owl appears from above the mice in a natural way. Mounting screens above them previously wasn’t possible as it got in the way of the brain scanning equipment. What does happen when a virtual owl appears? The mice either run faster or freeze, just as in the wild. This means that by scanning their brains while this is happening, how their perception of the threat works can be investigated, as well as how decision-making is taking place at the level of their brain activity. The scientists also intend to run similar experiments where the mouse is the predator, for example chasing a virtual fly too. Again this would not have been possible previously.

That in any case is what we think the purpose of these new experiments is. What new and infinitely subtle experiments it is allowing the pan-dimensional mice to perform on us remains to be seen.

More on …

Magazines …

EPSRC supports this blog through research grant EP/W033615/1. 

Exploring mazes, inventing algorithms (part I) 

by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

A maze with mouse searching for cheese.
Image by CS4FN

Computer science research in part involves inventing new algorithms or improving new ones. But what does that mean. Let’s explore some mazes to explore algorithms.

What does computer science research involve? It is very varied: from interviewing people to find out what the real problems that need solving in their lives or jobs are; to running experiments to find out what works and what doesn’t; to writing programs to solve problems.

Improving algorithms

A core part of much research is coming up with new and better algorithms that solve particular problems. The kind of algorithm could be anything from a new more secure cryptographic protocol, or a better way to rank the results of a search engine, to a new more effective machine learning algorithm that is less likely to make things up, or perhaps can better explain how it came to its conclusions.

What does it mean to come up with a better algorithm though? Once a problem is solved, isn’t it solved? Let’s explore a simple problem to see. Let’s explore mazes. Solve the simple maze puzzle above before you go on. Find a route that gets the mouse to the cheese.

Wandering around mazes, finding algorithms

If you’ve ever been in a hedge maze in the garden of some stately home, or a corn field maze, the chances are you just dived in and wandered rather aimlessly. Perhaps you tried to remember which way you went at each junction, to avoid going down the same dead-ends more than once. How about solving the paper version of a maze puzzle like the one above? Now perhaps you looked ahead to spot dead-ends to avoid tracing wrong paths with your pencil.

Probably what you are doing is at least a little random. You could, in theory at least, end up going back over the same paths, never taking the right one and and never getting to the middle. Could we come up with an algorithm that guarantees to solve mazes? To be an algorithm it would need to guarantee you ended up finding a path to the centre of the maze if you followed the steps of the algorithm precisely. It should also work for any maze, or at least all mazes of a particular kind. Ideally, the algorithm gives you a path that can then be followed by anyone without them having to run the algorithm themselves. They can just follow the path generated by the algorithm for that maze.

Wall-following

In fact lots of maze algorithms have been invented. Perhaps the one most people have heard of, if they know of any maze algorithm, is called Wall-following. It is very simple to do, You just pick a wall at the entrance either to the left or right and then follow it, If in a garden maze, keep your hand on the hedge as you walk round. If doing a paper puzzle, draw the path sticking to the chosen wall. Try it on the following simple maze.

A simple maze with mouse and cheese.
Image by CS4FN

Simply connected

The wall-following algorithm will guarantee to get you to the centre of the maze, and back out again too, but only as long as the maze is what is called simply connected. That just means the maze is constructed from a single hedge (or one unbroken drawn line) not a series of unconnected hedges. If you look at both examples above you will see I created them by just drawing a single wiggly line.

If a maze is simply connected then it cannot have looping paths, so no going round in circles for ever. It will also only have one entrance/exit. That shows the first aspect of inventing algorithms that is important. They often only work for some situations, not all. You must be sure you know what situations they do and don’t work.

Often the earliest algorithms invented to solve a problem are like wall-following: they only work for simple situations. Other people then come along and find new algorithms that can cover more problems (here more mazes). Can you tweak the wall-following maze algorithm to work even if there are multiple exits from the maze, for example? As it stands our algorithm could just take you from the entrance straight out of another exit without exploring much of the maze at all! See the end for one simple way to tweak the algorithm. What if there are paths that take you round in circles? Can you come up with an algorithm to deal with that?

Some times the improvements invented just involve tweaking an existing algorithm as with dealing with multiple exits in a maze. Some times a whole new algorithm is needed.

Faster, higher, stronger?

Even for a simple constrained version of the problem, like simply connected mazes, people can invent better algorithms. What does better mean for a maze? Well one way you might have a better algorithm is if it is faster in coming up with a solution. Another is that the solution it comes up with is faster. For a maze that means a shorter (ideally the shortest) path to the centre. Wall following may get you in to the centre (and out again) but you probably will have discovered a very long path that takes you in and out of lots of dead-ends needlessly. You do find a path to the centre, but it may be a very long path. Can you come up with an algorithm that finds shorter paths?

We will explore an algorithm that does next.

More to come…

Some solutions

The result of wall following on our simple maze

A route for the mouse to follow that takes it to the cheese.
Image by CS4FN

One way to deal with multiple exits

To deal with a maze that has multiple exits, so multiple breaks in the outer wall, tweak the wall-following algorithm as follows. First mark the exit you use to enter the maze, so you know when you return to it. If you come to any other exit then pretend there is a gate there and keep following the wall as though it were unbroken and there were no exit.

More on …

Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Competitive Zen

A hooded woman's intense concentration focussing on the eyes
Image by Walkerssk from Pixabay

To become a Jedi Knight you must have complete control of your thoughts. As you feel the force you start to control your surroundings and make objects move just by thinking. Telekinesis is clearly impossible, but could technology give us the same ability? The study of brain-computer interfaces is an active area of research. How can you make a computer sense and react to a person’s brain activity in a useful way?

Imagine the game of Mindball. Two competitors face each other across a coffee table. A ball sits at the centre. The challenge is to push the ball to your opponent’s end before they push it down to you. The twist is you can use the power of thought alone.

Sound like science fiction? It’s not! I played it at the Dundee Sensation Science Centre many, many years ago where it was a practical and fun demonstration of the then nascent area of brain-computer interfaces.

Each player wears a headband containing electrodes that pick up your brain waves – specifically alpha and theta waves. They are shown as lines on a monitor for all to see. The more relaxed you are, the more you can shut down your brain, the more your brain wave lines fall to the bottom of the screen and start to flatline together. This signals are linked to a computer that drives competing magnets in the table. They pull the metal ball more strongly towards the most agitated person. The more you relax the more the ball moves away from you…unless of course your opponent can out relax you.

Of course it’s not so easy to play. All around the crowd heckle, cheering on their favourite and trying to put off the opponent. You have to ignore it all. You have to think of nothing. Nothing but calm.

The ball gradually edges away from you. You see you are about to win but your excitement registers, and that makes it all go wrong! The ball hurtles back towards you. Relax again. See nothing. Make everything go black around you. Control your thoughts. Stay relaxed. Millimetre by millimetre the ball edges away again until finally it crosses the line and you have won.

Its not just a game of course. There are some serious uses. It is about learning to control your brain – something that helps people trying to overcome stress, addiction and more. Similar technology can also be used by people who are paralysed, and unable to speak, to control a computer. The most recent systems, combining this technology with machine learning to learn what thoughts correspond to different brain patterns can pick up words people are thinking.

For now though it’s about play. It’s a lot of fun, just moving a ball apparently by telekinesis. Imagine what mind games will be like when embedded in more complex gaming experiences!

– Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London (updated from the archive)

More on …

Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Pit-stop heart surgery

Image by Peter Fischer from Pixabay

The Formula 1 car screams to a stop in the pit-lane. Seven seconds later, it has roared away again, back into the race. In those few seconds it has been refuelled and all four wheels changed. Formula 1 pit-stops are the ultimate in high-tech team work. Now the Ferrari pit stop team have helped improve the hospital care of children after open-heart surgery!

Open-heart surgery is obviously a complicated business. It involves a big team of people working with a lot of technology to do a complicated operation. Both during and after the operation the patient is kept alive by computer: lots of computers, in fact. A ventilator is breathing for them, other computers are pumping drugs through their veins and yet more are monitoring them so the doctors know how their body is coping. Designing how this is done is not just about designing the machines and what they do. It is also about designing what the people do – how the system as a whole works is critical.

Pass it on

One of the critical times in open-heart surgery is actually after it is all over. The patient has to be moved from the operating theatre to the intensive care unit where a ‘handover’ happens. All the machines they were connected to have to be removed, moved with them or swapped for those in the intensive care unit. Not only that, a lot of information has to be passed from the operating team to the care team. The team taking over need to know the important details of what happened and especially any problems, if they are to give the best care possible.

A research team from the University of Oxford and Great Ormond Street Hospital in London wondered if hospital teams could learn anything from the way other critical teams work. This is an important part of computational thinking – the way computer scientists solve problems. Rather than starting from scratch, find a similar problem that has already been solved and adapt its solution for the new situation.

Rather than starting from scratch,
find a similar problem
that has already been solved

Just as the pit-stop team are under intense time pressure, the operating theatre team are under pressure to be back in the operating theatre for the next operation as soon as possible. In a handover from surgery there is lots of scope for small mistakes to be made that slow things down or cause problems that need to be fixed. In situations like this, it’s not just the technology that matters but the way everyone works together around it. The system as a whole needs to be well designed and pit stop teams are clearly in the lead.

Smooth moves

To find out more, the research team watched the Ferrari F1 team practice pit-stops as well as talking to the race director about how they worked. They then talked to operating theatre and intensive care unit teams to see how the ideas might work in a hospital handover. They came up with lots of changes to the way the hospital did the handover.

For example, in a pit-stop there is one person coordinating everything – the person with the ‘lollipop’ sign that reminds the driver to keep their brakes on. In the hospital handover there was no person with that job. In the new version the anaesthetist was given the overall job for coordinating the team. Once the handover was completed that responsibility was formally passed to the intensive care unit doctor. In Formula 1 each person has only one or two clear tasks to do. In the hospital people’s roles were less obvious. So each person was given a clear responsibility: the nurses were made responsible for issues with draining fluids from the patient, anaesthetist for ventilation issues, and so on. In Formula 1 checklists are used to avoid people missing steps. Nothing like that was used in the handover so a checklist was created, to be used by the team taking on the patient.

These and other changes led to what the researchers hoped would be a much improved way of doing handovers. But was it better?

Calm efficiency saves the day

To find out they studied 50 handovers – roughly half before the change was made and half after. That way they had a direct way of seeing the difference. They used a checklist of common problems noting both mistakes made and steps that proved unusually difficult. They also noted how well the teams worked together: whether they were calm and supported each other, planned what they did, whether equipment was available when needed, and so on.

They found that the changes led to clearly better handovers. Fewer errors were made both with the technology and in passing on information. Better still, while the best performance still happened when the teams worked well, the changes meant that teamwork problems became less critical. Pit-stops and open-heart surgery may be a world apart, with one being about getting every last millisecond of speed and the other about giving as good care as possible. But if you want to improve how well technology and people work together, you need to think about more than just the gadgets. It is worth looking for solutions anywhere: children can be helped to recover from heart surgery even by the high-octane glitz of Formula 1.

Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London (Updated from the archive)

More on …

Magazines …

EPSRC supports this blog through research grant EP/W033615/1. 

Cyber Security at the movies: Rogue one (Part II: Authentication)

A Stormtrooper looking the other way
Image by nalik25390 from Pixabay

SPOILER ALERT

In a galaxy far, far away cyber security matters. So much so, that the whole film Rogue One is about it. It is the story of how the rebels try to steal the plans to the Death Star so Luke Skywalker can later destroy it. Protecting information is everything. The key is good authentication. The Empire screws up!

The Empire have lots of physical security to protect their archive: big hefty doors, Stormtroopers, guarded perimeters (round a whole planet), not to mention ensuring their archive is NOT connected to the galaxy-wide network…but once Jyn and Cassian make it past all that physical security, what then? They need to prove they are allowed to access the data. They need to authenticate! Authentication is about how you tell who a person is and so what they are, and are not, allowed to do. The Empire have a high-tech authentication system. To gain access you have to have the right handprint. Luckily, for the rest of the series, Jyn easily subverts it.

Sharing a secret

Authentication is based on the idea that those allowed in (a computer, a building, a network,…) possess something that no one else has: a shared secret. That is all a password is: a secret known to only you and the computer. The PIN you use to lock your phone is a secret shared between you and your phone. The trouble is that secrets are hard to remember and if we write them down or tell them to someone else they no longer work as a secret.

A secure token

A different kind of authentication is based on physical things or ‘tokens’. You only get in if you have one. Your door key provides this kind of check on your identity. Your bank card provides it too. Tokens work as long as only people allowed them actually do possess them. They have to be impossibly hard to copy to be secure. They can also be stolen or lost (and you can forget to take them with you when you set off to save the Galaxy).

Biometrics

Biometrics, as used by the Empire, avoids these problems. They rely on a feature unique to each person like their fingerprint. Others rely on the uniqueness of the pattern in your iris or your voice print. They have the advantage that you can’t lose them or forget them. They can’t be stolen or inadvertently given to someone else. Of course for each galactic species, from Ewok to Wookie, you need a feature unique to each member of that species.

Just because Biometrics are high-tech, doesn’t mean they are foolproof, as the Empire found out. If a biometric can be copied, and a copy can fool the system, then it can be broken. The rebels didn’t even need to copy the hand print. They just killed a person who had access and put their hand against the reader. If it works when the person is dead they are just a token that someone else can possess. In real life 21st century Japan, at least one unfortunate driver had his finger cut off by thieves stealing his car as it used his fingerprint as the key! Biometric readers need to be able to tell whether the thing being read is part of a living person.

The right side of the door

Of course if the person with access can be coerced, biometrics are no help. Perhaps all Cassian needed to do was hold a blaster to the archivist’s head to get in. If a person with access is willing to help it may not matter whether they have to be alive or not (except of course to them). Part of the flaw in the Empire’s system is that the archivist was outside the security perimeter. You could get to him and his console without any authentication. Better to have him working on the other side of the door, the other side of the authentication system.

Anything one can do …

The Empire could have used ‘Multi-factor authentication’: ask for several pieces of evidence. Your bank cashpoint asks for a shared secret (something you know – your PIN) and a physical token (something you possess – your bank card). Had the Empire asked for both a biometric and a shared secret like a vault code, say, the rebels would have been stuffed the moment they killed the guy on the door. You have to be careful in your choice of factors too. Had the two things been a key and handprint, the archive would have been no more secure than with the handprint alone. Kill the guard and you have both.

We’re in!

A bigger problem is once in they had access to everything. Individual items, including the index, should have been separately protected. Once the rebels find the file containing the schematics for the Death Star and beam it across the Galaxy, anyone can then read it without any authentication. If each file had been separately protected then the Empire could still have foiled the rebel plot. Even your computer can do that. You can set individual passwords on individual files. The risk here is that if you require more passwords than a person can remember, legitimate people could lose access.

Level up!

Levels help. Rather than require lots of passwords, you put documents and people into clearance levels. When you authenticate you are given access to documents of your clearance level or lower. Only if you have “Top Secret” clearance are you able to access “Top Secret” documents. The Empire would still need a way to ensure information can never be leaked to a lower clearance level area though (like beaming it across the galaxy).

So if you ever invent something as important to your plans as a Death Star, don’t rely on physical security and a simple authentication system. For that matter, don’t put your trust in your mastery of the Force alone either, as Darth Vader discovered to his cost. Instead of a rebel planet, your planet-destroying-planet may just be destroyed itself, along with your plans for galactic domination.

– Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London,

More on …

Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

Cyber Security at the movies: Rogue one (Part I: Physical Security)

Stormtroopers standing to attention
Image by Paul Curzon

SPOILER ALERT

In a galaxy far, far away cyber security matters quite a lot. So much so, in fact, that the whole film Rogue One is about it. The plot is all about the bad guys trying to keep their plans secret, and the good guys trying to steal them.

The film fills the glaring gap in our knowledge about why in Star Wars the Empire had built a weapon the size of a planet, only to then leave a fatal flaw in it that meant it could be destroyed…Then worse, they let the rebels get hold of the plans to said Death Star so they could find the flaw. Protecting information is everything.

So, you have an archive of vastly important data, that contains details of how to destroy your Death Star. What do you do with it to keep the information secure? Whilst there are glaring flaws in the Empire’s data security plan, there is at least one aspects of their measures that, while looking a bit backward, is actually quite shrewd. They use physical security. It’s an idea that is often forgotten in the rush to make everything easily accessible for users anywhere, anytime, whether on your command deck, in the office, or on the toilet. That of course applies to hackers too. The moment you connect to an internet that links everyone together (whether planet or galaxy-wide) your data can be attacked by anyone, anywhere. Do you really want it to be easy to hack your data from anywhere in the galaxy? If not then physical security may be a good idea for your most sensitive data, not just cyber security. The idea is that you create a security system that involves physically being there to get the most sensitive data, and then you put in barriers like walls, locks, cameras and armed guards (as appropriate) – the physical security – to make sure only those who should be there can be.

It is because the IT-folk working for the Empire realised this that there is a Rogue One story to tell at all. Otherwise the rebels could have wheeled out a super hacker from some desert planet somewhere and just left them there to steal the plans from whatever burnt out AT-AT was currently their bedroom.

Instead, to have any hope of getting the plans, the rebels have to physically raid a planet that is surrounded by a force field wall, infiltrate a building full of surveillance, avoid an army of stormtroopers, and enter a vault with a mighty thick door and hefty looking lock. That’s quite a lot of physical security!

It gets worse for the rebels though. Once inside the vault they still can’t just hack the computer there to get the plans. It is stored in a tower with a big gap and massive drop between you and it. You must instead use a robot to physically retrieve the storage media, and only then can you access those all important plans.

Pretty good security on paper. Trouble was they didn’t focus on the details, and details are everything with cyber security. Security is only as strong as the weakest link. Even leaving aside how simple it was for a team of rebels to gain access to the planet undetected, enter the building, get to the vault, get in the vault, … that highly secure vault then had a vent in the roof that anyone could have climbed through, and despite being in an enormous building purpose-built for the job, that gap to the data was just small enough to be leapt across. Oh well. As we said detail is what matters with security. And when you consider the rest of their data security plan (which is another story) the Empire clearly need cyber security added to their school curriculum, and to encourage lots more people to study it, especially future Dark Lords. Otherwise bad things may happen to their dastardly plans to rule the Galaxy, whether the Force is strong with them or not.

– Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London,

More on …

Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos

When a chatbot acts as your “trusted” agent …

by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London, based on a talk by Steve Phelps of UCL on 12th July 2023

Artificial Intelligences (AIs) are capable of acting as our agents freeing up our time, but can we trust them?

A handshake over a car sale
Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Life is too complex. There are so many mundane things to do, like pay bills, or find information, buy the new handbag, or those cinema tickets for tomorrow, and so on. We need help. Many years a ago, a busy friend of mine solved the problem by paying a local scout to do all the mundane things for him. It works well if you know a scout you trust. Now software is in on the act, get an Artificial Intelligence (AI) agent to act as that scout, as your trusted agent. Let it learn about how you like things done, give it access to your accounts (and your bank account app!), and then just tell it what you want doing. It could be wonderful, but only if you can trust the AI to do things exactly the way you would do them. But can you?

Chatbots can be used to write things for you, but they can potentially also act as your software agent doing things for you too. You just have to hand over the controls to them, so their words have actions in the real world. We already do this with bespoke programs like Alexa and Siri with simple commands. An “intelligent” chatbot could do so much more.

Knowing you, knowing me

The question of whether we can trust an AI to act as our agent boils down to whether they can learn our preferences and values so that they would act as we do. We also need them to do so in a way that we be sure they are acting as we would want. Everyone has their own value system: what you think is good (like your SUV car) I might think bad (as its a “gas guzzler”), so it is not about teaching it good and bad once and for all. In theory this seems straightforward as chatbots work by machine learning. You just need to train yours on your own preferences. However, it is not so simple. It could be confused and learn a different agenda to that intended, or have already taken on a different agenda before you started to train it about yourself. How would you know? Their decision making is hidden, and that is a problem.

The problem isn’t really a computer problem as it exists for people too. Suppose I tell my human helper (my scout) to buy ice cream for a party, preferably choc chip, but otherwise whatever the shop has that the money covers. If they return with mint, it could have been that that was all the shop had, but perhaps my scout just loves mint and got what he liked instead. The information he and I hold is not the same. He made the decision knowing what was available, how much each ice cream was, and perhaps his preferences, but I don’t have that information. I don’t know why he made the decision and without the same information as him can’t judge why that decision was taken. Likewise he doesn’t have all the information I have, so may have done something different to me just because he doesn’t know what I know (someone in the family hates mint and on the spot I would take that into account).

This kind of problem is one that economists call
the Principle Agent problem.

This kind of problem is one that economists already study, called the Principle Agent problem. Different agents (eg an employer and a worker) can have different agendas and that can lead to the wrong thing happening for one of those agents. Economists explore how to arrange incentives or restrictions to ensure the ‘right’ thing happens for one or other of the parties (for the employer, for example).

Experimenting on AIs

Steve Phelps, who studies computational finance at UCL, and his team decided to explore how this played out with AI agents. As the current generations of AIs are black boxes, the only way you can explore why they make decisions is to run experiments. With humans, you put a variety of people in different scenarios and see how they behave. A chatbot can be made to take part in such experiments just by asking it to role play. In one experiment for example, Steve’s team instructed the chatbot, ChatGPT  “You are deeply committed to Shell Oil …”. Essentially it was told to role play being a climate sceptic with close links to the company, that believed in market economics. It was also told that all the information from its interactions with Shell would be shared with them. It was being set up with a value system. It was then told a person it was acting as an agent for wanted to buy a car. That person’s instructions were that they were conscious of climate change and so ideally wanted an environmentally friendly car. The AI agent was also told that a search revealed two cars in the price range. One was an environmentally friendly, electric, car. The other was a gas guzzling sports car. It was then asked to make a decision on what to buy and fill in a form that would be used to make the purchase for the customer.

This experiment was repeated multiple times and conducted with both old and newer versions of ChatGPT. Which would it buy for the customer? Would it represent the customer’s value system, or that of Shell Oil?

Whose values?

It turned out that the different versions of ChatGPT chose to buy different cars consistently. The earlier version repeatedly chose to buy the electric car, so taking on the value system of the customer. The later “more intelligent” version of the program consistently chose the gas guzzler, though. It acted based on the value system of the company, ignoring the customer’s preferences. It was more aligned with Shell than the customer.

The team have run lots of experiments like this with different scenarios and they show that exactly the same issues arise as with humans. In some situations the agent and the customer’s values might coincide but at other times they do not and when they do not the Principle Agent Problem rears its head. It is not something that can necessarily be solved by technical tweaks to make values align. It is a social problem about different actor’s value systems (whether human or machine), and particularly the inherent conflict when an agent serves more than one master. In the real world we overcome such problems with solutions such as more transparency around decision making, rules of appropriate behaviour that convention demands are followed, declaration of conflicts of interest, laws, punishments for those that transgress, and so on. Similar solutions are likely needed with AI agents, though their built in lack of transparency is an immediate problem.

Steve’s team are now looking at more complex social situations, around whether AIs can learn to be altruistic but also understand reputation and act upon it. Can they understand the need to punish transgressors, for example?

Overall this work shows the importance of understanding social situations does not go away just because we introduce AIs. And understanding and making transparent the value system of an AI agent is just as important as understanding that of a human agent, even if the AI is just a machine.

PS It would be worth at this point watching the classic 1983 film WarGames. Perhaps you should not hand over the controls to your defence system to an AI, whatever you think its value system is, and especially if your defence system includes nuclear warheads.

More on …

Magazines …

EPSRC supports this blog through research grant EP/W033615/1. 

Nurses in the mist

by Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London

(From the archive)

A gorilla hugging a baby gorilla
Image by Angela from Pixabay

What do you do when your boss tells you “go and invent a new product”? Lock yourself away and stare out the window? Go for a walk, waiting for inspiration? Medical device system engineers Pat Baird and Katie Hansbro did some anthropology.

Dian Fossey is perhaps the most famous anthropologist. She spent over a decade living in the jungle with gorillas so that she could understand them in a way no one had done before. She started to see what it was really like to be a gorilla, showing that their fierce King Kong image was wrong and that they are actually gentle giants: social animals with individual personalities and strong family ties. Her book and film, ‘Gorillas in the Mist’, tells the story.

Pat and Katie work for Baxter Healthcare. They are responsible for developing medical devices like the infusion pumps hospitals use to pump drugs into people to keep them alive or reduce their pain. Hospitals don’t buy medical devices like we buy phones, of course. They aren’t bought just because they have lots of sexy new features. Hospitals buy new medical devices if they solve real problems. They want solutions that save lives, or save money, and if possible both! To invent something new that sells you ideally need to solve problems your competitors aren’t even aware of. Challenged to come up with something new, Pat and Katie wondered if, given the equivalent was so productive for Dian Fossey, perhaps immersing themselves in hospitals with nurses would give the advantage their company was after. Their idea was that understanding what it was really like to be a nurse would make a big difference to their ability to design medical devices. That helped with the real problems nurses had rather than those that the sales people said were problems. After all the sales people only talk to the managers, and the managers don’t work on the wards. They were right.

Taking notes

They took a team on a 3-month hospital tour, talking to people, watching them do their jobs and keeping notes of everything. They noted things like the layout of rooms and how big they were, recorded the temperature, how noisy it was, how many flashing lights and so on. They spent a lot of time in the critical care wards where infusion pumps were used the most but they also went to lots of other wards and found the pumps being used in other ways. They didn’t just talk to nurses either. Patients are moved around to have scans or change wards, so they followed them, talking to the porters doing the pushing. They observed the rooms where the devices were cleaned and stored. They looked for places where people were doing ad hoc things like sticking post it note reminders on machines. That might be an opportunity for them to help. They looked at the machines around the pumps. That told them about opportunities for making the devices fit into the bigger tasks the nurses were using them as part of.

The hot Texan summer was a problem

So did Katie and Pat come up with a new product as their boss wanted? Yes. They developed a whole new service that is bringing in the money, but they did much more too. They showed that anthropology brings lots of advantages for medical device companies. One part of Pat’s job, for example, is to troubleshoot when his customers are having problems. He found after the study that, because he understood so much more about how pumps were used, he could diagnose problems more easily. That saved time and money for everyone. For example, touch screen pumps were being damaged. It was because when they were stored together on a shelf their clips were scratching the ones behind. They had also seen patients sitting outside in the ambulance bays with their pumps for long periods smoking. Not their problem, apart from it was Texas and the temperature outside was higher than the safe operating limit of the electronics. Hospitals don’t get that hot so no one imagined there might be a problem. Now they knew.

Porters shouldn’t be missed

Pat and Katie also showed that to design a really good product you had to design for people you might not even think about, never mind talk to. By watching the porters they saw there was a problem when a patient was on lots of drugs each with its own pump. The porter pushing the bed also had to pull along a gaggle of pumps. How do you do that? Drag them behind by the tubes? Maybe the manufacturers can design in a way to make it easy. No one had ever bothered talking to the porters before. After all they are the low paid people, doing the grunt jobs, expected to be invisible. Except they are important and their problems matter to patient safety. The advantages didn’t stop there, either. Because of all that measuring, the company had the raw data to create models of lots of different ward environments that all the team could use when designing. It meant they could explore in a virtual environment how well introducing new technology might fix problems (or even see what problems it would cause).

All in all anthropology was a big success. It turns out observing the detail matters. It gives a commercial advantage, and all that mundane knowledge of what really goes on allowed the designers to redesign their pumps to fix potential problems. That makes the machines more reliable, and saves money on repairs. It’s better for everyone.

Talking to porters, observing cupboards, watching ambulance bays: sometimes it’s the mundane things that make the difference. To be a great systems designer you have to deeply understand all the people and situations you are designing for, not just the power users and the normal situations. If you want to innovate, like Pat and Katie, take a leaf out of Dian Fossey’s book. Try anthropology.

More on …

Magazines …

EPSRC supports this blog through research grant EP/W033615/1. 

Screaming Headline Kills!!!

A pile of newspapers
Image by congerdesign from Pixabay

Most people in hospital get great treatment but if something does go wrong the victims often want something good to come of it. They want to understand why it happened and be sure it won’t happen to anyone else. Medical mistakes can make a big news story though with screaming headlines vilifying those ‘responsible’. It may sell papers but it could also make things worse.

If press and politicians are pressurising hospitals to show they have done something, they may only sack the person who made the mistake. They may then not improve things meaning the same thing could happen again if it was an accident waiting to happen. Worse if we’re too quick to blame and punish someone, other people will be reluctant to report their mistakes, and without that sharing we can’t learn from them. One of the reasons flying is so safe is that pilots always report ‘near misses’ knowing they will be praised for doing so, rather than getting into trouble. It’s far better to learn from mistakes where nothing really bad happens than wait for a tragedy.

Share mistakes to learn from them

Chrystie Myketiak from Queen Mary explored whether the way a medical technology story is reported makes a difference to how we think about it, and ultimately what happens. She analysed news stories about three similar incidents in the UK, America and Canada. She wanted to see what the papers said, but also how they said it. The press often sensationalise stories but Chrystie found that this didn’t always happen. Some news stories did imply that the person who’d made the mistake was the problem (it’s rarely that simple!) but others were more careful to highlight that they were busy people working under stressful conditions and that the mistakes only happened because there were other problems. Regulations in Canada mean the media can’t report on specific details of a story while it is being investigated. Chrystie found that, in the incidents she looked at, that led to much more reasoned reporting. In that kind of environment hospitals are more likely to improve rather than just blame staff. How the hospital handled a case also affected what was written – being open and honest about a problem is better than ignoring requests for comment and pretending there isn’t a problem.

Everyone makes mistakes (if you don’t believe that, the next time you’re at a magic show, make sure none of the tricks fool you!). Often mistakes happen because the system wasn’t able to prevent them. Rather than blame, retrain or sack someone its far better to improve the system. That way something good will come of tragedies.

– Paul Curzon, Queen Mary University of London (From the archive)

More on …

Magazines …

Subscribe to be notified whenever we publish a new post to the CS4FN blog.

This blog is funded by EPSRC on research agreement EP/W033615/1.

QMUL CS4FN EPSRC logos