̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Sam Gilbert

UK needs AI legislation to create trust so companies can ‘plug AI into British economy’

fpjl2 — Mon, 16 Oct 2023 06:20:05 +0000

̽��ֱ��British government should offer tax breaks for businesses developing AI-powered products and services, or applying AI to their existing operations, to 'unlock the UK’s potential for augmented productivity', according to a new ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge report.

Researchers argue that the UK currently lacks the computing capacity and capital required to build 'generative' machine learning models fast enough to compete with US companies such as Google, Microsoft or Open AI.

Instead, they call for a UK focus on leveraging these new AI systems for real-world applications – such as developing new diagnostic products and addressing the shortage of software engineers – which could provide a major boost to the British economy.

However, the researchers caution that without new legislation to ensure the UK has solid legal and ethical AI regulation, such plans could falter. British industries and the public may struggle to trust emerging AI platforms such as ChatGPT enough to invest time and money into skilling up.

̽��ֱ��policy report is a collaboration between Cambridge’s Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, Bennett Institute for Public Policy, and ai@cam: the ̽��ֱ��’s flagship initiative on artificial intelligence.

“Generative AI will change the nature of how things are produced, just as what occurred with factory assembly lines in the 1910s or globalised supply chains at the turn of the millennium,” said Dame Diane Coyle, Bennett Professor of Public Policy. “ ̽��ֱ��UK can become a global leader in actually plugging these AI technologies into the economy.”

Prof Gina Neff, Executive Director of the Minderoo Centre for Technology and Democracy, said: “A new Bill that fosters confidence in AI by legislating for data protection, intellectual property and product safety is vital groundwork for using this technology to increase UK productivity.”

Generative AI uses algorithms trained on giant datasets to output original high-quality text, images, audio, or video at ferocious speed and scale. ̽��ֱ��text-based ChatGPT dominated headlines this year. Other examples include Midjourney, which can conjure imagery in any different style in seconds.

Networked grids – or clusters – of computing hardware called Graphics Processing Units (GPU) are required to handle the vast quantities of data that hone these machine-learning models. For example, ChatGPT is estimated to cost $40 million a month in computing alone. In the spring of this year, the UK chancellor announced £100 million for a “Frontier AI Taskforce” to scope out the creation of home-grown AI to rival the likes of Google Bard.

However, the report points out that the supercomputer announced by the UK chancellor is unlikely to be online until 2026, while none of the big three US tech companies – Amazon, Microsoft or Google – have GPU clusters in the UK.

“ ̽��ֱ��UK has no companies big enough to invest meaningfully in foundation model development,” said report co-author Sam Gilbert. “State spending on technology is modest compared to China and the US, as we have seen in the UK chip industry.”

As such, the UK should use its strengths in fin-tech, cybersecurity and health-tech to build software – the apps, tools and interfaces – that harnesses AI for everyday use, says the report.

“Generative AI has been shown to speed up coding by some 55%, which could help with the UK’s chronic developer shortage,” said Gilbert. “In fact, this type of AI can even help non-programmers to build sophisticated software.”

Moreover, the UK has world-class research universities that could drive progress in tackling AI stumbling blocks: from the cooling of data centres to the detection of AI-generated misinformation.

At the moment, however, UK organisations lack incentives to comply with responsible AI. “ ̽��ֱ��UK’s current approach to regulating generative AI is based on a set of vague and voluntary principles that nod at security and transparency,” said report co-author Dr Ann Kristin Glenster.

“ ̽��ֱ��UK will only be able to realise the economic benefits of AI if the technology can be trusted, and that can only be ensured through meaningful legislation and regulation.”

Along with new AI laws, the report suggests a series of tax incentives, such as an enhanced Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme, to increase the supply of capital to AI start-ups, as well as tax credits for all businesses including generative AI in their operations. Challenge prizes could be launched to identify bottom-up uses of generative AI from within organisations.

Legislating for AI safety and transparency will allow British industry and education to put resources into AI development with confidence, argue researchers.

̽��ֱ��UK can become a global leader in actually plugging these AI technologies into the economy

Diane Coyle

Getty/BlackJack3D

Data Tunnel

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

What is the metaverse – and will it help us or harm us?

lw355 — Thu, 27 Jul 2023 07:52:28 +0000

An interconnected world of extended reality is coming that will reshape how we work, play and communicate – and expose us to new levels of risk. What is the metaverse? Will we be safe? How do we make the most of it?

Lockdown led to happiness rebound, after wellbeing plunged with onset of pandemic

fpjl2 — Sun, 26 Jul 2020 23:03:39 +0000

̽��ֱ��coronavirus outbreak caused life satisfaction to fall sharply, but lockdown went a long way to restoring contentment – even reducing the 'wellbeing inequality' between well-off professionals and the unemployed, according to a new study.

Researchers from Cambridge’s Bennett Institute for Public Policy used a year’s worth of data taken from weekly YouGov surveys and Google searches to track wellbeing in the British population before and during the pandemic.

They say it is one of the first studies to distinguish the effects of the pandemic from those of lockdown on psychological welfare, as it uses week-by-week data, rather than monthly or annual comparisons.

̽��ֱ��proportion of Britons self-reporting as 'happy' halved in just three weeks: from 51% just before the UK’s first COVID-19 fatality, to 25% by the time national lockdown began.

This reversed under lockdown, with happiness climbing back to almost pre-pandemic levels of 47% by the end of May. Overall life satisfaction saw a similar drop when the pandemic took hold and a rebound during lockdown.

̽��ֱ��study also suggests that while the 'wellbeing inequality' gap remained wide, lockdown started to shrink it: some of the most deprived social groups saw a relative rise in life satisfaction, while the wealthy experienced declines.

“It was the pandemic, not the lockdown, that depressed people’s wellbeing,” said Dr Roberto Foa, from Cambridge’s Department of Politics and International Studies, and Director of the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research.

“Mental health concerns are often cited as a reason to avoid lockdown. In fact, when combined with employment and income support, lockdown may be the single most effective action a government can take during a pandemic to maintain psychological welfare.”

Foa had exclusive access to results from the YouGov Weekly Mood Tracker survey, and conducted the study with Bennett Institute colleagues Sam Gilbert and Dr Mark Fabian. ̽��ֱ��findings are published today on the Institute’s website.

In addition to YouGov data from England, Scotland and Wales, the researchers expanded their study to cover seven other nations – Ireland, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and South Africa – using the Google Trends tool.

“By matching survey data with internet searches for mental health topics such as anxiety, depression, boredom and apathy, we were able to compare the UK to a wider set of countries,” said Sam Gilbert.

“In country after country we saw a sharp rise in negative mood during initial outbreaks of the novel coronavirus, but then a rapid recovery once lockdowns were introduced,” Gilbert said.

̽��ֱ��team also used Google Trends to investigate suicide-related search terms. They discovered a significant fall during lockdown months in several countries, including the UK and Ireland, but a rise in nations that implemented lockdowns without extensive income support, such as India and South Africa.

Foa and colleagues suggest that this change in web searches around suicidal ideation may relate to the effect of lockdowns on 'underemployed' men: those of working age who are unemployed or clocking very few hours.

This is one of the highest risk groups for suicide, but also the social group that saw the largest relative increase in life satisfaction during lockdown – in Britain, at least – according to YouGov data.

Just before lockdown, 47% of underemployed men reported feeling stressed. After two months, this had fallen to 30% – the lowest level for a year.

By late May, 40% of underemployed men self-reporting as “happy”, above the pre-pandemic average of 36% (June 2019-February 2020), with 15% describing themselves as “inspired” compared to 4% at the start of the year.

In fact, underemployed men saw a relative gain in life satisfaction during lockdown that was higher than their previous peak of Christmas 2019.

“During lockdown, welfare schemes were expanded and hardship funds introduced, along with amnesties on overdue rent and bills. This probably reduced stress for people living precariously,” said Roberto Foa.

“In addition, people with little money don’t consume or travel as much, so may have had less to lose and more to gain from lockdown.”

This is in contrast to high social status groups, the managers and top professionals, who saw a small but persistent slump in life satisfaction that lockdown only slightly alleviated.

“Well-paid professionals may have experienced stress through combined work and domestic duties, and an inability to engage in consumption habits that have a social basis, from holidays to dining out,” said Dr Foa.

̽��ֱ��over-65s also saw a fall in life satisfaction that lingered into lockdown, which the study’s authors suggest may result from increased COVID-19 fatality fears.

In general, women experienced a steeper decline in wellbeing than men at the pandemic’s onset. For women co-habiting with partners, family or friends, however, life satisfaction then recovered during lockdown.

For women living alone there was very little rebound. ̽��ֱ��isolation of single occupancy in lockdown appears to have negatively affected women in particular, say the researchers.

Overall, however, they say that lockdown may have gone a surprisingly long way in ameliorating severe mental health effects of the early pandemic.

Dr Mark Fabian added: “Contrary to widespread concerns, lockdowns seem to improve wellbeing rather than detract from it during a pandemic, not least because they reduce the risk of infection.”

“However, as the initial shock of the pandemic fades into a likely recession, and worries about jobs and income return, the real mental health challenge may just be beginning.”

How you can support Cambridge's COVID-19 research effort

Donate to support COVID-19 research at Cambridge

New study is among the first to distinguish effects of the pandemic from effects of lockdown when it comes to wellbeing in Britain.

Lockdown may be the single most effective action a government can take during a pandemic to maintain psychological welfare

Roberto Foa

Benjamin Cooper

Young boy peers out of his bedroom window during the coronavirus lockdown in the UK in April.

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution