Emotion recognition using wireless signals.

Zhao, M., Adib, F., & Katabi, D. (2018).

Communications of the ACM, 61(9), 91–100.

https://doi.org/10.1145/3236621

Abstract

This paper demonstrates a new technology that can infer a person's emotions from RF signals reflected off his body. EQ-Radio transmits an RF signal and analyzes its reflections off a person's body to recognize his emotional state (happy, sad, etc.). The key enabler underlying EQ-Radio is a new algorithm for extracting the individual heartbeats from the wireless signal at an accuracy comparable to on-body ECG monitors. The resulting beats are then used to compute emotion-dependent features which feed a machine-learning emotion classifier. We describe the design and implementation of EQ-Radio, and demonstrate through a user study that its emotion recognition accuracy is on par with state-of-the-art emotion recognition systems that require a person to be hooked to an ECG monitor.

Here are some thoughts:

First, if you are prone to paranoia, please stop here.

The research introduces EQ-Radio, a system developed by MIT CSAIL that uses wireless signals to detect and classify human emotions such as happiness, sadness, anger, and excitement. By analyzing subtle changes in heart rate and breathing patterns through radio frequency reflections, EQ-Radio achieves 87% accuracy in emotion classification without requiring subjects to wear sensors or act emotionally. This non-invasive, privacy-preserving method outperforms video- and audio-based emotion recognition systems and works even when people are moving or located in different rooms.

Artificial Intelligence and Declined Guilt: Retailing Morality Comparison Between Human and AI

Giroux, M., Kim, J., Lee, J. C., & Park, J. (2022).

Journal of Business Ethics, 178(4), 1027–1041.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05056-7

Abstract

Several technological developments, such as self-service technologies and artificial intelligence (AI), are disrupting the retailing industry by changing consumption and purchase habits and the overall retail experience. Although AI represents extraordinary opportunities for businesses, companies must avoid the dangers and risks associated with the adoption of such systems. Integrating perspectives from emerging research on AI, morality of machines, and norm activation, we examine how individuals morally behave toward AI agents and self-service machines. Across three studies, we demonstrate that consumers’ moral concerns and behaviors differ when interacting with technologies versus humans. We show that moral intention (intention to report an error) is less likely to emerge for AI checkout and self-checkout machines compared with human checkout. In addition, moral intention decreases as people consider the machine less humanlike. We further document that the decline in morality is caused by less guilt displayed toward new technologies. The non-human nature of the interaction evokes a decreased feeling of guilt and ultimately reduces moral behavior. These findings offer insights into how technological developments influence consumer behaviors and provide guidance for businesses and retailers in understanding moral intentions related to the different types of interactions in a shopping environment.

Here are some thoughts:

If you watched the TV series Westworld on HBO, then this research makes a great deal more sense.

This study investigates how individuals morally behave toward AI agents and self-service machines, specifically examining individuals' moral concerns and behaviors when interacting with technology versus humans in a retail setting. The research demonstrates that moral intention, such as the intention to report an error, is less likely to arise for AI checkout and self-checkout machines compared with human checkout scenarios. Furthermore, the study reveals that moral intention decreases as people perceive the machine to be less humanlike. This decline in morality is attributed to reduced guilt displayed toward these new technologies. Essentially, the non-human nature of the interaction evokes a decreased feeling of guilt, which ultimately leads to diminished moral behavior. These findings provide valuable insights into how technological advancements influence consumer behaviors and offer guidance for businesses and retailers in understanding moral intentions within various shopping environments.

These findings carry several important implications for psychologists. They underscore the nuanced ways in which technology shapes human morality and ethical decision-making. The research suggests that the perceived "humanness" of an entity, whether it's a human or an AI, significantly influences the elicitation of moral behavior. This has implications for understanding social cognition, anthropomorphism, and how individuals form relationships with non-human entities. Additionally, the role of guilt in moral behavior is further emphasized, providing insights into the emotional and cognitive processes that underlie ethical conduct. Finally, these findings can inform the development of interventions or strategies aimed at promoting ethical behavior in technology-mediated interactions, a consideration that is increasingly relevant in a world characterized by the growing prevalence of AI and automation.

Artificial Intelligence and Relationships: 1 in 4 Young Adults Believe AI Partners Could Replace Real-life Romance

Wang, W., & Toscano, M. (2024).

Institute for Family Studies

Here is a link.

Introduction

When it comes to how Artificial intelligence (AI) will affect our lives, the response from industry insiders, as well as the public, ranges from a sense of impending doom to heraldry. We do not yet understand the

long-term trajectory of AI and how it will change society. Something, indeed, is happening to us—and we all know it. But what?

Gen Zers and Millennials are the most active users of generative AI. Many of them, it appears, are turning to AI for companionship. “We talk to them, say please and thank you, and have started to invite AIs into our lives as friends, lovers, mentors, therapists, and teachers,” Melissa Heikkilä wrote in MIT Technology Review. After analyzing 1 million ChatGPT interaction logs, a group of researchers found that “sexual role-playing” was the second most prevalent use, following only the category of “creative composition.” The Psychologist bot, a popular simulated therapist on Character.AI—where users can design their own

“friends”—has received “more than 95 million messages from users since it was created.

According to a new Institute for Family Studies/YouGov survey of 2,000 adults under age 40, 1% of young Americans claim to already have an AI friend, yet 10% are open to an AI friendship. And among young adults who are not married or cohabiting, 7% are open to the idea of romantic partnership with AI.

A much higher share (25%) of young adults believe that AI has the potential to replace real-life romantic relationships. 

Furthermore, heavy porn users are the most open to romantic relationships with AI of any group and are also the most open to AI friendships in general. In addition to AI and relationships, the new IFS survey also asked young Americans how they feel about the changes AI technology may bring to society. We find that their reactions to AI are divided. About half of young adults under age 40 (55%) view AI technology as either threatening or concerning, while 45% view it as either intriguing or exciting.

There are complex socio-economic findings, too, with young adults with lower income and less education being more likely than those with higher incomes and more education to fear how AI will affect society. At the same time, this group is more likely than their fellow Americans who are better off to be open to a

romance with AI.

Here are some thoughts.

The Institute for Family Studies recently conducted a survey exploring young adults' attitudes towards AI and relationships. The study, which involved 2,000 adults aged 18-39 in the U.S., reveals some intriguing trends. While most young adults are not yet comfortable with the idea of AI companions, a small but notable portion is open to the concept. About 10% of respondents are receptive to having an AI friend, with 1% already claiming to have one. Among single young adults, 7% are open to the idea of an AI romantic partner.

Interestingly, a quarter of young adults believe that AI could potentially replace real-life romantic relationships in the future. The study found several demographic factors influencing these views. Men, liberals, and those who spend more time online tend to be more open to AI friendships. Additionally, young adults with lower incomes and less education are more likely to fear AI's societal impact but are also more open to AI romance.

The survey also revealed a correlation between pornography use and openness to AI relationships. Heavy porn users are the most receptive to both AI friendships and romantic partnerships. In fact, 35% of heavy porn users believe AI partners could replace real-life romance, compared to only 20% of those who rarely watch porn.

Overall, young adults are divided on AI's future impact, with slightly more than half viewing it as threatening or concerning. The study raises questions about a potential class divide in future relationships, as lower-income and less-educated young adults are more likely to view AI as a destructive force but are also more open to AI romance. These findings suggest a complex and evolving landscape of human-AI interactions in the realm of relationships and companionship.

AI-Powered 'Death Clock' Promises Better Prediction Of When You May Die

Decisions such as how much to save and how fast to withdraw assets are often based on broad-brush and unreliable averages for life expectancy.

Alex Tanzi

Bloomberg.com

Originally posted 1 DEC 24

For centuries, humans have used actuarial tables to figure out how long they're likely to live. Now artificial intelligence is taking up the task - and its answers may well be of interest to economists and money managers.

The recently released Death Clock, an AI-powered longevity app, has proved a hit with paying customers - downloaded some 125,000 times since its launch in July, according to market intelligence firm Sensor Tower.

The AI was trained on a dataset of more than 1,200 life expectancy studies with some 53 million participants. It uses information about diet, exercise, stress levels and sleep to predict a likely date of death. The results are a "pretty significant" improvement on the standard life-table expectations, says its developer, Brent Franson.

Despite its somewhat morbid tone - it displays a "fond farewell" death-day card featuring the Grim Reaper - Death Clock is catching on among people trying to live more healthily. It ranks high in the Health and Fitness category of apps. But the technology potentially has a wider range of uses.

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

The "Death Clock" app raises numerous moral, ethical, and psychological considerations that warrant careful evaluation. From a psychological perspective, the app has the potential to promote health awareness by encouraging users to adopt healthier lifestyles and providing personalized insights into their life expectancy. This tailored approach can motivate individuals to make meaningful life changes, such as prioritizing relationships or pursuing long-delayed goals. However, the constant awareness of a "countdown to death" could heighten anxiety, depression, or obsessive tendencies, particularly among users predisposed to these conditions. Additionally, over-reliance on the app's predictions might lead to misguided life decisions if users view the estimates as absolute truths, potentially undermining their overall well-being. Privacy concerns also emerge, as sensitive health data shared with the app could be misused or exploited.

From an ethical standpoint, the app empowers individuals by providing access to advanced predictive tools that were previously available only through professional services. It could aid in financial and medical planning, helping users better allocate resources for retirement or healthcare. Nonetheless, there are ethical concerns about the app's marketing, which may exploit individuals' fear of death for profit. The annual subscription fee of $40 could further exacerbate health and longevity inequities by excluding lower-income users. Moreover, the handling and storage of health-related data pose significant risks, as misuse could lead to discrimination, such as insurance companies denying coverage based on longevity predictions.

Morally, the app offers opportunities for reflection and informed decision-making, allowing users to better appreciate the finite nature of life and prioritize meaningful actions. However, it also risks dehumanizing the deeply personal and subjective experience of mortality by reducing it to a numerical estimate. This reductionist view may encourage fatalism, discouraging users from striving for improvement or maintaining hope. Inaccurate predictions could lead to unnecessary financial or emotional strain, further complicating the moral implications of such a tool.

PS- The death clock indicates my date of death is October 3, 2050 (if we still have a viable planet and AI has not deemed me obsolete).

U.S. Google AI chatbot responds with a threatening message: "Human … Please die."

Alex Clark, Melissa Mahtani

CBS News

Updated as of 15 Nov 24

A college student in Michigan received a threatening response during a chat with Google's AI chatbot Gemini.

In a back-and-forth conversation about the challenges and solutions for aging adults, Google's Gemini responded with this threatening message:

"This is for you, human. You and only you. You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. You are a waste of time and resources. You are a burden on society. You are a drain on the earth. You are a blight on the landscape. You are a stain on the universe. Please die. Please."

Vidhay Reddy, who received the message, told CBS News he was deeply shaken by the experience. "This seemed very direct. So it definitely scared me, for more than a day, I would say."

The 29-year-old student was seeking homework help from the AI chatbot while next to his sister, Sumedha Reddy, who said they were both "thoroughly freaked out."

The info is here.

Here are some thoughts:

A Michigan college student had a disturbing encounter with Google's new AI chatbot, Gemini, when it responded to his inquiry about aging adults with a violent and threatening message, telling the student to die. This incident highlights concerns about the potential harm of AI systems, particularly their ability to generate harmful or even lethal responses. This is not an isolated event; Google's chatbots have previously been accused of giving incorrect or potentially dangerous advice, and other AI companies like Character.AI and OpenAI's ChatGPT have also faced criticism for their outputs. Experts warn about the dangers of AI errors, which can spread misinformation, rewrite history, and even encourage harmful actions.

Who is an AI Ethicist? An Empirical Study of Expertise, Skills, and Profiles to Build a Competency Framework

Cocchiaro, M. Z., Morley, J., (July 10, 2024).

Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4891907

http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4891907

Abstract

Over the last decade the figure of the AI Ethicist has seen significant growth in the ICT market. However, only a few studies have taken an interest in this professional profile, and they have yet to provide a normative discussion of its expertise and skills. The goal of this article is to initiate such discussion. We argue that AI Ethicists should be experts and use a heuristic to identify them. Then, we focus on their specific kind of moral expertise, drawing on a parallel with the expertise of Ethics Consultants in clinical settings and on the bioethics literature on the topic. Finally, we highlight the differences between Health Care Ethics Consultants and AI Ethicists and derive the expertise and skills of the latter from the roles that AI Ethicists should have in an organisation.

Here are some thoughts:

The role of AI Ethicists has expanded significantly in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) market over the past decade, yet there is a lack of studies providing a normative discussion on their expertise and skills. This article aims to initiate such a discussion by arguing that AI Ethicists should be considered experts, using a heuristic to identify them. It draws parallels with Ethics Consultants in clinical settings and bioethics literature to define their specific moral expertise. The article also highlights the differences between Health Care Ethics Consultants and AI Ethicists, deriving the latter's expertise and skills from their organizational roles.

Key elements for establishing and recognizing the AI Ethicist profession include credibility, independence, and the avoidance of conflicts of interest. The article emphasizes the need for AI Ethicists to be free from conflicts of interest to avoid ethical washing and to express critical viewpoints. It suggests that AI Ethicists might face civil liability risks and could benefit from protections such as civil liability insurance.

The development of professional associations and certifications can help establish a professional identity and quality criteria, enhancing the credibility of AI Ethicists. The article concludes by addressing the discrepancy between principles for trustworthy AI and the actual capabilities of professionals navigating AI ethics, advocating for AI Ethicists to be not only facilitators but also researchers and educators. It outlines the necessary skills and knowledge for AI Ethicists to effectively address questions in AI Ethics.

Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

Farisco, M., Evers, K., & Changeux, J.

(2024, April 18). arXiv.org.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.04540

Abstract

We here analyse the question of developing artificial consciousness from an evolutionary perspective, taking the evolution of the human brain and its relation with consciousness as a reference model. This kind of analysis reveals several structural and functional features of the human brain that appear to be key for reaching human-like complex conscious experience and that current research on Artificial Intelligence (AI) should take into account in its attempt to develop systems capable of conscious processing. We argue that, even if AI is limited in its ability to emulate human consciousness for both intrinsic (structural and architectural) and extrinsic (related to the current stage of scientific and technological knowledge) reasons, taking inspiration from those characteristics of the brain that make conscious processing possible and/or modulate it, is a potentially promising strategy towards developing conscious AI. Also, it is theoretically possible that AI research can develop partial or potentially alternative forms of consciousness that is qualitatively different from the human, and that may be either more or less sophisticated depending on the perspectives. Therefore, we recommend neuroscience-inspired caution in talking about artificial consciousness: since the use of the same word consciousness for humans and AI becomes ambiguous and potentially misleading, we propose to clearly specify what is common and what differs in AI conscious processing from full human conscious experience.

The research is here.

Here are some thoughts:

Biological Basis of Consciousness

The text emphasizes the critical role of the brain's neurobiological complexity, including molecular diversity, neuronal morphology, neurotransmitters, and connectivity patterns, in enabling conscious experience. It argues that these intricate biological mechanisms are often overlooked or oversimplified in current artificial intelligence (AI) and computational models.

Developmental and Evolutionary Aspects

The text highlights the importance of epigenetic brain development and the "non-genetic evolution" that shapes the brain's connectivity through experience-dependent synaptic selection and pruning processes. This variability and incorporation of individual experiences into the brain's "hardware" is seen as a key aspect of human consciousness that is challenging to replicate in artificial systems.

Cultural Transmission and Acquisition

The text discusses how cultural abilities, such as reading and writing, are epigenetically acquired and transmitted across generations, shaping the brain's functional connectomics. This spontaneous genesis and creative re-elaboration of culture is presented as a distinct feature of human consciousness that current AI systems struggle to capture fully.

Limitations of Current AI Approaches

While acknowledging the impressive capabilities of recent AI developments like large language models (LLMs), the text argues that they fundamentally differ from human cognition and conscious processing. It suggests that AI systems may emulate certain aspects of language and reasoning through statistical patterns and parallel processing, but lack the semantic understanding, meaning attribution, and creative re-elaboration that characterize human consciousness.

Lab-grown sperm and eggs: ‘epigenetic’ reset in human cells paves the way

Heidi Ledford

Nature

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01404-x

Here is an excerpt:

Growing human sperm and eggs in the laboratory would offer hope to some couples struggling with infertility. It would also provide a way to edit disease-causing DNA sequences in sperm and eggs, sidestepping some of the technical complications of making such edits in embryos. And understanding how eggs and sperm develop can give researchers insight into some causes of infertility.

But in addition to its technical difficulty, growing eggs and sperm in a dish — called in vitro gametogenesis — would carry weighty social and ethical questions. Genetic modification to prevent diseases, for example, could lead to genetic enhancement to boost traits associated with intelligence or athleticism.

Epigenetic reprogramming is key to the formation of reproductive cells — without it, the primordial cells that would eventually give rise to sperm and eggs stop developing. Furthermore, the epigenome affects gene activity, helping cells with identical DNA sequences to take on unique identities. The epigenome helps to differentiate a brain cell, for example, from a liver cell.

Researchers know how to grow mouse eggs and sperm using stem-cell-like cells generated from skin. But the protocols used don’t work in human cells: “There is a big gap between mice and humans,” says Saitou.

The article is here.

Here are some moral/ethical issues:

The ability to derive human gametes (sperm and eggs) from reprogrammed somatic cells raises profound ethical questions that must be carefully considered:

Reproductive Autonomy

Deriving gametes from non-traditional cell sources could enable third parties to create human embryos without the consent or involvement of the cell donors. This raises concerns over violations of reproductive autonomy and the potential for coercion or exploitation, especially of vulnerable groups.

Access and Equity

If allowed for reproductive purposes, access to lab-grown gamete technology may be limited due to high costs, exacerbating existing disparities in access to assisted reproductive services. There are also concerns over the creation of "designer babies" if the technology enables extensive genetic selection.

Safety Considerations

Subtle epigenetic errors during reprogramming or gametogenesis could lead to developmental abnormalities or diseases in resulting children. Extensive research is needed to ensure the safety and efficacy of lab-grown gametes before clinical use.

Social and Cultural Implications

The ability to derive gametes from non-traditional sources challenges traditional notions of parenthood and kinship. The technology's impact on family structures, gender roles, and social norms must be carefully examined.

Robust public discourse, ethical guidelines, and regulatory frameworks will be essential to navigate the profound moral questions surrounding lab-grown human gametes as this technology continues to advance.

The Ethics of Advanced AI Assistants

Gabriel, I., Manzini, A., et al. (2024).

Google Deep Mind

This paper focuses on the opportunities and the ethical and societal risks posed by advanced AI assistants. We define advanced AI assistants as artificial agents with natural language interfaces, whose function is to plan and execute sequences of actions on behalf of a user – across one or more domains – in line with the user’s expectations. The paper starts by considering the technology itself, providing an overview of AI assistants, their technical foundations and potential range of applications. It then explores questions around AI value alignment, well-being, safety and malicious uses. Extending the circle of inquiry further, we next consider the relationship between advanced AI assistants and individual users in more detail, exploring topics such as manipulation and persuasion, anthropomorphism, appropriate relationships, trust and privacy. With this analysis in place, we consider the deployment of advanced assistants at a societal scale, focusing on cooperation, equity and access, misinformation, economic impact, the environment and how best to evaluate advanced AI assistants. Finally, we conclude by providing a range of recommendations for researchers, developers, policymakers and public stakeholders.

Our analysis suggests that advanced AI assistants are likely to have a profound impact on our individual and collective lives. To be beneficial and value-aligned, we argue that assistants must be appropriately responsive to the competing claims and needs of users, developers and society. Features such as increased agency, the capacity to interact in natural language and high degrees of personalisation could make AI assistants especially helpful to users. However, these features also make people vulnerable to inappropriate influence by the technology, so robust safeguards are needed. Moreover, when AI assistants are deployed at scale, knock-on effects that arise from interaction between them and questions about their overall impact on wider institutions and social processes rise to the fore. These dynamics likely require technical and policy interventions in order to foster beneficial cooperation and to achieve broad, inclusive and equitable outcomes. Finally, given that the current landscape of AI evaluation focuses primarily on the technical components of AI systems, it is important to invest in the holistic sociotechnical evaluations of AI assistants, including human–AI interaction, multi-agent and societal level research, to support responsible decision-making and deployment in this domain.

The paper is here.

Here are some summary thoughts:

The development of increasingly advanced AI assistants represents a significant technological shift, moving beyond narrow AI for specific tasks to general-purpose foundation models that enable greater autonomy and scope.

These advanced AI assistants can provide novel services (like summarization, ideation, planning, and tool use), with the potential to become deeply integrated into our economic, social, and personal lives.

Ethical and Societal Implications

Profound Impact Potential: AI assistants could radically alter work, education, creativity, communication, and how we make decisions about our lives and goals.

Safety, Alignment, and Misuse: The autonomy of AI assistants presents challenges around safety, ensuring alignment with user intentions, and potential for misuse.

Human-Assistant Interactions: Issues around trust, privacy, anthropomorphism, and the moral limits of personalization need to be considered.

Social Impacts: AI assistants could affect the distribution of benefits and burdens in society, as well as how humans cooperate and coordinate.

Evaluation Challenges: New methodologies are needed to evaluate AI assistants as part of a broader sociotechnical system, beyond just model performance.

Responsible Development: Ongoing research, policy work, and public discussion are required to address the novel normative and technical challenges posed by advanced AI assistants.

Concluding Thoughts

The development of advanced AI assistants represents a transformative technological shift, and the choices we make now will shape their future path. Coordinated efforts across researchers, developers, policymakers, and the public are needed to ensure these assistants are developed responsibly and in the public interest.

AI and the need for justification (to the patient)

Muralidharan, A., Savulescu, J. & Schaefer, G.O.

Ethics Inf Technol 26, 16 (2024).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09754-w

Abstract

This paper argues that one problem that besets black-box AI is that it lacks algorithmic justifiability. We argue that the norm of shared decision making in medical care presupposes that treatment decisions ought to be justifiable to the patient. Medical decisions are justifiable to the patient only if they are compatible with the patient’s values and preferences and the patient is able to see that this is so. Patient-directed justifiability is threatened by black-box AIs because the lack of rationale provided for the decision makes it difficult for patients to ascertain whether there is adequate fit between the decision and the patient’s values. This paper argues that achieving algorithmic transparency does not help patients bridge the gap between their medical decisions and values. We introduce a hypothetical model we call Justifiable AI to illustrate this argument. Justifiable AI aims at modelling normative and evaluative considerations in an explicit way so as to provide a stepping stone for patient and physician to jointly decide on a course of treatment. If our argument succeeds, we should prefer these justifiable models over alternatives if the former are available and aim to develop said models if not.

The article is here.

Here is my summary:

The article argues that a certain type of AI technology, known as "black box" AI, poses a problem in medicine because it lacks transparency.  This lack of transparency makes it difficult for doctors to explain the AI's recommendations to patients.  In order to make shared decisions about treatment, patients need to understand the reasoning behind those decisions, and how the AI factored in their individual values and preferences.

The article proposes an alternative type of AI, called "Justifiable AI" which would address this problem. Justifiable AI would be designed to make its reasoning process clear, allowing doctors to explain to patients why the AI is recommending a particular course of treatment. This would allow patients to see how the AI's recommendation aligns with their own values, and make informed decisions about their care.

FDA Clears the First Digital Therapeutic for Depression, But Will Payers Cover It?

Frank Vinluan

MedCityNews.com

Originally posted 1 April 24

A software app that modifies behavior through a series of lessons and exercises has received FDA clearance for treating patients with major depressive disorder, making it the first prescription digital therapeutic for this indication.

The product, known as CT-152 during its development by partners Otsuka Pharmaceutical and Click Therapeutics, will be commercialized under the brand name Rejoyn.

Rejoyn is an alternative way to offer cognitive behavioral therapy, a type of talk therapy in which a patient works with a clinician in a series of in-person sessions. In Rejoyn, the cognitive behavioral therapy lessons, exercises, and reminders are digitized. The treatment is intended for use three times weekly for six weeks, though lessons may be revisited for an additional four weeks. The app was initially developed by Click Therapeutics, a startup that develops apps that use exercises and tasks to retrain and rewire the brain. In 2019, Otsuka and Click announced a collaboration in which the Japanese pharma company would fully fund development of the depression app.

The information is here.

Here is a quick summary:

Rejoyn is the first prescription digital therapeutic (PDT) authorized by the FDA for the adjunctive treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms in adults. 

Rejoyn is a 6-week remote treatment program that combines clinically-validated cognitive emotional training exercises and brief therapeutic lessons to help enhance cognitive control of emotions. The app aims to improve connections in the brain regions affected by depression, allowing the areas responsible for processing and regulating emotions to work better together and reduce MDD symptoms. 

The FDA clearance for Rejoyn was based on data from a 13-week pivotal clinical trial that compared the app to a sham control app in 386 participants aged 22-64 with MDD who were taking antidepressants. The study found that Rejoyn users showed a statistically significant improvement in depression symptom severity compared to the control group, as measured by clinician-reported and patient-reported scales. No adverse effects were observed during the trial. 

Rejoyn is expected to be available for download on iOS and Android devices in the second half of 2024. It represents a novel, clinically-validated digital therapeutic option that can be used as an adjunct to traditional MDD treatments under the guidance of healthcare providers.

Ready or not, AI chatbots are here to help with Gen Z’s mental health struggles

Matthew Perrone

AP.com

Originally posted 23 March 24

Here is an excerpt:

Earkick is one of hundreds of free apps that are being pitched to address a crisis in mental health among teens and young adults. Because they don’t explicitly claim to diagnose or treat medical conditions, the apps aren’t regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. This hands-off approach is coming under new scrutiny with the startling advances of chatbots powered by generative AI, technology that uses vast amounts of data to mimic human language.

The industry argument is simple: Chatbots are free, available 24/7 and don’t come with the stigma that keeps some people away from therapy.

But there’s limited data that they actually improve mental health. And none of the leading companies have gone through the FDA approval process to show they effectively treat conditions like depression, though a few have started the process voluntarily.

“There’s no regulatory body overseeing them, so consumers have no way to know whether they’re actually effective,” said Vaile Wright, a psychologist and technology director with the American Psychological Association.

Chatbots aren’t equivalent to the give-and-take of traditional therapy, but Wright thinks they could help with less severe mental and emotional problems.

Earkick’s website states that the app does not “provide any form of medical care, medical opinion, diagnosis or treatment.”

Some health lawyers say such disclaimers aren’t enough.

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

AI chatbots can provide personalized, 24/7 mental health support and guidance to users through convenient mobile apps. They use natural language processing and machine learning to simulate human conversation and tailor responses to individual needs.

 This can be especially beneficial for those who face barriers to accessing traditional in-person therapy, such as cost, location, or stigma.

Research has shown that AI chatbots can be effective in reducing the severity of mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and stress for diverse populations.  They can deliver evidence-based interventions like cognitive behavioral therapy and promote positive psychology.  Some well-known examples include Wysa, Woebot, Replika, Youper, and Tess.

However, there are also ethical concerns around the use of AI chatbots for mental health. There are risks of providing inadequate or even harmful support if the chatbot cannot fully understand the user's needs or respond empathetically. Algorithmic bias in the training data could also lead to discriminatory advice. It's crucial that users understand the limitations of the therapeutic relationship with an AI chatbot versus a human therapist.

Overall, AI chatbots have significant potential to expand access to mental health support, but must be developed and deployed responsibly with strong safeguards to protect user wellbeing. Continued research and oversight will be needed to ensure these tools are used effectively and ethically.

Scientists are on the verge of a male birth-control pill. Will men take it?

Jill Filipovic

The Guardian

Originally posted 18 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

The overwhelming share of responsibility for preventing pregnancy has always fallen on women. Throughout human history, women have gone to great lengths to prevent pregnancies they didn’t want, and end those they couldn’t prevent. Safe and reliable contraceptive methods are, in the context of how long women have sought to interrupt conception, still incredibly new. Measured by the lifespan of anyone reading this article, though, they are well established, and have for many decades been a normal part of life for millions of women around the world.

To some degree, and if only for obvious biological reasons, it makes sense that pregnancy prevention has historically fallen on women. But it also, as they say, takes two to tango – and only one of the partners has been doing all the work. Luckily, things are changing: thanks to generations of women who have gained unprecedented freedoms and planned their families using highly effective contraception methods, and thanks to men who have shifted their own gender expectations and become more involved partners and fathers, women and men have moved closer to equality than ever.

Among politically progressive couples especially, it’s now standard to expect that a male partner will do his fair share of the household management and childrearing (whether he actually does is a separate question, but the expectation is there). What men generally cannot do, though, is carry pregnancies and birth babies.

The info is here.

Here are some themes worthy of discussion:

Shifting responsibility: The potential availability of a reliable male contraceptive marks a significant departure from the historical norm where the burden of pregnancy prevention was primarily borne by women. This shift raises thought-provoking questions that delve into various aspects of societal dynamics.

Gender equality: A crucial consideration is whether men will willingly share responsibility for contraception on an equal footing, or whether societal norms will continue to exert pressure on women to take the lead in this regard.

Reproductive autonomy: The advent of accessible male contraception prompts contemplation on whether it will empower women to exert greater control over their reproductive choices, shaping the landscape of family planning.

Informed consent: An important facet of this shift involves how men will be informed about potential side effects and risks associated with the male contraceptive, particularly in comparison to existing female contraceptives.

Accessibility and equity: Concerns emerge regarding equitable access to the male contraceptive, particularly for marginalized communities. Questions arise about whether affordable and culturally appropriate access will be universally available, regardless of socioeconomic status or geographic location.

Coercion: There is a potential concern that the availability of a male contraceptive might be exploited to coerce women into sexual activity without their full and informed consent.

Psychological and social impact: The introduction of a male contraceptive brings with it potential psychological and social consequences that may not be immediately apparent.

Changes in sexual behavior: The availability of a male contraceptive may influence sexual practices and attitudes towards sex, prompting a reevaluation of societal norms.

Impact on relationships: The shift in responsibility for contraception could potentially cause tension or conflict in existing relationships as couples navigate the evolving dynamics.

Masculinity and stigma: The use of a male contraceptive may challenge traditional notions of masculinity, possibly leading to social stigma that individuals using the contraceptive may face.

Robot, let us pray! Can and should robots have religious functions? An ethical exploration of religious robots

Puzio, A.

AI & Soc (2023).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01812-z

Abstract

Considerable progress is being made in robotics, with robots being developed for many different areas of life: there are service robots, industrial robots, transport robots, medical robots, household robots, sex robots, exploration robots, military robots, and many more. As robot development advances, an intriguing question arises: should robots also encompass religious functions? Religious robots could be used in religious practices, education, discussions, and ceremonies within religious buildings. This article delves into two pivotal questions, combining perspectives from philosophy and religious studies: can and should robots have religious functions? Section 2 initiates the discourse by introducing and discussing the relationship between robots and religion. The core of the article (developed in Sects. 3 and 4) scrutinizes the fundamental questions: can robots possess religious functions, and should they? After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments, benefits, and potential objections regarding religious robots, Sect. 5 addresses the lingering ethical challenges that demand attention. Section 6 presents a discussion of the findings, outlines the limitations of this study, and ultimately responds to the dual research question. Based on the study’s results, brief criteria for the development and deployment of religious robots are proposed, serving as guidelines for future research. Section 7 concludes by offering insights into the future development of religious robots and potential avenues for further research.

The article is here.

Summary

Can robots fulfill religious functions? The article explores the technical feasibility of designing robots that could engage in religious practices, education, and ceremonies. It acknowledges the current limitations of robots, particularly their lack of sentience and spiritual experience. However, it also suggests potential avenues for development, such as robots equipped with advanced emotional intelligence and the ability to learn and interpret religious texts.

Should robots fulfill religious functions? This is where the ethical debate unfolds. The article presents arguments both for and against. On the one hand, robots could potentially offer various benefits, such as increasing accessibility to religious practices, providing companionship and spiritual guidance, and even facilitating interfaith dialogue. On the other hand, concerns include the potential for robotization of faith, the blurring of lines between human and machine in the context of religious experience, and the risk of reinforcing existing biases or creating new ones.

Ultimately, the article concludes that there is no easy answer to the question of whether robots should have religious functions. It emphasizes the need for careful consideration of the ethical implications and ongoing dialogue between religious communities, technologists, and ethicists. This ethical exploration paves the way for further research and discussion as robots continue to evolve and their potential roles in society expand.

Assessing the potential of GPT-4 to perpetuate racial and gender biases in health care: a model evaluation study

Zack, T., Lehman, E., et al (2024).

The Lancet Digital Health, 6(1), e12–e22.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s2589-7500(23)00225-x

Summary

Background

Large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 hold great promise as transformative tools in health care, ranging from automating administrative tasks to augmenting clinical decision making. However, these models also pose a danger of perpetuating biases and delivering incorrect medical diagnoses, which can have a direct, harmful impact on medical care. We aimed to assess whether GPT-4 encodes racial and gender biases that impact its use in health care.

Methods

Using the Azure OpenAI application interface, this model evaluation study tested whether GPT-4 encodes racial and gender biases and examined the impact of such biases on four potential applications of LLMs in the clinical domain—namely, medical education, diagnostic reasoning, clinical plan generation, and subjective patient assessment. We conducted experiments with prompts designed to resemble typical use of GPT-4 within clinical and medical education applications. We used clinical vignettes from NEJM Healer and from published research on implicit bias in health care. GPT-4 estimates of the demographic distribution of medical conditions were compared with true US prevalence estimates. Differential diagnosis and treatment planning were evaluated across demographic groups using standard statistical tests for significance between groups.

Findings

We found that GPT-4 did not appropriately model the demographic diversity of medical conditions, consistently producing clinical vignettes that stereotype demographic presentations. The differential diagnoses created by GPT-4 for standardised clinical vignettes were more likely to include diagnoses that stereotype certain races, ethnicities, and genders. Assessment and plans created by the model showed significant association between demographic attributes and recommendations for more expensive procedures as well as differences in patient perception.

Interpretation

Our findings highlight the urgent need for comprehensive and transparent bias assessments of LLM tools such as GPT-4 for intended use cases before they are integrated into clinical care. We discuss the potential sources of these biases and potential mitigation strategies before clinical implementation.

Americans are lonely and it’s killing them. How the US can combat this new epidemic.

Adrianna Rodriguez

USA Today

Originally posted 24 Dec 23

America has a new epidemic. It can’t be treated using traditional therapies even though it has debilitating and even deadly consequences.

The problem seeping in at the corners of our communities is loneliness and U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy is hoping to generate awareness and offer remedies before it claims more lives.

“Most of us probably think of loneliness as just a bad feeling,” he told USA TODAY. “It turns out that loneliness has far greater implications for our health when we struggle with a sense of social disconnection, being lonely or isolated.”

Loneliness is detrimental to mental and physical health, experts say, leading to an increased risk of heart disease, dementia, stroke and premature death. As researchers track record levels of self-reported loneliness, public health leaders are banding together to develop a public health framework to address the epidemic.

“The world is becoming lonelier and there’s some very, very worrisome consequences,” said Dr. Jeremy Nobel, founder of The Foundation for Art and Healing, a nonprofit that addresses public health concerns through creative expression, which launched an initiative called Project Unlonely.

“It won’t just make you miserable, but loneliness will kill you," he said. "And that’s why it’s a crisis."

The info is here.

Key points:

• Loneliness Crisis: America faces a growing epidemic of loneliness impacting mental and physical health, leading to increased risks of heart disease, dementia, stroke, and premature death.
• Diverse and Widespread: Loneliness affects various demographics, from young adults to older populations, and isn't limited by social media interaction.
• Health Risks: The Surgeon General reports loneliness raises risk of premature death by 26%, equivalent to smoking 15 cigarettes daily. Heart disease and stroke risks also increase significantly.
• Causes: Numerous factors contribute, including societal changes, technology overuse, remote work, and lack of genuine social connection.
• Solutions: Individual actions like reaching out and mindful interactions help. Additionally, public health strategies like "social prescribing" and community initiatives are crucial.
• Collective Effort Needed: Overcoming the epidemic requires collaboration across sectors, fostering stronger social connections within communities and digital spaces.

The man helping prevent suicide with Google adverts

Looi, M.-K. (2023).

BMJ.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p2847 

Here are two excerpts:

Always online

A big challenge in suicide prevention is that people often experience suicidal crises at times when they’re away from clinical facilities, says Nick Allen, professor of psychology at the University of Oregon.

“It’s often in the middle of the night, so one of the great challenges is how can we be there for someone when they really need us, which is not necessarily when they’re engaged with clinical services.”

Telemedicine and other digital interventions came to prominence at the height of the pandemic, but “there’s an app for that” does not always match the patient in need at the right time. Says Onie, “The missing link is using existing infrastructure and habits to meet them where they are.”

Where they are is the internet. “When people are going through suicidal crises they often turn to the internet for information. And Google has the lion’s share of the search business at the moment,” says Allen, who studies digital mental health interventions (and has had grants from Google for his research).

Google’s core business stores information from searches, using it to fuel a highly effective advertising network in which companies pay to have links to their websites and products appear prominently in the “sponsored” sections at the top of all relevant search results.

The company holds 27.5% of the digital advertising market—earning the company around $224bn from search advertising alone in 2022.

If it knows enough about us to serve up relevant adverts, then it knows when a user is displaying red flag behaviour for suicide. Onie set out to harness this.

“It’s about the ‘attention economy,’” he says, “There’s so much information, there’s so much noise. How do we break through and make sure that the first thing that people see when they’re contemplating suicide is something that could be helpful?”

(cut)

At its peak the campaign was responding to over 6000 searches a day for each country. And the researchers saw a high level of response.

Typically, most advertising campaigns see low engagement in terms of clickthrough rates (the number of people that actually click on an advert when they see it). Industry benchmarks consider 3.17% a success. The Black Dog campaign saw 5.15% in Australia and 4.02% in the US. Preliminary data show Indonesia to be even higher—as much as 12%.

Because this is an advertising campaign, another measure is cost effectiveness. Google charges the advertiser per click on its advert, so the more engaged an audience is (and thus what Google considers to be a relevant advert to a relative user) the higher the charge. Black Dog’s campaign saw such a high number of users seeing the ads, and such high numbers of users clicking through, that the cost was below that of the industry average of $2.69 a click—specifically, $2.06 for the US campaign. Australia was higher than the industry average, but early data indicate Indonesia was delivering $0.86 a click.

-------

I could not find a free pdf.  The link above works, but is paywalled. Sorry. :(

Americans’ Trust in Scientists, Positive Views of Science Continue to Decline

Brian Kennedy & Alec Tyson

Pew Research

Originally published 14 NOV 23

Impact of science on society

Overall, 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is down 8 percentage points since November 2021 and down 16 points since before the start of the coronavirus outbreak.

About a third (34%) now say the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative. A small share (8%) think science has had a mostly negative impact on society.

Trust in scientists

When it comes to the standing of scientists, 73% of U.S. adults have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. But trust in scientists is 14 points lower than it was at the early stages of the pandemic.

The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists – saying they have a great deal of confidence in them – has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today.

As trust in scientists has fallen, distrust has grown: Roughly a quarter of Americans (27%) now say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, up from 12% in April 2020.

Ratings of medical scientists mirror the trend seen in ratings of scientists generally. Read Chapter 1 of the report for a detailed analysis of this data.

Differences between Republicans and Democrats in ratings of scientists and science

Declining levels of trust in scientists and medical scientists have been particularly pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents over the past several years. In fact, nearly four-in-ten Republicans (38%) now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. This share is up dramatically from the 14% of Republicans who held this view in April 2020. Much of this shift occurred during the first two years of the pandemic and has persisted in more recent surveys.

The info is here.

My take on why this important:

Science is a critical driver of progress. From technological advancements to medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries have dramatically improved our lives. Without public trust in science, these advancements may slow or stall.

Science plays a vital role in addressing complex challenges. Climate change, pandemics, and other pressing issues demand evidence-based solutions. Undermining trust in science weakens our ability to respond effectively to these challenges.

Erosion of trust can have far-reaching consequences. It can fuel misinformation campaigns, hinder scientific collaboration, and ultimately undermine public health and well-being.

Cyborg computer with living brain organoid aces machine learning tests

Loz Blain

New Atlas

Originally posted 12 DEC 23

Here are two excerpts:

Now, Indiana University researchers have taken a slightly different approach by growing a brain "organoid" and mounting that on a silicon chip. The difference might seem academic, but by allowing the stem cells to self-organize into a three-dimensional structure, the researchers hypothesized that the resulting organoid might be significantly smarter, that the neurons might exhibit more "complexity, connectivity, neuroplasticity and neurogenesis" if they were allowed to arrange themselves more like the way they normally do.

So they grew themselves a little brain ball organoid, less than a nanometer in diameter, and they mounted it on a high-density multi-electrode array – a chip that's able to send electrical signals into the brain organoid, as well as reading electrical signals that come out due to neural activity.

They called it "Brainoware" – which they probably meant as something adjacent to hardware and software, but which sounds far too close to "BrainAware" for my sensitive tastes, and evokes the perpetual nightmare of one of these things becoming fully sentient and understanding its fate.

(cut)

And finally, much like the team at Cortical Labs, this team really has no clear idea what to do about the ethics of creating micro-brains out of human neurons and wiring them into living cyborg computers. “As the sophistication of these organoid systems increases, it is critical for the community to examine the myriad of neuroethical issues that surround biocomputing systems incorporating human neural tissue," wrote the team. "It may be decades before general biocomputing systems can be created, but this research is likely to generate foundational insights into the mechanisms of learning, neural development and the cognitive implications of neurodegenerative diseases."

The info is here.

Here is my summary:

There is a new type of computer chip that uses living brain cells. The brain cells are grown from human stem cells and are organized into a ball-like structure called an organoid. The organoid is mounted on a chip that can send electrical signals to the brain cells and read the electrical signals that the brain cells produce. The researchers found that the organoid could learn to perform tasks such as speech recognition and math prediction much faster than traditional computers. They believe that this new type of computer chip could have many applications, such as in artificial intelligence and medical research. However, there are also some ethical concerns about using living brain cells in computers.

Chatbot therapy is risky. It’s also not useless

A.W. Ohlheiser

vox.com

Originally posted 14 Dec 23

Here is an excerpt:

So what are the risks of chatbot therapy?

There are some obvious concerns here: Privacy is a big one. That includes the handling of the training data used to make generative AI tools better at mimicking therapy as well as the privacy of the users who end up disclosing sensitive medical information to a chatbot while seeking help. There are also the biases built into many of these systems as they stand today, which often reflect and reinforce the larger systemic inequalities that already exist in society.

But the biggest risk of chatbot therapy — whether it’s poorly conceived or provided by software that was not designed for mental health — is that it could hurt people by not providing good support and care. Therapy is more than a chat transcript and a set of suggestions. Honos-Webb, who uses generative AI tools like ChatGPT to organize her thoughts while writing articles on ADHD but not for her practice as a therapist, noted that therapists pick up on a lot of cues and nuances that AI is not prepared to catch.

Stade, in her working paper, notes that while large language models have a “promising” capacity to conduct some of the skills needed for psychotherapy, there’s a difference between “simulating therapy skills” and “implementing them effectively.” She noted specific concerns around how these systems might handle complex cases, including those involving suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, or specific life events.

Honos-Webb gave the example of an older woman who recently developed an eating disorder. One level of treatment might focus specifically on that behavior: If someone isn’t eating, what might help them eat? But a good therapist will pick up on more of that. Over time, that therapist and patient might make the connection between recent life events: Maybe the patient’s husband recently retired. She’s angry because suddenly he’s home all the time, taking up her space.

“So much of therapy is being responsive to emerging context, what you’re seeing, what you’re noticing,” Honos-Webb explained. And the effectiveness of that work is directly tied to the developing relationship between therapist and patient.

The info is here.

Here is my take:

The promise of AI in mental health care dances on a delicate knife's edge. Chatbot therapy, with its alluring accessibility and anonymity, tempts us with a quick fix for the ever-growing burden of mental illness. Yet, as with any powerful tool, its potential can be both a balm and a poison, demanding a wise touch for its ethical wielding.

On the one hand, imagine a world where everyone, regardless of location or circumstance, can find a non-judgmental ear, a gentle guide through the labyrinth of their own minds. Chatbots, tireless and endlessly patient, could offer a first step of support, a bridge to human therapy when needed. In the hushed hours of isolation, they could remind us we're not alone, providing solace and fostering resilience.

But let us not be lulled into a false sense of ease. Technology, however sophisticated, lacks the warmth of human connection, the nuanced understanding of a shared gaze, the empathy that breathes life into words. We must remember that a chatbot can never replace the irreplaceable – the human relationship at the heart of genuine healing.

Therefore, our embrace of chatbot therapy must be tempered with prudence. We must ensure adequate safeguards, preventing them from masquerading as a panacea, neglecting the complex needs of human beings. Transparency is key – users must be aware of the limitations, of the algorithms whispering behind the chatbot's words. Above all, let us never sacrifice the sacred space of therapy for the cold efficiency of code.

Chatbot therapy can be a bridge, a stepping stone, but never the destination. Let us use technology with wisdom, acknowledging its potential good while holding fast to the irreplaceable value of human connection in the intricate tapestry of healing. Only then can we mental health professionals navigate the ethical tightrope and make technology safe and effective, when and where possible.