research collaboration

Call for Collaboration on the paper: “Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps”

The paper on “Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps”[1] was submitted to the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society.

One of the main issues discussed in the paper is the investment in research and knowledge which is a process of putting an effort and paying costs in a few dimensions like time, money, emotional cost and more, with a hope to discover something we did not know. The process of investment in knowledge also involves a risk that is the risk of failure since failure makes all the costs paid for nothing. Real knowledge, most of the time cannot be obtained without failures along the way, since acquiring knowledge and making progress toward some unknown goal is a process of trying, searching, asking and answering and implementing the obtained experience from many failures in a right or better way. In many cases, publishing failures are much more important than publishing success. The logic is simple; if we are doing research aiming to discover an unknown or unfamiliar observations/knowledge, the things that we find out along the way that are wrong are the only things that we actually know (recall, we are on the search for what we do not know). We make a process of learning what is wrong on our way to discover what we do not know -—> So publishing and admitting our failures is the way to help ourselves and the community to improve the way we act. Publishing failures help to choose the right direction and not waste our or our colleagues time on paths with dead-ends.

I know 4 languages, which allows me to communicate with about 50% of the people in the world. However, I have grammar issues and an accent in all of them 🙂

I must admit my problem, I concentrate on the essence, on the core of ideas, which makes the grammar for me an obstacle rather than the cause. This is a paradox since the focus on what is essential practically makes me fail to reach it and deliver my ideas. In my paper on “value-driven landmarks for oversubscription planning,”[2] I treat this paradox. I propose planning and problem-solving (domain independent) approach with a focus on values and landmarks along the way rather than goals. In all the tested benchmarks, in practice, and in theory, relaxing the focus on goals allows us to reach our goals more effectively and more efficiently. This is the paradox of goals.

I have grammar mistakes and language issues that takes the attention of my readers from the essence, the idea, the goal behind my paper and at the end of my words. I fall again and again into the paradox I am trying to solve — I am trying to explain the importance of the process to reach our goals with grammar mistakes, which hold the process and make my goals hard to get.

The feedback regarding my lousy grammar is part of many of my works, and I am familiar with that weakness of mine since school. My teacher in school told me “Your ideas are great, but you have grammar issues,” Thank you, my teacher, now what? What is more important, the idea or grammar? Can you be more specific, please? would you show me the way to fix a mistake and deliver the idea? And if this grammar issue is a bug which is hard to fix what do we do with the ideas?

I am looking for a collaboration to improve and publish that paper, to improve myself and fit into the hard borders of academic research, definitions and grammar strictness. I must say that taking research society perspective, I must stress that academic research community is also in a paradox — the paradox of focus on definitions on the way to discover what not have been defined yet.

Bellow is my paper abstract, version 1 of the paper with reviews, and version 2 of my article that treat some issues mentioned by the reviewers. The reviews raise a problem, but the feedback is not effective with concern to future progress, which makes it hard for me to create a utility from failure.

I fixed some language issues and call for collaboration to make progress with the ideas. I would be happy to have any input, thoughts or guidance to improve the work and target it to the right audience, and would be glad to publish with a mentor\s or a partner\s.

Paper Abstract

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) decision-making and autonomous systems became an integrated part of the economy, industry, and society. The evolving economy of the human-AI ecosystem raising concerns regarding the risks and values inherited in AI systems. This paper investigates the dynamics of creation and exchange of values and points out gaps in perception of cost-value, knowledge, space and time dimensions. It shows aspects of value bias in human perception of achievements and costs that encoded in AI systems. It also proposes rethinking hard goals definitions and cost-optimal problem-solving principles in the lens of effectiveness and efficiency in the development of trusted machines. The paper suggests a value-driven with cost awareness strategy and principles for problem-solving and planning of effective research progress to address real-world problems that involve diverse forms of achievements, investments, and survival scenarios.

AIES 2019 REVIEWS

The reviews below are for the first version of the paper that is available here: Version # 1.

Many of the language-related errors fixed in version # 2

*A personal request from reviewer 1, I would love to work with you on that paper, please be my guide and co-author.

—————— REVIEW 1 ———————
PAPER: 234
TITLE: Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps
AUTHORS: Daniel Muller

Overall evaluation: -2 (reject)

———– Overall evaluation ———–
This paper presents a high level analysis the dynamic of exchange of values mostly in the context of autonomous decision making.
One of the most interesting points made in the paper is the introduction of the value-cost tradeoff. The work presented appears to be at a very preliminary a mostly conceptual stage. Moreover, the paper needs major revision from a language stand point. Several sentences are missing verbs and punctuation is not consistent. This make it really hard to following the reasoning behind what is being presented.

———————– REVIEW 2 ———————
PAPER: 234
TITLE: Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps
AUTHORS: Daniel Muller

Overall evaluation: -2 (reject)

———– Overall evaluation ———–
This paper presents itself as very messy, and largely unstructured. Here and there, there are certainly good ideas, but overall the paper is not ready to be accepted. The narrative is not clear, there is no clear context.

———————– REVIEW 3 ———————
PAPER: 234
TITLE: Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gaps
AUTHORS: Daniel Muller

Overall evaluation: -3 (strong reject)

———– Overall evaluation ———–

This paper is not appropriate for publication. It’s a collection of unrelated, unstructured paragraphs, and it is really hard to understand what it is really about.

[1] D. Muller, “Economics of human-ai ecosystem: value bias and lost utility in multi-dimensional gap,” Arxiv preprint arxiv:1811.06606, 2018.
[Bibtex]
@article{mullerEconomicsHAI2018,
title={Economics of Human-AI Ecosystem: Value Bias and Lost Utility in Multi-Dimensional Gap},
author={Muller, Daniel},
journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.06606},
year={2018}
}
[2] D. Muller and E. Karpas, “Value driven landmarks for oversubscription planning.,” in Icaps, 2018.
[Bibtex]
@inproceedings{muller:Karpas:icaps18,
title={Value Driven Landmarks for Oversubscription Planning.},
author={Muller, Daniel and Karpas, Erez},
booktitle={ICAPS},
year={2018}
}

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *