MIT Lincoln Laboratory has established a new research and development division, the Biotechnology and Human Systems Division. The division will address emerging threats to both national security and humanity. Research and development will encompass advanced technologies and systems for improving chemical and biological defense, human health and performance, and global resilience to climate change, conflict, and disasters. "We strongly believe that research and development in biology, biomedical systems, biological defense, and human systems is a critically important part of national and global security. The new division will focus on improving human conditions on many fronts," says Eric Evans, Lincoln Laboratory director.

Written by Camylle Lanteigne (@CamLante), who's currently pursuing a Master's in Public Policy at Concordia University and whose work on social robots and empathy has been featured on Vox. This explainer was written in response to colleagues' requests to know more about temporal bias in AI ethics. It begins with a refresher on cognitive biases, then dives into: how humans understand time, time preferences, present-day preference, confidence changes, planning fallacies, and hindsight bias. Bias is a really big topic, but I'll try to succinctly define a subsection of it--implicit cognitive bias--in a way that is useful for AI ethics, particularly. Humans have cognitive biases, which means every one of us, to varying degrees, holds beliefs and impressions that are not backed up by fleshed out reasoning or evidence, or that we never bothered questioning in the first place.¹

For humans and automation to effectively collaborate and perform tasks, all participants need access to a common representation of potentially relevant situational information, or context. This article describes a general framework for building context-aware interactive intelligent systems that comprises three major functions: (1) capture human-system interactions and infer implicit context; (2) analyze and predict user intent and goals; and (3) provide effective augmentation or mitigation strategies to improve performance, such as delivering timely, personalized information and recommendations, adjusting levels of automation, or adapting visualizations. Our goal is to develop an approach that enables humans to interact with automation more intuitively and naturally that is reusable across domains by modeling context and algorithms at a higher-level of abstraction. We first provide an operational definition of context and discuss challenges and opportunities for exploiting context. We then describe our current work towards a general platform that supports developing context-aware applications in a variety of domains.

Developing cognitive agents with human-level natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities requires modeling human cognition because natural, unedited utterances regularly contain ambiguities, ellipses, production errors, implicatures, and many other types of complexities. Moreover, cognitive agents must be nimble in the face of incomplete interpretations since even people do not perfectly understand every aspect of every utterance they hear. So, once an agent has reached the best interpretation it can, it must determine how to proceed – be that acting upon the new information directly, remembering an incomplete interpretation and waiting to see what happens next, seeking out information to fill in the blanks, or asking its interlocutor for clarification. The reasoning needed to support NLU extends far beyond language itself, including, non-exhaustively, the agent's understanding of its own plans and goals; its dynamic modeling of its interlocutor's knowledge, plans, and goals, all guided by a theory of mind; its recognition of diverse aspects human behavior, such as affect, cooperative behavior, and the effects of cognitive biases; and its integration of linguistic interpretations with its interpretations of other perceptive inputs, such as simulated vision and non-linguistic audition. Considering all of these needs, it seems hardly possible that fundamental NLU will ever be achieved through the kinds of knowledge-lean text-string manipulation being pursued by the mainstream natural language processing (NLP) community. Instead, it requires a holistic approach to cognitive modeling of the type we are pursuing in a paradigm called OntoAgent.

Don Lemon reacts to President Trump's RNC speech, points blame at Trump voters. CNN anchor Don Lemon went after Trump voters yet again following the president's speech at the Republican National Convention Thursday, saying they must suffer from "cognitive dissonance" to support someone Lemon described as a "bad person." Lemon's colleague Chris Cuomo had told him that the president's supporters had concluded that despite Trump's flaws, "Joe Biden will be worse" for the country. Cuomo theorized that Trump's voters are willing to "forgive" Trump's wrongdoings rather than vote for the Democrat. "I think you're letting them off easy," Lemon responded.

Artificial intelligence technology can tell doctors when a scan reveals a tumor, can help the military distinguish between a truck and a school bus as a target, and can answer a high volume of college students' questions. Sectors of our economy such as the military, health care, and higher education are much further along than the K-12 system in incorporating artificial intelligence systems and machine learning into their operations. And many of those uses--even when they are not specifically for education--can spark ideas for applications in K-12 that may be more pertinent than ever imagined. With the coronavirus upending traditional ways of delivering education, AI technologies--which are designed to model human intelligence and solve complex problems--may be able to help with logistical challenges such as busing and classroom social distancing, provide support to overwhelmed teachers, and glean new information about remote learning. AI techniques and systems are "like the internal combustion engine--you can use them to power a lot of different things," said David Danks, a professor of philosophy and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, who studies cognitive science, machine learning, and how AI affects people.

Recently, I was reading Rolf Dobell''s The Art of Thinking Clearly, which made me think about cognitive biases in a way I never had before. I realized how deeply seated some cognitive biases are. In fact, we often don't even consciously realize when our thinking is being affected by one. For data scientists, these biases can really change the way we work with data and make our day-to-day decisions, and generally not for the better. Data science is, despite the seeming objectivity of all the facts we work with, surprisingly subjective in its processes.

Recently, I was reading Rolf Dobell''s The Art of Thinking Clearly, which made me think about cognitive biases in a way I never had before. I realized how deeply seated some cognitive biases are. In fact, we often don't even consciously realize when our thinking is being affected by one. For data scientists, these biases can really change the way we work with data and make our day-to-day decisions, and generally not for the better. Data science is, despite the seeming objectivity of all the facts we work with, surprisingly subjective in its processes.

We develop a human-centred, cognitive model of visuospatial complexity in everyday, naturalistic driving conditions. With a focus on visual perception, the model incorporates quantitative, structural, and dynamic attributes identifiable in the chosen context; the human-centred basis of the model lies in its behavioural evaluation with human subjects with respect to psychophysical measures pertaining to embodied visuoauditory attention. We report preliminary steps to apply the developed cognitive model of visuospatial complexity for human-factors guided dataset creation and benchmarking, and for its use as a semantic template for the (explainable) computational analysis of visuospatial complexity.

Framed in positive terms, this report examines how technical AI research might be steered in a manner that is more attentive to humanity's long-term prospects for survival as a species. In negative terms, we ask what existential risks humanity might face from AI development in the next century, and by what principles contemporary technical research might be directed to address those risks. A key property of hypothetical AI technologies is introduced, called \emph{prepotence}, which is useful for delineating a variety of potential existential risks from artificial intelligence, even as AI paradigms might shift. A set of \auxref{dirtot} contemporary research \directions are then examined for their potential benefit to existential safety. Each research direction is explained with a scenario-driven motivation, and examples of existing work from which to build. The research directions present their own risks and benefits to society that could occur at various scales of impact, and in particular are not guaranteed to benefit existential safety if major developments in them are deployed without adequate forethought and oversight. As such, each direction is accompanied by a consideration of potentially negative side effects.