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.

Traditionally, economists have focused on a rational decision maker - the "homo economicus" - to model human behavior. The observation of various deviations of behavior from the benchmark of optimizing rational decision making has motivated an entire field, behavioral economics. Research in this field has identified a plethora of different, partly distinct and partly interacting, behavioral biases, which are related to cognitive limitations, stress, limited memory, preference anomalies, and social interactions, among others. These biases are typically established by comparing actual behavior against a theoretical benchmark, often in simplistic, unrealistic, or abstract settings that are unfamiliar to the decision makers. Field evidence for behavioral biases among professionals is still scarce, mostly because of the difficulty to establish a rational benchmark in complex real-world settings. Consequently, most contributions focus on documenting a behavioral deviation in one particular dimension. This makes it often difficult to compare the behavioral biases documented in the literature. Moreover, deviations from rational behavior are usually seen as being related to suboptimal performance. However, this connotation often rests on a priori reasoning or value judgments because it is typically even harder or impossible to identify the consequences of deviations from the rational benchmark than the deviations themselves.

People around the world enjoy "virtual human" characters, whether in Hollywood films, Japanese anime, or video games. In recent years, AI-powered virtual humans have increasingly insinuated themselves into our daily lives. The virtual pop icon Teresa Teng has performed songs with Taiwanese singer Jay Chou, achieving huge success. The popular Chinese debate show "I CAN I BB" hosted a spirited episode on whether "Falling in love with an AI human can be considered true love or not," where many people argued it is possible for a human to fall in love with an AI. Are there limits to such human-machine relationships?

Our central goal is to quantify the long-term progression of pediatric neurological diseases, such as a typical 10-15 years progression of child dystonia. To this purpose, quantitative models are convincing only if they can provide multi-scale details ranging from neuron spikes to limb biomechanics. The models also need to be evaluated in hyper-time, i.e. significantly faster than real-time, for producing useful predictions. We designed a platform with digital VLSI hardware for multi-scale hyper-time emulations of human motor nervous systems. The platform is constructed on a scalable, distributed array of Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) devices.

Predicting the behavior of human participants in strategic settings is an important problem in many domains. Most existing work either assumes that participants are perfectly rational, or attempts to directly model each participant's cognitive processes based on insights from cognitive psychology and experimental economics. In this work, we present an alternative, a deep learning approach that automatically performs cognitive modeling without relying on such expert knowledge. We introduce a novel architecture that allows a single network to generalize across different input and output dimensions by using matrix units rather than scalar units, and show that its performance significantly outperforms that of the previous state of the art, which relies on expert-constructed features. Papers published at the Neural Information Processing Systems Conference.

Is your friendship circle ready for a virtual human? AI is getting better and better by the day, and as technological advancements are made it's becoming increasingly popular. Still, it's early days and we've yet to see the full potential of this exciting technology. However, Samsung recently debuted artificial humans called Neons, who scarily resemble the real thing. Has the age of virtual humans arrived?

Cognitive biases are widely accepted as something that makes us human. Every day, systematic errors in our thought process impact the way we live and work. But in a world where everything we do is changing rapidly--from the way we store information to the way we watch TV--what really classifies as rational thinking? It's a question with no right or wrong answer, but to help us decide for ourselves, today's infographic from TitleMax lists 50 cognitive biases that we may want to become privy to. In the name of self-awareness, here's a closer look at three recently discovered biases that we are most prone to exhibiting in the modern world.

In order to collaborate safely and efficiently, robots need to anticipate how their human partners will behave. Some of today's robots model humans as if they were also robots, and assume users are always optimal. Other robots account for human limitations, and relax this assumption so that the human is noisily rational. Both of these models make sense when the human receives deterministic rewards: i.e., gaining either $100 or $130 with certainty. But in real world scenarios, rewards are rarely deterministic. Instead, we must make choices subject to risk and uncertainty--and in these settings, humans exhibit a cognitive bias towards suboptimal behavior. For example, when deciding between gaining $100 with certainty or $130 only 80% of the time, people tend to make the risk-averse choice--even though it leads to a lower expected gain! In this paper, we adopt a well-known Risk-Aware human model from behavioral economics called Cumulative Prospect Theory and enable robots to leverage this model during human-robot interaction (HRI). In our user studies, we offer supporting evidence that the Risk-Aware model more accurately predicts suboptimal human behavior. We find that this increased modeling accuracy results in safer and more efficient human-robot collaboration. Overall, we extend existing rational human models so that collaborative robots can anticipate and plan around suboptimal human behavior during HRI.