@book{TheodorouBrysonBandtLaw, author = {Theodorou, Andreas and Bryson, Joanna and Bandt-Law, Bryn}, title = {The Sustainability Game: AI Technology as an Intervention for Public Understanding of Cooperative Investment}, series = {IEEE CONFERENCE ON GAMES (COG)[8848058] IEEE}, journal = {IEEE CONFERENCE ON GAMES (COG)[8848058] IEEE}, isbn = {9781728118840}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {Cooperative behaviour is a fundamental strategy for survival; it positively affects economies, social relationships, and makes larger societal structures possible. People vary, however, in their willingness to engage in cooperative behaviour in a particular context. Here we examine whether AI can be effectively used to to alter individuals' implicit understanding of cooperative dynamics, and hence increase cooperation and participation in public goods projects. We developed an intervention---the Sustainability Game (SG)---to allow players to experience the consequences of individual investment strategies on a sustainable society. \%, when personal well being, communal space, and resources limitations are taken into consideration. Results show that the intervention significantly increases individuals' cooperative behaviour in partially anonymised public goods contexts, but enhances competition one-on-one. This indicates our intervention does improve transparency of the systemic consequences of individual cooperative behaviour.}, language = {en} } @incollection{WorthamBryson, author = {Wortham, Robert H. and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Communication}, series = {Living Machines: A Handbook of Research in Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems}, booktitle = {Living Machines: A Handbook of Research in Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems}, editor = {Prescott (et al.), Tony J.}, isbn = {9780199674923}, doi = {10.1093/oso/9780199674923.003.0033}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {312 -- 326}, abstract = {From a traditional engineering perspective, communication is about effecting control over a distance, and its primary concern is the reliability of transmission. This chapter reviews communication in nature, describing its evolution from the perspective of the selfish gene. Communication in nature is ubiquitous and generally honest, and arises as much from collaboration as manipulation. We show that context and relevance allow effective communication with little information transfer, particularly between organisms with similar capacities and goals. Human language differs fundamentally from the non-verbal communication we share with other animals; robots may need to accommodate both. We document progress in AI capacities to generate synthetic emotion and to sense and classify human emotion. Communication in contemporary biomimetic systems is between robots in swarm robotics, but also between robot and human for both autonomous and collaborative systems. We suggest increased future emphasis on capacities to receive and comprehend signs, and on the pragmatic utility of communication and cooperation.}, language = {en} } @techreport{BrysonStewartMcCarty, type = {Working Paper}, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Stewart, Alexander J. and McCarty, Nolan}, title = {Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:b1570-opus4-36522}, abstract = {Social and political polarization is a significant source of conflict and poor governance in many societies. Understanding its causes has become a priority of scholars across many disciplines. Here we demonstrate that shifts in socialization strategies analogous to political polarization and identity politics can arise as a locally-beneficial response to both rising wealth inequality and economic decline. Adopting the perspective of cultural evolution, we develop a framework to study the emergence of polarization under shifting economic environments. In many contexts, interaction with diverse out-groups confers benefits from innovation and exploration greater than those that arise from interacting exclusively with a homogeneous in-group. However, when the economic environment favors risk-aversion, a strategy of seeking lower-risk interactions can be important to maintaining individual solvency. To capture this dynamic, we assume that in-group interactions have a lower expected outcome than out-group interactions, but also one that is more certain. Thus in-group interactions are less risky than out-group interactions. Our model shows that under conditions of economic decline or increasing wealth inequality, some members of the population benefit from adopting a risk-averse, in-group favoring strategy. Moreover, we show that such in-group polarization can spread rapidly to the whole population and persist even when the conditions that produced it have reversed. Finally we offer empirical support for the role of income inequality as a contributor to affective polarization in the United States. Our work provides a framework for studying how disparate forces interplay, via cultural evolution, to shape patterns of identity, and unifies what are often seen as conflicting explanations for political polarization: identity threat and economic anxiety.}, language = {en} } @article{StewartMcCartyBryson, author = {Stewart, Alexander J. and McCarty, Nolan and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline}, series = {Science Advances}, volume = {6}, journal = {Science Advances}, number = {50}, doi = {10.1126/sciadv.abd4201}, abstract = {Social and political polarization is an important source of conflict in many societies. Understanding its causes has become a priority of scholars across disciplines. We demonstrate that shifts in socialization strategies analogous to political polarization can arise as a locally beneficial response to both rising wealth inequality and economic decline. In many contexts, interaction with diverse out-groups confers benefits from innovation and exploration greater than those that arise from interacting exclusively with a homogeneous in-group. However, when the economic environment favors risk aversion, a strategy of seeking lower-risk in-group interactions can be important to maintaining individual solvency. Our model shows that under conditions of economic decline or increasing inequality, some members of the population benefit from adopting a risk-averse, in-group favoring strategy. Moreover, we show that such in-group polarization can spread rapidly to the whole population and persist even when the conditions that produced it have reversed.}, language = {en} } @article{BrysonMalikova, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Malikova, Helena}, title = {Is There an AI Cold War?}, series = {Global Perspectives}, volume = {2}, journal = {Global Perspectives}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1525/gp.2021.24803}, abstract = {Regulation is a means societies use to create the stability, public goods, and infrastructure they need to thrive securely. This policy brief is intended to both document and to address claims of a new AI cold war: a binary competition between the United States and China that is too important for other powers to either ignore or truly participate in directly, beyond taking sides. We argue that while some of the claims of this narrative are based at least in part on genuine security concerns and important unknowns, evidence for its extreme binary nature is lacking. This absence of factual evidence is concerning, because related geopolitical tensions may be used to interfere with regulation of AI and agencies associated with its development. Here we first document and then analyze the extremely bipolar picture prominent policymakers and political commentators have been recently painting of the AI technological situation, portraying China and the United States as the only two global powers. We then examine the plausibility of these claims using two measures: internationally registered AI patents and the market capitalization of the companies that hold them. These two measures, while each somewhat arbitrary and imperfect, are often deployed in the context of the binary narrative and can therefore be seen as conservative choices in that they should favor exactly the "champions" of that narrative. In fact, these measures do not produce bipolar results: Chinese capacity has been exaggerated and that of other global regions deprecated. These findings call into question the motivation behind the documented claims, though they also further illuminate the uncertainty concerning digital technology security. We recommend that all parties engage in contributing to a safe, secure, and transparent regulatory landscape.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BrysonEisenlauer, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Eisenlauer, Martin}, title = {Artificial Intelligence and ethics}, series = {Faster than the Future}, booktitle = {Faster than the Future}, publisher = {Digital Future Society}, address = {Barcelona}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {57 -- 73}, language = {en} } @article{HaatajaBryson, author = {Haataja, Meeri and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Reflections on the EU's AI Act and How We Could Make It Even Better}, series = {TechREG™ Chronicle}, journal = {TechREG™ Chronicle}, number = {March 2022}, editor = {Sadden, Samuel and Leyden, Andrew}, abstract = {Jurisdictions around the world are preparing regulations for artificial intelligence, as investments in AI technologies continue to increase as a source of efficiency and innovation for companies and governments. One of the most influential regulative proposals for AI is that proposed by the European Commission in April 2021, the "AI Act." The EU's proposed regulation has already inspired some international regulative proposals and is likely to broadly impact AI policies around the world. Yet the Act is still in process, it's strengths could be compromised, or it's weaknesses addressed. In this piece, we analyze the core policy concepts of the AI Act, with focus both on those worth amending and defending. These discussions may provide valuable elements for other regions beyond the EU to consider for their own AI policy. While the AI Act could still be improved to make it even more robust in managing AI-related risks to health, safety, and fundamental rights, and to increase incentives to industry to take actions beneficial to both itself and others, overall we applaud this act.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Europe Is in Danger of Using the Wrong Definition of AI}, series = {Wired}, journal = {Wired}, abstract = {Some intelligent systems are at risk of being excluded from oversight in the EU's proposed legislation. This is bad for both businesses and citizens.}, language = {en} } @incollection{DempseyMcBrideHaatajaetal., author = {Dempsey, Mark and McBride, Keegan and Haataja, Meeri and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Transnational Digital Governance and Its Impact on Artificial Intelligence}, series = {The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance}, booktitle = {The Oxford Handbook of AI Governance}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, address = {Oxford}, isbn = {9780197579329}, doi = {10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197579329.013.16}, publisher = {Hertie School}, abstract = {The rapid pace of technological advancement and innovation has put existing governance and regulatory mechanisms to the test. There is a clear need for new and innovative regulatory mechanisms that enable governments to successfully manage the integration of digital technologies into our societies, and to ensure that such integration occurs in a sustainable, beneficial, and just manner. Artificial Intelligence (AI) stands out as one of the most debated of such innovations. What exactly is it, how should it be built and deployed, how can it be used, and how should it be regulated? Yet across the period of this debate, AI is becoming widely used and addressed within existing, evolving, and bespoke regulatory contexts. The present chapter explores the extant governance of AI and, in particular, what is arguably the most successful AI regulatory approach to date, that of the European Union. The chapter explores core definitional concepts, shared understandings, values, and approaches currently in play. It argues that not only are the Union's regulations locally effective, but, due to the so-called "Brussels effect," regulatory initiatives within the European Union also have a much broader global impact. As such, they warrant close consideration.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Robot, all too human}, series = {XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students}, volume = {25}, journal = {XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students}, number = {3}, doi = {10.1145/3313131}, pages = {56 -- 59}, abstract = {Advanced robotics and artificial intelligence systems present a new challenge to human identity.}, language = {en} }