@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} } @techreport{WangRichardsDorusetal., type = {Working Paper}, author = {Wang, Yifei and Richards, Marios and Dorus, Steve and Priest, Nicholas and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Compensatory mutation can drive gene regulatory network evolution}, series = {bioRxiv}, journal = {bioRxiv}, doi = {10.1101/2019.12.18.881276}, abstract = {Gene regulatory networks underlie every aspect of life; better understanding their assembly would better our understanding of evolution more generally. For example, evolutionary theory typically assumed that low-fitness intermediary pathways are not a significant factor in evolution, yet there is substantial empirical evidence of compensatory mutation. Here we revise theoretical assumptions to explore the possibility that compensatory mutation may drive rapid evolutionary recovery. Using a well-established in silico model of gene regulatory networks, we show that assuming only that deleterious mutations are not fatal, compensatory mutation is surprisingly frequent. Further, we find that it entails biases that drive the evolution of regulatory pathways. In our simulations, we find compensatory mutation to be common during periods of relaxed selection, with 8-15\% of degraded networks having regulatory function restored by a single randomly-generated additional mutation. Though this process reduces average robustness, proportionally higher robustness is found in networks where compensatory mutations occur close to the deleterious mutation site, or where the compensatory mutation results in a large regulatory effect size. This location- and size-specific robustness systematically biases which networks are purged by selection for network stability, producing emergent changes to the population of regulatory networks. We show that over time, large-effect and co-located mutations accumulate, assuming only that episodes of relaxed selection occur, even very rarely. This accumulation results in an increase in regulatory complexity. Our findings help explain a process by which large-effect mutations structure complex regulatory networks, and may account for the speed and pervasiveness of observed occurrence of compensatory mutation, for example in the context of antibiotic resistance, which we discuss. If sustained by in vitro experiments, these results promise a significant breakthrough in the understanding of evolutionary and regulatory processes.}, language = {en} } @article{StewartMcCartyBryson, author = {Stewart, Alexander J and McCarty, Nolan and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline}, series = {arXiv}, journal = {arXiv}, number = {807.11477v2}, abstract = {Social and political polarization is a significant source of conflict and poor governance in many societies. Thus, 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 a perspective of cultural evolution, we develop a framework to study the emergence of polarization under shifting economic environments. In many contexts, interacting 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 low-risk interactions can be important to maintaining individual solvency. To capture this dynamic, we assume that in-group interactions have a lower expected outcome, but a more certain one. 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 driver of affective polarization in the United States, mirroring findings on a panel of developed democracies. 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 versus economic anxiety.}, language = {en} } @incollection{BrysonBogani, author = {Bryson, Joanna and Bogani, Ronny}, title = {Robot Nannies Will Not Love}, series = {The Love Makers}, booktitle = {The Love Makers}, editor = {Campbell, Aifric}, publisher = {Goldsmiths Press}, address = {London}, isbn = {97819126858442}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {249 -- 258}, abstract = {How artificial intelligence and robotics are transforming the future of love and desire: a philosophical thriller and essays.A chance encounter between two women and a road trip into the future: It's Christmas Eve, and Scarlett, banker-turned-technologist, is leaving a secret underground lab to catch the last flight that will get her home in time to open presents with her three-year-old son. She offers a lift to a young woman in distress, who shares her intimate life story as they drive to the airport. These revelations will have devastating consequences for both of them. The Love Makers is a philosophical thriller about female friendship, class, motherhood, women, and work--and how artificial intelligence and robotics are transforming the future of love and desire. Aifric Campbell combines her novel with essays from leading scientists and commentators who examine what's at stake in our human-machine relationships. What is our future as friends, parents, lovers? Will advances in intelligent machines reverse decades of progress for women? From robot nannies to generative art and our ancient dreams of intelligent machines, The Love Makers blends storytelling with science communication to investigate the challenges and opportunities of emergent technologies and how we want to live. ContributorsRonny Bogani, Joanna J. Bryson, Julie Carpenter, Stephen Cave, Anita Chandran, Peter R. N. Childs, Kate Devlin, Kanta Dihal, Mary Flanagan, Margaret Rhee, Amanda Sharkey, Roberto Trotta, E. R. Truitt, and Richard Watson}, language = {en} } @incollection{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Never Love a Robot: Romantic Companions and the Principle of Transparency}, series = {The Love Makers}, booktitle = {The Love Makers}, editor = {Campbell, Aifric}, publisher = {Goldsmiths Press}, address = {London}, isbn = {97819126858442}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {283 -- 290}, abstract = {It's Christmas Eve when Scarlett leaves an underground tech lab to catch the last flight that will get her home in time to open presents with her three year-old son. She offers a lift to a young woman in distress, who shares her intimate life story as they drive to the airport, but these revelations will have devastating consequences for both of their lives. Aifric Campbell combines her novel with essays from leading scientists and commentators who examine what's at stake in our human-machine relationships. What is our future as friends, parents, lovers? What is the future of love? Will advances in intelligent machines reverse decades of progress for women? From robot nannies to generative art and our ancient dreams of intelligent machines, The Love Makers blends storytelling with science communication to investigate the challenges and opportunities of emergent technologies and how we want to live.}, language = {en} } @article{Bryson, author = {Bryson, Joanna}, title = {The (Most) Algorithmic Animal. Unknowable Causal Structures in the Information Age}, series = {Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion}, volume = {8}, journal = {Journal for the Cognitive Science of Religion}, number = {2}, doi = {10.1558/jcsr.23612}, pages = {115 -- 121}, abstract = {Rituals are a means of regulation - they are a means for maintaining coherence and attaining long-term goals, including social coherence. But does their efficacy depend entirely, or at all, on their opacity? In this requested commentary on Harvey Whitehouse's new book, The Ritual Animal, I discuss the utility of costly rituals in an evolutionary context, and suggest that causal opacity is only one, potentially substitutable cost. I relate this to the urgent topical concerns of polarization and of regulating sustainability globally.}, language = {en} } @article{RacineBryson, author = {Racine, Elise and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Epidemic modeling as a means to reimagine health education and policy post-COVID}, series = {Health Education}, volume = {ahead of print}, journal = {Health Education}, issn = {0965-4283}, doi = {10.1108/HE-02-2021-0028}, abstract = {Purpose As illustrated by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), epidemic models are powerful health policy tools critical for disease prevention and control, i.e. if they are fit for purpose. How do people ensure this is the case and where does health education fit in? Design/methodology/approach This research takes a multidisciplinary approach combining qualitative secondary and primary data from a literature review, interviews and surveys. The former spans academic literature, grey literature and course curriculum, while the latter two involve discussions with various modeling stakeholders (educators, academics, students, modeling experts and policymakers) both within and outside the field of epidemiology. Findings More established approaches (compartmental models) appear to be favored over emerging techniques, like agent-based models. This study delves into how formal and informal education opportunities may be driving this preference. Drawing from other fields, the authors consider how this can be addressed. Practical implications This study offers concrete recommendations (course design routed in active learning pedagogies) as to how health education and, by extension, policy can be reimagined post-COVID to make better use of the full range of epidemic modeling methods available. Originality/value There is a lack of research exploring how these methods are taught and how this instruction influences which methods are employed. To fill this gap, this research uniquely engages with modeling stakeholders and bridges disciplinary silos to build complimentary knowledge.}, language = {en} } @incollection{McBrideKupiBryson, author = {McBride, Keegan and Kupi, Maximilian and Bryson, Joanna}, title = {Untangling Agile Government: On the Dual Necessities of Structure and Agility}, series = {Agile Government: Emerging Perspectives in Public Management}, booktitle = {Agile Government: Emerging Perspectives in Public Management}, editor = {Stephens, Melodena and Awamleh, Raed and Salem, Fadi}, publisher = {World Scientific Publishing}, address = {Singapur}, isbn = {9789811239694}, doi = {10.1142/9789811239700_0002}, publisher = {Hertie School}, pages = {300}, abstract = {The governments of today are not able to transform and adapt to changes in the world around them, as demanded by their constituents. The nature of work, value of public goods, and the constant bombardment of crises are making the old bureaucratic structures obsolete. Agile Government is an emerging theme, that of government-wide reinvention for adaptiveness and responsiveness. It places the accountability, delivery, capture, design and creation of public value at the heart of the government. The concept of agile government is confused with terms like Agile Manifesto, agile governance, agility among others, and because of this, needs some unpacking. This book is a deep dive into this topic. It offers insights from the theoretical development of the topic of agile government, some lessons from government practices around the world, and ongoing academic and policy research. The project is spearheaded by the Mohammed Bin Rashid School of Government, which is the first teaching and research institution in the Arab world focusing on public policy and governance.}, language = {en} }