General principles for the use of AI at CERN (opens in new tab)

Might be implicit prioritization, but I don’t think it’s prioritized by importance, rather than by likelihood of being a problem.

I agree, though I would prefer to highlight the first half of the first item - transparency. Also, perhaps make Safety an independent principle than combining with Security.

These are a good set of principles for any company (or individual) can follow to guide them how they use AI.

I'm not optimistic about this in the short term. Creative and diverse viewpoints seem to come from diverse life experiences, which AI does not have and, if they are present in the training data, are mostly washed out. Statistical models are like that. The objective function is to predict close to the average output, after all.

In the long term I am at least certain that AI can emulate anything humans do en masse, where there is training data, but without unguided self evolution, I don't see them solving truly novel problems. They still fail to write coherence code if you go a little out of the training distribution, in my experience, and that is a pretty easy domain, all things considered.

It is a organisation wide document of "General principles", how could it possibly have something more specific to say that about the inherently context specific trade-offs of each specific use of AI?

Well, CERN is not a corporation, it can afford not optimizing for "costs", whatever you mean by that in this context.

99% of corporate policies are to be able to point to a document that says "well it's not my fault, I made the policy and someone didn't follow it".

Organizations above a certain size absolutely cannot help themselves but publish this stuff. It is the work of senior middle managers. Ark Fleet Ship B.

I work in a corporate setting that has been working on a "strategy rebrand" for over a year now and despite numerous meeting, endless powerpoint, and god knows how much money to consultants, I still have no idea what any of this has to do with my work.

In such scientific environment, There are gentlemen agreements about many things that boils down to "Don't be an asshole" or "Be considerate of the others" with some hard requirements at this or that point for things that are very serious.

"Don't be an asshole" could solve world peace.

> CERN’s convention states: “The Organization shall have no concern with work for military requirements and the results of its experimental and theoretical work shall be published or otherwise made generally available.”

CERN was founded after WW2 in Europe, and like all major European institutions founded at the time, it was meant to be a peaceful institution.

CERN is in principle opposed to military research. That and stuff like lawfulness, fairness, sustainability, privacy are just general CERN principles restated for fluff.

One reason I can think of is with regard to confidentiality. A lot of AI services are controlled by companies in the US or China, and they may not want military research to leak to these countries.

Classified project obviously have stricter rules, such as airgaps, but sometimes, the limits are a bit fuzzy, like a non-classified project that supports a classified project. And I may be wrong but academics don't seem to be the type who are good at keeping secrets nor see the security implication of their actions. Which is a good thing in my book, science is about sharing, not keeping secrets! So no AI for military projects could be a step in that direction.

Interesting in what sense? Isn't it just stating something plainly obvious?

Where is “human oversight” in an automated workflow? I noticed the quote didn’t say “inputs”.

And with testing and other services, I guess human oversight can be reduced to _looking at the dials_ for the green and red lights?

The real interesting thing is how does that principle interplay with their pillars and goals i.e. if the goal is to "optimize workflow and resource usage" then having a human in the loop at all points might limit or fully erode this ambition. Obviously it not that black and white, certain tasks could be fully autonomous where others require human validation and you could be net positive - but - this challenge is not exclusive to CERN that's for sure.

Do they hold the CERN Roomba to the same standard? If it cleans the same section of carpet twice is someone going to have to do a review?

It's still just a platitude. Being somewhat critical is still giving some implicit trust. If you didn't give it any trust at all, you wouldn't use it at all! So they endorse trusting it is my read, exactly the opposite of what they appear to say!

It's funny how many official policies leave me thinking that it's a corporate cover-your-ass policy and if they really meant it they would have found a much stronger and plainer way to say it

CERN is neither corporate, nor in the EU.

Humans have poured resources into the pursuit of largely impractical pure knowledge for millenia. This has been said of an incredible number of human scientific endeavors, before they found use in other domains.

Also, the web was invented at CERN.

All this impractical knowledge people accumulated over centuries gave you cars, planes, computers, air condition, antibiotics, iphones, and, in fact, everything you have when human kind left the trees. So I would rather burn this 1,3 terawatt on this than on, say, running Facebook or bitcoins mining.

That is equivalent to a continuous draw of 150 MW. Not great, not terrible.

Far less power than those projected gigawatt data centers that are surely the one thing keeping AI companies from breaking even.