Popular Science reporter Mack DeGeurin spotlights Foodres.Ai Printer, an AI-assisted 3D printer developed by MIT researchers that is “capable of converting food scraps into coasters, cups, and other everyday kitchen items.” The researchers hope their invention “can repurpose waste before it reaches trash cans or compost bins, helping to foster ‘hyper-local circular economies.’”
Prof. Andrew Lo speaks with NBC Boston reporter Daniela Gonzalez about how AI tools could be used as a starting point to help people manage their monthly expenses and improve their savings strategies. Lo notes that AI tools “can tell you, given the kind of things you're looking to purchase, where the various deals might be.” He added that “once you get the feedback, you have to make sure that what you're getting is legit, versus what they call hallucinations that large language models are likely to do on occasion.”
Prof. Andrew Lo speaks with Bloomberg reporter Lu Wang about how AI tools could be applied to the financial services industry, working alongside humans to help manage money, balance risk, tailor strategies and possibly even act in a client’s best interest. “I believe that within the next five years we’re going to see a revolution in how humans interact with AI,” says Lo. He adds that “the financial services industry has extra layers of protection that needs to be built before these tools can be useful.”
Researchers at MIT have uncovered a variety of obstacles of AI in software development, reports Rob Wile for NBC News. They have found “the main obstacles come when AI programs are asked to develop code at scale, or with more complex logic,” writes Wile.
Writing for The New York Times, Prof. David Autor and Prof. Gordon Hanson of Harvard explore how China is “aggressively contesting the innovative sectors where the United States has long been the unquestioned leader." To avoid a second China Shock, they emphasize that the United States “must nourish industries that have high potential for innovation, funded by joint investments by the private and public sectors.”
Prof. David Autor speaks with ABC News reporter Max Zahn about how AI will affect the job market. "We're not good at predicting what the new work will be; we're good at predicting how current work will change," says Autor.
A study by MIT researchers has found “our behavior is often more predictable than we think,” reports Diane Hamilton for Forbes. “This research focused on how people pay attention in complex situations,” explains Hamilton. “The AI model learned what people remembered and what they ignored. It identified patterns in memory and focus.”
Prof. Danielle Li speaks with New York Times reporter Noam Scheiber about the various impacts of AI in the workplace on employees. “That state of the world is not good for experienced workers,” says Li. “You’re being paid for the rarity of your skill, and what happens is that A.I. allows the skill to live outside of people.”
Forbes reporter Eric Wood spotlights various studies by MIT researchers exploring the impact of ChatGPT use on behavior and the brain. “As stated, the impact of AI assistants is likely dependent on the users, but since AI assistants are becoming normative, it’s time for counseling centers to assess for maladaptive uses of AI, while also promoting the possible benefits,” explains Wood.
Prof. Asu Ozdaglar, Deputy Dean of MIT Schwarzman College of Computing, speaks with Is Business Broken? podcast host Curt Nickish to explore AI’s opportunities and risks — and whether it can be regulated without stifling progress. “AI is a very promising and transformative technology,” says Ozdaglar. “But regulation should be designed very carefully so that it does not block or impede the development of the technology.” Given AI’s potential harms or misuses, she added that it's important to think about the correct regulatory framework. “For it to be successful, it should focus on where harms can come from.”
A new research paper by Prof. David Autor and Principal Research Scientist Neil Thompson explores the forthcoming impact of AI on jobs, reports Tim Harford for Financial Times. “[W]hile there are few certainties, Autor and Thompson’s framework does suggest a clarifying question: does AI look like it is going to do the most highly skilled part of your job or the low-skill rump that you’ve not been able to get rid of?,” writes Harford. “The answer to that question may help to predict whether your job is about to get more fun or more annoying — and whether your salary is likely to rise, or fall as your expert work is devalued like the expert work of the Luddites.”
Researchers at MIT have “analyzed how six popular LLMs portray the state of press freedom — and, indirectly, trust in the media — in responses to user prompts,” reports Chase DiBenedetto for Mashable. “The results showed that LLMs consistently suggested that countries have less press freedom than official reports, like the non-governmental ranking like the World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), published by Reporters Without Borders,” explains DiBenedetto.
In an Opinion piece for The New York Times, columnist David Brooks highlights a recent MIT study that explores the impact of ChatGPT use on brain function by asking subjects to write essays while using large language models, traditional search engines, or only their own brains. “The subjects who relied only on their own brains showed higher connectivity across a bunch of brain regions,” explains Brooks. “Search engine users experienced less brain connectivity and A.I. users least of all.”
Researchers at MIT have developed an “AI-powered tool that scans scientific literature and over 1 million rock samples to identify materials that can partially replace cement in concrete,” reports Samanatha Hindman for Yahoo! News. The new system could “change how we build cities forever,” says Hindman. “The system sorts materials based on their physical and chemical properties, narrowing them down by how well they hold concrete together when mixed with water (hydraulic reactivity) and how they strengthen it over time (pozzolanicity).”
A study by MIT researchers monitored and compared the brain activity of participants using large language models, traditional search engines, and only their brains to write an essay on a given topic, reports Hessie Jones for Forbes. The study “found that the brain-only group showed much more active brain waves compared to the search-only and LLM-only groups,” Jones explains. “In the latter two groups, participants relied on external sources for information. The search-only group still needed some topic understanding to look up information, and like using a calculator — you must understand its functions to get the right answer. In contrast, the LLM-only group simply had to remember the prompt used to generate the essay, with little to no actual cognitive processing involved.”