Artificial intelligence

Researchers from MIT and elsewhere have developed an AI model that is capable of identifying 3 ½ times more people who are at high-risk for developing pancreatic cancer than current standards, reports Felice J. Freyer for The Boston Globe. “This work has the potential to enlarge the group of pancreatic cancer patients who can benefit from screening from 10 percent to 35 percent,” explains Freyer. “The group hopes its model will eventually help detect risk of other hard-to-find cancers, like ovarian.”

In a new study examining the potential impact of AI on jobs that employ computer vision, MIT researchers found, “a vast majority of jobs previously identified as vulnerable to AI are not economically beneficial for employers to automate at this time,” reports Catherine Thorbecke for CNN. “In many cases, humans are the more cost-effective way, and a more economically attractive way, to do work right now,” says Research Scientist Neil Thompson, director of the FutureTech Research Project at CSAIL. “What we’re seeing is that while there is a lot of potential for AI to replace tasks, it’s not going to happen immediately.”

A new working paper by MIT researchers finds that artificial intelligence is not currently a cost-effective replacement in jobs where computer vision is employed, reports Saritha Rai for Bloomberg. “Our study examines the usage of computer vision across the economy, examining its applicability to each occupation across nearly every industry and sector,” explains Research Scientist Neil Thompson, director of the FutureTech Research Project at CSAIL. “We show that there will be more automation in retail and healthcare, and less in areas like construction, mining or real estate.”

A new working paper by MIT researchers focuses on whether human work, including vision tasks, are worth replacing with AI computer vision, reports Jeremy Hsu for New Scientist. “There are lots of tasks that you can imagine AI applying to, but actually cost-wise you just wouldn’t want to do it,” says Research Scientist Neil Thompson, director of the FutureTech Research Project at CSAIL.

Researchers at MIT have released a new working paper that aims to quantify the severity and speed with which AI systems could replace human workers, reports Hiawatha Bray for The Boston Globe. The paper concluded that “it’s not enough for AI systems to be good at tasks not performed by people,” explains Bray. “The system must be good enough to justify the cost of installing it and redesigning the way a job is done.”

A new working paper by MIT researchers predicts “only 23% of wages linked to vision-related tasks could be feasibly cost-effectively replaced by AI,” reports Gil Press for Forbes. The researchers “argue that their findings apply also to generative AI or the automation of language-related tasks,” writes Press.

Wall Street Journal reporter Lindsey Choo spotlights Principal Research Scientist Matthias Winkenbach and his work developing an AI model to help delivery drivers find the best routes. The model would “take into consideration complex real-world constraints,” such as allowing drivers to, “choose a route that may not be the shortest but allows them to park more conveniently or unload packages in safer spaces,” writes Choo.

Researchers at MIT have discovered how a new computational imaging algorithm can capture user interactions through ambient light sensors commonly found in smartphones, reports Davey Winder for Forbes. “By combining the smartphone display screen, an active component, with the ambient light sense, which is passive, the researchers realized that capturing images in front of that screen was possible without using the device camera,” explains Winder.

Javier Ramos '12, SM '14, co-founder of InkBit, and his colleagues have developed a, “3D inkjet printer that uses contact-free computer vision feedback to print hybrid objects with a broad range of new functional chemistries,” reports Ed Brown for Tech Briefs. “Our vision for Inkbit is to reshape how the world thinks about production, from design to execution and make our technology readily available,” says Ramos. “The big opportunity with 3D printing is how to disrupt the world of manufacturing — that’s what we're focused on.”

Writing for Wired, Institute Prof. Daron Acemoglu predicts that expectations for generative AI will need to recalibrated during the year ahead. Acemoglu notes that he believes in 2024, “generative AI will have been adopted by many companies, but it will prove to be just ‘so-so automation’ of the type that displaces workers but fails to deliver huge productivity improvements.”

Graduate student Zhichu Ren has developed CRESt (Copilot for Real-World Experimental Scientist), a lab assistant which “suggests experiments, retrieves data, manages equipment and guides research to the next steps in an experiment,” reports Ryan Heath for Axios.

Writing for Wired, research scientist Kate Darling highlights the importance of addressing the fundamentally human behaviors that have been incorporated into AI chatbots. “Research in human-computer and human-robot interaction shows that we love to anthropomorphize—attribute humanlike qualities, behaviors, and emotions to—the nonhuman agents we interact with, especially if they mimic cues we recognize,” writes Darling. “And, thanks to recent advances in conversational AI, our machines are suddenly very skilled at one of those cues: language.”

MIT researchers have used machine learning to uncover the different kinds of sentences that most likely to activate the brain’s key language processing centers, reports Kyle Wiggers and Devin Coldewey for TechCrunch. The model, “was able to predict for novel sentences whether they would be taxing on human cognition or not,” they explain.

Prof. David Autor speaks with Bloomberg about the future of generative AI and the technology’s potential impact on productivity and the labor market. “When we interact with AI, we need to learn how to treat it not as authoritative, but as a guide to support decision making, and that’s really critical,” says Autor.

MIT researchers have found that job applicants who used AI to improve spelling and grammar on their resumes were eight percent more likely to be hired, reports Bryan Robinson for Forbes. “If you take two identical workers with the same skills and background, the one with the better-written resume is more likely to get hired,” explains graduate student Emma van Inwegen. “The takeaway is that employers actually care about the writing in the resume; it’s not just a correlation.”