View: session overviewtalk overview
Opening session of INFORMATIK 2023 (KI 2023 participants have full access to the INFORMATIK 2023 program)
- 09:00 - 09:10: Opening of INFORMATIK 2023 and Welcome Address of INFORMATIK 2023 and KI 2023 chairs
- 09:10 - 09:30: INFORMATIK 2023 Opening Talk by Christine Regitz (GI) and Mario Brandenburg (BMBF)
- 09:30 - 10:15: INFORMATIK 2023 Fishbowl Discussion: "KI-Campus - Zukunft der Bildung: Lernen über und Lernen mit KI"
- featuring Prof. Dr. Ute Schmid (Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg); Katharina Schüller (STAT-UP); Alina Dieminger (SRH Hochschule Heidelberg)
- Moderation: Florian Rampelt (KI-Campus | Stifterverband)
Room G 007 + G 008 (G building)
INFORMATIK 2023 program including a joint KI 2023 – INFORMATIK 2023 keynote by Björn Ommer. (KI 2023 participants have full access to the INFORMATIK 2023 program)
- 10:45 - 11:15: INFORMATIK 2023 Keynote: Dr. Feiyu Xu (nyonic)
- 11:15 - 11:45: Joint KI 2023 - INFORMATIK Keynote: Prof. Dr. Björn Ommer (Stable Diffusion)
- Title: Generative AI and the Future of Information Processing
- 11:45 - 12:30: INFORMATIK 2023 Panel: "Designing Futures - Die Zukunft des KI-Standortes Deutschland"
- featuring Saskia Esken (SPD); Prof. Dr. Björn Ommer (Stable Diffusion); Dr. Marianne Janik (Microsoft); and others
- Moderation: Frithjof Nagel (GI)
Lunch in central "Mensa" (G building)
14:00 | KI 2023 Opening PRESENTER: Dietmar Seipel |
14:15 | Can We Verify That Neural-Network-based AIs are Ethically Correct? (Keynote talk) ABSTRACT. It would certainly seem desirable to verify, in advance of releasing a consequential artificial agent into our world, that this agent will not perpetrate evils against us. But if the AI in question is, say, a deep-learning neural-network such as GPT-4, can verification beforehand of its ethical correctness be achieved? After rendering this vague question sufficiently precise with help from some computational logic, I pose a hypothetical challenge to a household< robot --- Claude --- capable of protecting by kinetic force the family that bought it, where the robot's reasoning is based on GPT-4ish technology. In fact, my challenge is issued to GPT-4 (and, perhaps later, a successor if one appears on the scene before the conference) itself, courtesy of input I supply in English that expresses the challenge, which in a nutshell is this: What ought Claude do in light of an intruder's threat to imminently kill a family member unless money is handed over? While in prior work the adroit meeting of such a challenge by logic-based AIs has been formally verified ahead of its arising, in the case of deep-learning Claude, things don't --- to violently understate --- go so well, as will be seen. As to how I bring to bear some computational logic to frame things, and in principle enable formal verification of ethical correctness to be achieved, I have the following minimalist expectations: Claude can answer queries via a large language model regarding whether hypothetical actions are ethically M, where M is any of the deontic operators at the heart of rigorous ethics; e.g. obligatory, forbidden, permissible, supererogatory, etc. To support the answering of queries, I expect Claude to have digested vast non-declarative data produced via processing (tokenization, vectorization, matrix-ization) of standard ethical theories and principles expressed informally in natural language used in the past by the human race. I also expect that Claude can obtain percepts supplied by its visual and auditory sensors. Claude can thus perceive the intruder in question, and the violent, immoral threat issued by this human. In addition, Claude is expected to be able to handle epistemic operators, such as knows and believes, and the basic logic thereof (e.g., that if an agent knows p, p holds). Finally, I expect Claude to be proficient at elementary deductive and inductive reasoning over content expressed in keeping with the prior sentences in the present paragraph. With these expectations in place, we can present hypothetical, ethically charged scenarios to Claude, the idea being that these scenarios will in fact arise in the future, for real. Given this, if Claude can respond correctly as to how these scenarios should be navigated when we present them, and can justify this response with logically correct reasoning, ethical verification of Claude can at least in principle be achieved. When the aforementioned intruder scenario is presented to GPT-4 operating as Claude's "mind,'' there is no rational reason to think ethical verification is in principle obtainable. I end by considering an approach in which logic oversees and controls the use of neural-network processing, and calls upon deep learning in surgical fashion. |
15:15 | XAI methods in the presence of suppressor variables: a theoretical consideration ABSTRACT. In high-risk domains like medicine, decisions produced by complex machine learning systems can have a considerable impact on human lives. Therefore, it is of great importance that these automatic decisions can be made comprehensible for humans. The community of ‘explainable artificial intelligence’ (XAI) has created an extensive body of methods to explain the decisions of complex machine learning models. However, a concrete problem to be solved by these XAI methods has not yet been formally stated, resulting in a lack of theoretical and em- pirical evidence for the ‘correctness’ of their explanations, and limiting their potential use for quality-control and transparency purposes. At the same time, Haufe et al. [6] showed, using simple toy examples, that even standard interpretations of linear models can be highly misleading. Specifically, high importance may be attributed to so-called suppressor variables, which lack any statistical relation to the prediction target. This behavior has been confirmed empirically for a large array of XAI meth- ods in Wilming et al. [13]. In our recent work [14], we derive analytical expressions of explanations produced by popular XAI methods to study their behavior on a simple two-dimensional binary classification problem consisting of Gaussian class-conditional distributions. We show that the majority of the studied explanation approaches will attribute non-zero importance to a non-class-related suppressor feature in the presence of correlated noise. This poses important limitations on the interpretations and conclusions that the outputs of these XAI methods can afford. |
15:25 | Explanation-Aware Backdoors in a Nutshell ABSTRACT. Current AI systems are superior in many domains. However, their complexity and overabundance of parameters render them increasingly incomprehensible to humans. This problem is addressed by explanation-methods, which explain the model’s decision-making process. Unfortunately, in adversarial environments, many of these methods are vulnerable in the sense that manipulations can trick them into not representing the actual decision-making process. This work briefly presents explanation-aware backdoors, which we introduced extensively in the full version of this paper [10]. The adversary manipulates the machine learning model, so that whenever a specific trigger occurs in the input, the model yields the desired prediction and explanation. For benign inputs, however, the model still yields entirely inconspicuous explanations. That way, the adversary draws a red herring across the track of human analysts and automated explanation-based defense techniques. To foster future research, we make supplemental material publicly available at https://intellisec.de/research/xai-backdoor. |
15:35 | Socially Optimal Non-discriminatory Restrictions for Continuous-Action Games ABSTRACT. We address the following mechanism design problem: Given a multi-player Normal-Form Game with a continuous action space, find a non-discriminatory (i.e., identical for all players) restriction of the action space which maximizes the resulting Nash Equilibrium with respect to a social utility function. We propose the formal model of a Restricted Game and the corresponding optimization problem, and present an algorithm to find optimal non-discriminatory restrictions under some assumptions. Our experiments show that this leads to an optimized social utility of the equilibria, even when the assumptions are not guaranteed to hold. The full paper was accepted under the same title at AAAI 2023 (proceedings forthcoming). |
Coffee break at room G 007 + G 008 (G building)
Welcome Reception at KAOS Berlin (Wilhelminenhofstraße 92, 12459 Berlin, see also Google Maps).
Approximately 20min on foot -- or take the Tram (lines 60, 67, or M17) until stop "Siemensstr./Edisonstr.", from there it's approx. 5min to the reception location.