This is today’s edition of The Download, our weekday newsletter that provides a daily dose of what’s going on in the world of technology.

AI is changing how we study bird migration

In a warming world, migratory birds face many existential threats. Scientists rely on a combination of methods to track the timing and location of their migrations, but each has shortcomings. And there’s another problem: Most birds migrate at night, when it’s more difficult to identify them visually and while most birders are in bed.

For over a century, acoustic monitoring has hovered tantalizingly out of reach as a method that would solve ornithologists’ woes. Now, finally, machine-learning tools are unlocking a treasure trove of acoustic data for ecologists. Read the full story.

—Christian Elliot

This story is from the forthcoming magazine edition of MIT Technology Review, set to go live on January 6—it’s all about the exciting breakthroughs happening in the world right now. If you don’t already, subscribe to receive a copy.

A woman in the US is the third person to receive a gene-edited pig kidney

Towana Looney, a 53-year-old woman from Alabama, has become the third living person to receive a kidney transplant from a gene-edited pig. 

Looney, who donated one of her kidneys to her mother back in 1999, developed kidney failure several years later following a pregnancy complication that caused high blood pressure. She started dialysis treatment in December of 2016 and was put on a waiting list for a kidney transplant soon after.

But it was difficult to find a match. So Looney’s doctors recommended the experimental pig organ as an alternative. After eight years on the waiting list, Looney was authorized to receive the kidney. Read the full story.

—Jessica Hamzelou

Roundtables: The Worst Technology Failures of 2024

Each year, MIT Technology Review publishes a list of the worst technologies of the past 12 months.

Antonio Regalado, our senior editor for biomedicine, sat down to discuss 2024’s worst failures with our executive editor Niall Firth in a subscriber-exclusive online Roundtable event yesterday. Watch their conversation about what made the cut here, and to make sure you don’t miss out in the future, subscribe! 

MIT Technology Review Narrated: Meet the radio-obsessed civilian shaping Ukraine’s drone defense

Despite it being over 100 years old, radio technology is still critical in almost all aspects of modern warfare—including in the drones that have come to dominate the Russia-Ukraine war. 

Serhii “Flash” Beskrestnov, who has been obsessed with radios since childhood, has become an unlikely hero of the conflict, sharing advice and intel. His work may determine the future of Ukraine, and wars far beyond it.

This is our latest story to be turned into a MIT Technology Review Narrated podcast, which 
we’re publishing each week on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Just navigate to MIT Technology Review Narrated on either platform, and follow us to get all our new content as it’s released.

The must-reads

I’ve combed the internet to find you today’s most fun/important/scary/fascinating stories about technology.

1 Conspiracy theories are still circulating about those mysterious drones
What are they? And where have they come from? (NY Mag $)
+ Authorities are attempting to quell public hysteria, but theories abound. (WP $)
+ Realistically, they’re probably just standard drones out for a night-time flight. (AP News)

2 AI poses a major threat to the power grid
That’s according to the US industry watchdog, which is feeling the pressure. (FT $)
+ AI’s emissions are about to skyrocket even further. (MIT Technology Review)

3 SpaceX and Elon Musk are under investigation 
US federal agencies are probing their repeated failures to comply with reporting rules. (NYT $)

4 Nvidia has unveiled a tiny, affordable AI supercomputer
Which is handy for roboticists looking to bypass connecting to remote data centers. (Gizmodo)
+ While it’s not the company’s most powerful device, it’s pretty speedy. (WSJ $)
+ Microsoft is gobbling up more of Nvidia’s chips than anyone else. (FT $)
+ Blacklisted Chinese AI chip firms gained access to cutting-edge UK tech. (The Guardian)

5 Bitcoin’s value is rocketing even higher
The industry continues to boom in the wake of Trump’s election victory. (Bloomberg $)
+ So much so, luxury brands are weighing up accepting crypto payments. (Reuters)

6 Hepatitis B is an extremely treatable disease
So why are so many people still dying from it? (New Yorker $)
+ We’re starting to understand the mysterious surge of hepatitis in children. (MIT Technology Review)

7 Earth—briefly—had an extra second moon

And scientists believe it originated from the actual moon we know and love. (New Scientist $) 

8 The future of deep-sea mining
A set of rules governing how we should do it is highly contentious—and up for debate.(Hakai Magazine)
+ These deep-sea “potatoes” could be the future of mining for renewable energy. (MIT Technology Review)

9 Resist the temptation to outsource your Christmas shopping to a bot 
You never know what you’ll end up with. (Insider $)
+ It’s probably quicker to browse the web yourself. (WP $)

10 Our snacks could soon be designed by AI 🍪
Confectionary giant Mondelez is using the tech to tweak recipes and test new ones. (WSJ $)
+ Forget cookies—this creamy vegan cheese was made with AI. (MIT Technology Review)

Quote of the day

“It takes a lot for an uber-wealthy, creative-type CEO, many of whom lean left, to suck it up and deal with Trump. But what choice do they have?”

—A Washington lobbyist explains to the Financial Times why the steady stream of tech executives paying their respects to US President-elect Donald Trump shows no sign of slowing.

The big story

What does GPT-3 “know” about me?

August 2022

One of the biggest stories in tech is the rise of large language models that produce text that reads like a human might have written it.

These models’ power comes from being trained on troves of publicly available human-created text hoovered up from the internet. If you’ve posted anything even remotely personal in English on the internet, chances are your data might be part of some of the world’s most popular LLMs.

Melissa Heikkilä, MIT Technology Review’s AI reporter, wondered what data these models might have on her—and how it could be misused. So she put OpenAI’s GPT-3 to the test. Read about what she found.

We can still have nice things

A place for comfort, fun and distraction to brighten up your day. (Got any ideas? Drop me a line or tweet ’em at me.)

+ 2024 was a seriously weird year, as evidenced by this completely bonkers list.
+ Who knew Seal was such a grunge head?
+ These Charli xcx Christmas mashups will haunt my dreams forever, and not in a good way.
+ Next summer I feel the need to level up my sandcastle game.

Read more

AI is all about data. Reams and reams of data are needed to train algorithms to do what we want, and what goes into the AI models determines what comes out. But here’s the problem: AI developers and researchers don’t really know much about the sources of the data they are using. AI’s data collection practices are immature compared with the sophistication of AI model development. Massive data sets often lack clear information about what is in them and where it came from. 

The Data Provenance Initiative, a group of over 50 researchers from both academia and industry, wanted to fix that. They wanted to know, very simply: Where does the data to build AI come from? They audited nearly 4,000 public data sets spanning over 600 languages, 67 countries, and three decades. The data came from 800 unique sources and nearly 700 organizations. 

Their findings, shared exclusively with MIT Technology Review, show a worrying trend: AI’s data practices risk concentrating power overwhelmingly in the hands of a few dominant technology companies. 

In the early 2010s, data sets came from a variety of sources, says Shayne Longpre, a researcher at MIT who is part of the project. 

It came not just from encyclopedias and the web, but also from sources such as parliamentary transcripts, earning calls, and weather reports. Back then, AI data sets were specifically curated and collected from different sources to suit individual tasks, Longpre says.

Then transformers, the architecture underpinning language models, were invented in 2017, and the AI sector started seeing performance get better the bigger the models and data sets were. Today, most AI data sets are built by indiscriminately hoovering material from the internet. Since 2018, the web has been the dominant source for data sets used in all media, such as audio, images, and video, and a gap between scraped data and more curated data sets has emerged and widened.

“In foundation model development, nothing seems to matter more for the capabilities than the scale and heterogeneity of the data and the web,” says Longpre. The need for scale has also boosted the use of synthetic data massively.

The past few years have also seen the rise of multimodal generative AI models, which can generate videos and images. Like large language models, they need as much data as possible, and the best source for that has become YouTube. 

For video models, as you can see in this chart, over 70% of data for both speech and image data sets comes from one source.

This could be a boon for Alphabet, Google’s parent company, which owns YouTube. Whereas text is distributed across the web and controlled by many different websites and platforms, video data is extremely concentrated in one platform.

“It gives a huge concentration of power over a lot of the most important data on the web to one company,” says Longpre. 

And because Google is also developing its own AI models, its massive advantage also raises questions about how the company will make this data available for competitors, says Sarah Myers West, the co–executive director at the AI Now Institute.

“It’s important to think about data not as though it’s sort of this naturally occurring resource, but it’s something that is created through particular processes,” says Myers West.

“If the data sets on which most of the AI that we’re interacting with reflect the intentions and the design of big, profit-motivated corporations—that’s reshaping the infrastructures of our world in ways that reflect the interests of those big corporations,” she says.

This monoculture also raises questions about how accurately the human experience is portrayed in the data set and what kinds of models we are building, says Sara Hooker, the vice president of research at the technology company Cohere, who is also part of the Data Provenance Initiative.

People upload videos to YouTube with a particular audience in mind, and the way people act in those videos is often intended for very specific effect. “Does [the data] capture all the nuances of humanity and all the ways that we exist?” says Hooker. 

Hidden restrictions

AI companies don’t usually share what data they used to train their models. One reason is that they want to protect their competitive edge. The other is that because of the complicated and opaque way data sets are bundled, packaged, and distributed, they likely don’t even know where all the data came from.

They also probably don’t have complete information about any constraints on how that data is supposed to be used or shared. The researchers at the Data Provenance Initiative found that data sets often have restrictive licenses or terms attached to them, which should limit their use for commercial purposes, for example.

“This lack of consistency across the data lineage makes it very hard for developers to make the right choice about what data to use,” says Hooker.

It also makes it almost impossible to be completely certain you haven’t trained your model on copyrighted data, adds Longpre.

More recently, companies such as OpenAI and Google have struck exclusive data-sharing deals with publishers, major forums such as Reddit, and social media platforms on the web. But this becomes another way for them to concentrate their power.

“These exclusive contracts can partition the internet into various zones of who can get access to it and who can’t,” says Longpre.

The trend benefits the biggest AI players, who can afford such deals, at the expense of researchers, nonprofits, and smaller companies, who will struggle to get access. The largest companies also have the best resources for crawling data sets.

“This is a new wave of asymmetric access that we haven’t seen to this extent on the open web,” Longpre says.

The West vs. the rest

The data that is used to train AI models is also heavily skewed to the Western world. Over 90% of the data sets that the researchers analyzed came from Europe and North America, and fewer than 4% came from Africa. 

“These data sets are reflecting one part of our world and our culture, but completely omitting others,” says Hooker.

The dominance of the English language in training data is partly explained by the fact that the internet is still over 90% in English, and there are still a lot of places on Earth where there’s really poor internet connection or none at all, says Giada Pistilli, principal ethicist at Hugging Face, who was not part of the research team. But another reason is convenience, she adds: Putting together data sets in other languages and taking other cultures into account requires conscious intention and a lot of work. 

The Western focus of these data sets becomes particularly clear with multimodal models. When an AI model is prompted for the sights and sounds of a wedding, for example, it might only be able to represent Western weddings, because that’s all that it has been trained on, Hooker says. 

This reinforces biases and could lead to AI models that push a certain US-centric worldview, erasing other languages and cultures.

“We are using these models all over the world, and there’s a massive discrepancy between the world we’re seeing and what’s invisible to these models,” Hooker says. 

Read more

A small songbird soars above Ithaca, New York, on a September night. He is one of 4 billion birds, a great annual river of feathered migration across North America. Midair, he lets out what ornithologists call a nocturnal flight call to communicate with his flock. It’s the briefest of signals, barely 50 milliseconds long, emitted in the woods in the middle of the night. But humans have caught it nevertheless, with a microphone topped by a focusing funnel. Moments later, software called BirdVoxDetect, the result of a collaboration between New York University, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and École Centrale de Nantes, identifies the bird and classifies it to the species level.

Biologists like Cornell’s Andrew Farnsworth had long dreamed of snooping on birds this way. In a warming world increasingly full of human infrastructure that can be deadly to them, like glass skyscrapers and power lines, migratory birds are facing many existential threats. Scientists rely on a combination of methods to track the timing and location of their migrations, but each has shortcomings. Doppler radar, with the weather filtered out, can detect the total biomass of birds in the air, but it can’t break that total down by species. GPS tags on individual birds and careful observations by citizen-scientist birders help fill in that gap, but tagging birds at scale is an expensive and invasive proposition. And there’s another key problem: Most birds migrate at night, when it’s more difficult to identify them visually and while most birders are in bed. For over a century, acoustic monitoring has hovered tantalizingly out of reach as a method that would solve ornithologists’ woes.

In the late 1800s, scientists realized that migratory birds made species-specific nocturnal flight calls—“acoustic fingerprints.” When microphones became commercially available in the 1950s, scientists began recording birds at night. Farnsworth led some of this acoustic ecology research in the 1990s. But even then it was challenging to spot the short calls, some of which are at the edge of the frequency range humans can hear. Scientists ended up with thousands of tapes they had to scour in real time while looking at spectrograms that visualize audio. Though digital technology made recording easier, the “perpetual problem,” Farnsworth says, “was that it became increasingly easy to collect an enormous amount of audio data, but increasingly difficult to analyze even some of it.”

Then Farnsworth met Juan Pablo Bello, director of NYU’s Music and Audio Research Lab. Fresh off a project using machine learning to identify sources of urban noise pollution in New York City, Bello agreed to take on the problem of nocturnal flight calls. He put together a team including the French machine-listening expert Vincent Lostanlen, and in 2015, the BirdVox project was born to automate the process. “Everyone was like, ‘Eventually, when this nut is cracked, this is going to be a super-rich source of information,’” Farnsworth says. But in the beginning, Lostanlen recalls, “there was not even a hint that this was doable.” It seemed unimaginable that machine learning could approach the listening abilities of experts like Farnsworth.

“Andrew is our hero,” says Bello. “The whole thing that we want to imitate with computers is Andrew.”

They started by training BirdVoxDetect, a neural network, to ignore faults like low buzzes caused by rainwater damage to microphones. Then they trained the system to detect flight calls, which differ between (and even within) species and can easily be confused with the chirp of a car alarm or a spring peeper. The challenge, Lostanlen says, was similar to the one a smart speaker faces when listening for its unique “wake word,” except in this case the distance from the target noise to the microphone is far greater (which means much more background noise to compensate for). And, of course, the scientists couldn’t choose a unique sound like “Alexa” or “Hey Google” for their trigger. “For birds, we don’t really make that choice. Charles Darwin made that choice for us,” he jokes. Luckily, they had a lot of training data to work with—Farnsworth’s team had hand-annotated thousands of hours of recordings collected by the microphones in Ithaca.

With BirdVoxDetect trained to detect flight calls, another difficult task lay ahead: teaching it to classify the detected calls by species, which few expert birders can do by ear. To deal with uncertainty, and because there is not training data for every species, they decided on a hierarchical system. For example, for a given call, BirdVoxDetect might be able to identify the bird’s order and family, even if it’s not sure about the species—just as a birder might at least identify a call as that of a warbler, whether yellow-rumped or chestnut-sided. In training, the neural network was penalized less when it mixed up birds that were closer on the taxonomical tree.  

Last August, capping off eight years of research, the team published a paper detailing BirdVoxDetect’s machine-learning algorithms. They also released the software as a free, open-source product for ornithologists to use and adapt. In a test on a full season of migration recordings totaling 6,671 hours, the neural network detected 233,124 flight calls. In a 2022 study in the Journal of Applied Ecology, the team that tested BirdVoxDetect found acoustic data as effective as radar for estimating total biomass.

BirdVoxDetect works on a subset of North American migratory songbirds. But through “few-shot” learning, it can be trained to detect other, similar birds with just a few training examples. It’s like learning a language similar to one you already speak, Bello says. With cheap microphones, the system could be expanded to places around the world without birders or Doppler radar, even in vastly different recording conditions. “If you go to a bioacoustics conference and you talk to a number of people, they all have different use cases,” says Lostanlen. The next step for bioacoustics, he says, is to create a foundation model, like the ones scientists are working on for natural-language processing and image and video analysis, that would be reconfigurable for any species—even beyond birds. That way, scientists won’t have to build a new BirdVoxDetect for every animal they want to study.

The BirdVox project is now complete, but scientists are already building on its algorithms and approach. Benjamin Van Doren, a migration biologist at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who worked on BirdVox, is using Nighthawk, a new user-friendly neural network based on both BirdVoxDetect and the popular birdsong ID app Merlin, to study birds migrating over Chicago and elsewhere in North and South America. And Dan Mennill, who runs a bioacoustics lab at the University of Windsor, says he’s excited to try Nighthawk on flight calls his team currently hand-­annotates after they’re recorded by microphones on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. One weakness of acoustic monitoring is that unlike radar, a single microphone can’t detect the altitude of a bird overhead or the direction in which it is moving. Mennill’s lab is experimenting with an array of eight microphones that can triangulate to solve that problem. Sifting through recordings has been slow. But with Nighthawk, the analysis will speed dramatically.

With birds and other migratory animals under threat, Mennill says, BirdVoxDetect came at just the right time. Knowing exactly which birds are flying over in real time can help scientists keep tabs on how species are doing and where they’re going. That can inform practical conservation efforts like “Lights Out” initiatives that encourage skyscrapers to go dark at night to prevent bird collisions. “Bioacoustics is the future of migration research, and we’re really just getting to the stage where we have the right tools,” he says. “This ushers us into a new era.”

Christian Elliott is a science and environmental reporter based in Illinois.  

Read more
1 … 872 873 874 875 876 … 3,373