Research into the negative effects of digital technology is caught in a “failing cycle” that’s moving too slowly for governments and society to properly hold tech companies responsible, say two top researchers in a new report published in the journal Science.
Dr Amy Orben from the University of Cambridge and Dr J Nathan Matias from Cornell University explain that the speed at which new technology reaches billions of people has put huge pressure on scientific systems trying to study its impact.
They point out that big tech firms basically outsource safety research to independent scientists at universities and charities who have only a tiny fraction of resources – while these companies also block access to important data. This is very different from other industries where safety tests are mostly done internally.
Orben and Matias call for a major revamp of how we produce evidence about the effects of technology on issues like mental health and discrimination.
Their suggestions include speeding up research so policy actions and safer designs get tested alongside early evidence gathering, plus setting up public-informed registries tracking tech-related harms.
“Big technology companies increasingly act with perceived impunity, while trust in their regard for public safety is fading,” said Orben, who works at Cambridge’s MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit. “Policymakers and the public are turning to independent scientists as arbiters of technology safety.”
“Scientists like ourselves are committed to the public good, but we are asked to hold to account a billion-dollar industry without appropriate support for our research or the basic tools to produce good quality evidence quickly.”
“We must urgently fix this science and policy ecosystem so we can better understand and manage the potential risks posed by our evolving digital society,” said Orben.
‘Negative feedback cycle’
The new paper points out that tech companies often launch products quickly then try to fix any problems later. For example, generative AI tools get rolled out to millions before basic safety checks are even done.
Researchers studying possible harms rely on what they call ‘routine science’ – methods that have helped society progress over decades but now can’t keep up with how fast technology changes. Sometimes it feels almost useless because it’s just too slow.
With many people pushing politicians to act on online safety, Orben and Matias argue tech firms use slow science and lack of solid proof as excuses not to take responsibility or face regulations.
Even if research got enough funding, understanding products changing daily or weekly would still be tough.
“Technology products change on a daily or weekly basis, and adapt to individuals. Even company staff may not fully understand the product at any one time, and scientific research can be out of date by the time it is completed, let alone published,” said Matias, who leads Cornell’s Citizens and Technology (CAT) Lab.
“At the same time, claims about the inadequacy of science can become a source of delay in technology safety when science plays the role of gatekeeper to policy interventions,” Matias said.
“Just as oil and chemical industries have leveraged the slow pace of science to deflect the evidence that informs responsibility, executives in technology companies have followed a similar pattern. Some have even allegedly refused to commit substantial resources to safety research without certain kinds of causal evidence, which they also decline to fund.”
The researchers describe this ongoing problem as a ‘negative feedback cycle’:
Tech companies don’t put enough money into safety studies themselves; instead they leave it up to independent scientists who don’t have access or funding. Because strong causal proof isn’t produced quickly enough, governments struggle to regulate effectively – making companies less motivated to invest in safety research since there’s little consequence for them.
Orben and Matias say this cycle needs fixing urgently-and offer ideas on how we might do it.
Reporting digital harms
A faster way could be having policymakers or community groups set up registries where people report incidents caused by online technologies – encouraging everyone affected to share their experiences publicly.
This approach already works well in areas like environmental pollution monitoring or car crash reporting programs used for vehicle safety improvements.
“We gain nothing when people are told to mistrust their lived experience due to an absence of evidence when that evidence is not being compiled,” said Matias.
Existing databases-from death records to domestic violence reports-could also add info about digital technologies involved such as AI tools.
“`
Sorry I mistakenly pasted part code unrelated here.
Let me rewrite again carefully.
—
TITLE: Experts Warn Research Isn’t Keeping Up With Digital Tech Risks
CONTENT:
The way scientists study harm caused by digital tech is stuck in a “failing cycle” that’s too slow for governments or society really hold big tech accountable, according to two leading experts writing in Science journal recently.
Dr Amy Orben from University of Cambridge alongside Dr J Nathan Matias from Cornell University explain how new tech gets launched rapidly worldwide but scientific systems struggle hard trying evaluate its effects properly under such fast change conditions.
The pair note big tech effectively outsources product-safety studies onto outside university researchers who get only tiny budgets – meanwhile those firms restrict crucial data access unlike other sectors where testing happens mainly inside company walls first.
An overhaul is needed around producing solid proof about how these technologies affect things like mental health & discrimination says Orben & Matias alike.
Their advice includes speeding things up so policies + safer designs can be tested side-by-side with early-stage findings + creating harm-registries influenced directly by everyday users reporting problems experienced firsthand.
“Big technology companies increasingly act with perceived impunity,
while trust in their regard for public safety is fading,” noted Orben
at Cambridge’s MRC Cognition & Brain Sciences Unit.
“Policymakers & public look towards independent scientists
as judges over whether tech is safe.”
“Scientists like us want what’s best publicly but we’re expected
to police billion-dollar businesses without enough help
or fundamental tools needed quick-quality proof,” she added.
“Fixing this broken system urgently matters if we’re going
to better grasp & handle risks coming from our shifting digital world,” concluded Orben.
‘The Negative Feedback Loop’
The Science article highlights big-tech launching products quickly then dealing later with any dangers found – e. g., generative AI rolled out globally before key safeties were checked properly.
Researchers rely heavily on traditional ‘routine’ scientific methods which helped humanity advance long-term but now lag badly behind rapid technological development – making them often ineffective or unusable.
As pressure grows on leaders re: online-safety laws,
Orben & Matias warn corporations exploit slow-moving science +
lack reliable proof excuse avoiding rules + dodging blame.
Even well-funded studies face challenges tracking ever-changing products updated daily/weekly.
“Pace changes so fast many within companies don’t even grasp full details constantly;
scientific findings sometimes outdated before finished much less published,” says Matias,
head Cornell’s Citizens & Technology Lab.
He notes delays happen since claims “science can’t keep pace” stop timely policy decisions;
Like polluting industries historically abused slow scientific results
tech execs copycat tactics:
Some reportedly refuse proper investments unless ‘causal’ links proven upfront-which ironically aren’t funded either.”
The current harmful cycle looks like:
Tech giants skimp investment -> offload burden onto underfunded outsiders w/no data -> strong causal proofs delayed/not ready -> govt regulators weaken rules -> firms face no real consequences -> less motivation spent researching safely -> repeat..
Orben & Mathis stress fixing this loop ASAP offering solutions ahead.
Catching Online Harms Faster
To detect internet-caused damage sooner lawmakers/citizens might build registries collecting user-reported incidents openly – giving those harmed an easy way share experiences directly contributing vital info faster than formal studies allow.
Similar setups work elsewhere:
For example environmental watchdogs track polluted rivers via citizen reports,
and car crash databases feed into improving road/vehicle security measures regularly.
“We gain nothing when people are told to mistrust their lived experience due to an absence of evidence when that evidence is not being compiled,” stresses Mathis.
Existing datasets – such as death stats & domestic violence logs – could expand adding info showing involvement from digital stuff (like AI).
Authors propose ‘minimum viable evidence’ frameworks where policymakers/researchers lower bar required proving risk before trying fixes/testing safer approaches.
These thresholds might come from panels made up folks affected most / general public / specialized rapid-response groups called ‘science courts’.
“Causal evidence of technological harms is often required before designers
and scientists are allowed test interventions building safer digital society,”
said Orben.
“But intervention testing helps find ways assist individuals/society AND spot possible dangers along process.
We need switch from step-by-step toward flexible parallel workflows.”
Under this model if companies hide info/refuse aid toward outside researchers lacking transparency regarding own internal tests-the amount proof needed starts intervention trials drops accordingly.
They also highlight lessons learned from ‘Green Chemistry’, where neutral bodies rank chemicals by danger helping markets develop safer options quicker.
“The current scientific tools/resources simply can’t keep pace with rapid digital innovation,” warns Orben.
“Scientists/policy folks must admit system failures now then design something better before more risks pile up thanks unchecked changes brought by AI age.”
Matias summed it nicely: “When science moves too slowly around new technologies impacts everyone loses.”
Source link
