Interview with Professor Andrea Emilio Rizzoli, Director of the Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Switzerland and co-chair of the Scientific Advice Mechanism’s working group on the uptake of artificial intelligence (AI). As such, he helped provide independent scientific advice to the European Commission on this topic.
Machines with artificial intelligence (AI) compile and present content and images. They also accelerate the scientific discovery process. So how much intellectual property can scientists claim for themselves at the end of the day?
Andrea Emilio Rizzoli: AI supports our work, but does not take the responsibility for that work into its hands. Generative AI can be used in science, but the scientist is in control. Without quality data, there can be no quality research. Data are carefully prepared, and the results interpreted, by scientists. Ultimately, intellectual property is firmly in the hands of scientists.
Could algorithms take over the full research pipeline, from data to results?
Andrea Emilio Rizzoli: Smarter algorithms could support this process, but it is important to stress that only researchers can fully understand the causal links between key variables, maintain control of the processing pipeline and decide on how best to proceed at critical points in the process. The current algorithms are still very opaque and unable to substantiate their ‘reasoning’.
You are a specialist in control engineering and integrating renewables into energy generation. What role can AI play in solving climate problems?
Andrea Emilio Rizzoli: Given the volatility of power generation and the issues around storage, complex control strategies are needed to improve the management of energy systems. AI is already being successfully employed to this end. However, there is still no evidence that AI is having any real impact on climate change mitigation. This is also because it takes massive amounts of energy to train and operate recent generative AI models. AI is not the silver bullet for fixing climate change. We cannot expect a technological miracle – it is up to us to live differently.
Will machines make progress in creativity?
Andrea Emilio Rizzoli: We should not be too worried about artificial intelligence and creativity. Machines eat up what they are fed and then they spit it out in various statistical recombinations. But, as the computational linguist Emily Bender puts it, these machines lack the communicative intent that underlies human communication. I also think that humanity is profoundly different from machines and that our minds still have the edge when it comes to both interpersonal communication and creativity.