The NWO Synergy annual conferences are a great way for researchers, policy makers, managers and other professionals working in the social sciences and humanities in The Netherlands to meet each other. The theme for 2020 is the impact on Changing Societies.
The Art of Reasoning
A fantastic example of creating impact with humanities research is the work of Mariken Teeuwen and her team at the Huygens Institute. They study medieval manuscripts. The idea of scholars spending days in ancient dusty libraries glossing over old tomes has a certain romantic notion, but most of the work they do is firmly based on computational methods. A couple of weeks ago I wrote a blog on the challenges they face after visiting the ICT with Industry workshop. Most of Teeuwen's work depends on the analysis of medieval handwriting. Dusty? Perhaps, but being able to automatically perform handwritten text recognition on medieval handwriting directly translates to better handwriting algorithms in general. Something we all benefit from. And beyond the impact of these digital methods, society also benefits from the knowledge gained from centuries old books. Together with Irene van Renswoude, Teeuwen studies e.g. how (self) censorship works, how later generations removed or commented on uncomfortable texts, and the way their remarks affected people afterwards. The impact of their Art of Reasoning-project on our digitised society is evident. We too struggle with the revisioning of news, (self) censorship, information verification, and internet governance. The Art of Reasoning is relevant to dealing with each of these big challenges on the web. So this work is a win-win in my world.
Radical ideas not radical enough
The NWO Synergy 2020 conference is a parade of social scientists and humanities scholars like Teeuwen and van Renswoude demonstrating the impact their work has on our changing society. In the opening panel Rutger Hoekstra, economist and author of the book ‘Replacing GDP by 2030’ explained his studies on the history of national power infrastructures and how they influence measuring GDP. And this is important: most of our national and international policies are based on that figure, it affects everything from political decisions on austerity to ecological measures.
The keynote by Andy Miah offered an overview of the different approaches and methods for new knowledge creation. We are all creating knowledge all the time: we build websites and produce content for digital platforms. Soon computers will join us in creation – news agencies are e.g. already publishing automatically generated headlines. Miah claims that this requires a radical overhaul of the way knowledge creation works: scientific authors write a paper, go to a publishing company, that serves pdf’s for consumption - instead of paper journals and books. He sees it is outdated and only a digital continuation of things that have been going on for centuries.
I agree with his claim but I think the radical overhaul we need goes much deeper. Miah only shows the beginning. Over the next decade new digital technology like AI, implants, augmented reality, robotics, a gazillion sensors around us, and stuff we have not even thought of yet, will disrupt everything: work, pleasure, health, research, warfare. Not only us, but everything around us will start to generate data, information and knowledge. The humanities and social sciences should not just look at this trend as a possibility to make an impact, they should embrace their role here. It is absolutely crucial that they do.
Machines for humans
Society will adept to the changing conditions. The question is how. Living with robots and AI demands that we think about how and what we will teach our technology. In The Netherlands we are perfectly happy with a computer system that autonomously decides whether or not to close the Maeslantkering – the storm surge barrier protecting the port of Rotterdam and the millions of people living in Holland. People don't object to a smart watch that warns of an oncoming heart attack either. But things enter the grey areas when services require technology to monitor and listen to what is happening in the privacy of our homes. Not to mention computers deciding whether or not you are going to get the job you applied for. Or weapon platforms that decide independently to shoot at perceived threats? These are only a couple of examples that come to mind. We will face endless other comparable questions.
As we grow closer and more dependent on our technology. It is essential for our changing society that we do not forget to explain and train our machines that they are dealing with humans in all their complexity. The biggest impact social scientists and humanities scholars can have on our future is to help the computational sciences to build a more human AI.