Harvard Data Science Review • 1.

Arti cial Intelligence—The

Published on: Jun 23, 2019

This article is accompanied by multiple invited discussion pieces and a rejoinder by the author.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the mantra of the current era. The phrase is intoned by technologists,
academicians, journalists, and venture capitalists alike. As with many phrases that cross over from
technical academic fields into general circulation, there is significant misunderstanding accompanying
use of the phrase. However, this is not the classical case of the public not understanding the scientists
—here the scientists are often as befuddled as the public. The idea that our era is somehow seeing the
emergence of an intelligence in silicon that rivals our own entertains all of us, enthralling us and
frightening us in equal measure. And, unfortunately, it distracts us.

There is a different narrative that one can tell about the current era. Consider the following story,
which involves humans, computers, data, and life-or-death decisions, but where the focus is
something other than intelligence-in-silicon fantasies. When my spouse was pregnant 14 years ago, we
had an ultrasound. There was a geneticist in the room, and she pointed out some white spots around
the heart of the fetus. “Those are markers for Down syndrome,” she noted, “and your risk has now
gone up to one in 20.” She let us know that we could learn whether the fetus in fact had the genetic
modification underlying Down syndrome via an amniocentesis, but amniocentesis was risky—the
chance of killing the fetus during the procedure was roughly one in 300. Being a statistician, I was
determined to find out where these numbers were coming from. In my research, I discovered that a
statistical analysis had been done a decade previously in the UK in which these white spots, which
reflect calcium buildup, were indeed established as a predictor of Down syndrome. I also noticed that
the imaging machine used in our test had a few hundred more pixels per square inch than the machine
used in the UK study. I returned to tell the geneticist that I believed that the white spots were likely
false positives, literal white noise.

She said, “Ah, that explains why we started seeing an uptick in Down syndrome diagnoses a few years
ago. That’s when the new machine arrived.”

We didn’t do the amniocentesis, and my wife delivered a healthy girl a few months later, but the
episode troubled me, particularly after a back-of-the-envelope calculation convinced me that many
thousands of people had gotten that diagnosis that same day worldwide, that many of them had opted
for amniocentesis, and that a number of babies had died needlessly. The problem that this episode
revealed wasn’t about my individual medical care; it was about a medical system that measured
variables and outcomes in various places and times, conducted statistical analyses, and made use of
the results in other situations. The problem had to do not just with data analysis per se, but with what
database researchers call provenance—broadly, where did data arise, what inferences were drawn
from the data, and how relevant are those inferences to the present situation? While a trained human

2
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

might be able to work all of this out on a case-by-case basis, the issue was that of designing a
planetary-scale medical system that could do this without the need for such detailed human oversight.

I’m also a computer scientist, and it occurred to me that the principles needed to build planetary-scale
inference-and-decision-making systems of this kind, blending computer science with statistics, and
considering human utilities, were nowhere to be found in my education. It occurred to me that the
development of such principles—which will be needed not only in the medical domain but also in
domains such as commerce, transportation, and education—were at least as important as those of
building AI systems that can dazzle us with their game-playing or sensorimotor skills.

Whether or not we come to understand ‘intelligence’ any time soon, we do have a major challenge on
our hands in bringing together computers and humans in ways that enhance human life. While some
view this challenge as subservient to the creation of artificial intelligence, another more prosaic, but
no less reverent, viewpoint is that it is the creation of a new branch of engineering. Much like civil
engineering and chemical engineering in decades past, this new discipline aims to corral the power of
a few key ideas, bringing new resources and capabilities to people, and to do so safely. Whereas civil
engineering and chemical engineering built upon physics and chemistry, this new engineering
discipline will build on ideas that the preceding century gave substance to, such as information,
algorithm, data, uncertainty, computing, inference, and optimization. Moreover, since much of the
focus of the new discipline will be on data from and about humans, its development will require
perspectives from the social sciences and humanities.

While the building blocks are in place, the principles for putting these blocks together are not, and so
the blocks are currently being put together in ad-hoc ways. Thus, just as humans built buildings and
bridges before there was civil engineering, humans are proceeding with the building of societal-scale,
inference-and-decision-making systems that involve machines, humans, and the environment. Just as
early buildings and bridges sometimes fell to the ground—in unforeseen ways and with tragic
consequences—many of our early societal-scale inference-and-decision-making systems are already
exposing serious conceptual flaws.

Unfortunately, we are not very good at anticipating what the next emerging serious flaw will be. What
we’re missing is an engineering discipline with principles of analysis and design.

The current public dialog about these issues too often uses the term AI as an intellectual wildcard, one
that makes it difficult to reason about the scope and consequences of emerging technology. Let us
consider more carefully what AI has been used to refer to, both recently and historically.

Most of what is labeled AI today, particularly in the public sphere, is actually machine learning (ML), a
term in use for the past several decades. ML is an algorithmic field that blends ideas from statistics,

3
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

computer science and many other disciplines (see below) to design algorithms that process data, make
predictions, and help make decisions. In terms of impact on the real world, ML is the real thing, and
not just recently. Indeed, that ML would grow into massive industrial relevance was already clear in
the early 1990s, and by the turn of the century forward-looking companies such as Amazon were
already using ML throughout their business, solving mission-critical, back-end problems in fraud
detection and supply-chain prediction, and building innovative consumer-facing services such as
recommendation systems. As datasets and computing resources grew rapidly over the ensuing two
decades, it became clear that ML would soon power not only Amazon but essentially any company in
which decisions could be tied to large-scale data. New business models would emerge. The phrase
‘data science’ emerged to refer to this phenomenon, reflecting both the need of ML algorithms experts
to partner with database and distributed-systems experts to build scalable, robust ML systems, as
well as reflecting the larger social and environmental scope of the resulting systems.This confluence of
ideas and technology trends has been rebranded as ‘AI’ over the past few years. This rebranding
deserves some scrutiny.

Historically, the phrase “artificial intelligence” was coined in the late 1950s to refer to the heady
aspiration of realizing in software and hardware an entity possessing human-level intelligence. I will
use the phrase “human-imitative AI” to refer to this aspiration, emphasizing the notion that the
artificially-intelligent entity should seem to be one of us, if not physically then at least mentally
(whatever that might mean). This was largely an academic enterprise. While related academic fields
such as operations research, statistics, pattern recognition, information theory, and control theory
already existed, and often took inspiration from human or animal behavior, these fields were arguably
focused on low-level signals and decisions. The ability of, say, a squirrel to perceive the three-
dimensional structure of the forest it lives in, and to leap among its branches, was inspirational to
these fields. AI was meant to focus on something different: the high-level or cognitive capability of
humans to reason and to think. Sixty years later, however, high-level reasoning and thought remain
elusive. The developments now being called AI arose mostly in the engineering fields associated with
low-level pattern recognition and movement control, as well as in the field of statistics, the discipline
focused on finding patterns in data and on making well-founded predictions, tests of hypotheses, and
decisions.

Indeed, the famous backpropagation algorithm that David Rumelhart rediscovered in the early 1980s,
and which is now considered at the core of the so-called “AI revolution,” first arose in the field of
control theory in the 1950s and 1960s. One of its early applications was to optimize the thrusts of the
Apollo spaceships as they headed towards the moon.

Since the 1960s, much progress has been made, but it has arguably not come about from the pursuit of
human-imitative AI. Rather, as in the case of the Apollo spaceships, these ideas have often hidden

4
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

behind the scenes, the handiwork of researchers focused on specific engineering challenges. Although
not visible to the general public, research and systems-building in areas such as document retrieval,
text classification, fraud detection, recommendation systems, personalized search, social network
analysis, planning, diagnostics, and A/B testing have been a major success—these advances have
powered companies such as Google, Netflix, Facebook, and Amazon.

One could simply refer to all of this as AI, and indeed that is what appears to have happened. Such
labeling may come as a surprise to optimization or statistics researchers, who find themselves
suddenly called AI researchers, but labels aside, the bigger problem is that the use of this single, ill-
defined acronym prevents a clear understanding of the range of intellectual and commercial issues at
play.

The past two decades have seen major progress—in industry and academia—in a complementary
aspiration to human-imitative AI that is often referred to as “Intelligence Augmentation” (IA). Here
computation and data are used to create services that augment human intelligence and creativity. A
search engine can be viewed as an example of IA, as it augments human memory and factual
knowledge, as can natural language translation, which augments the ability of a human to
communicate. Computer-based generation of sounds and images serves as a palette and creativity
enhancer for artists. While services of this kind could conceivably involve high-level reasoning and
thought, currently they don’t; they mostly perform various kinds of string-matching and numerical
operations that capture patterns that humans can make use of.

Hoping that the reader will tolerate one last acronym, let us conceive broadly of a discipline of
“Intelligent Infrastructure” (II), whereby a web of computation, data, and physical entities exists that
makes human environments more supportive, interesting, and safe. Such infrastructure is beginning
to make its appearance in domains such as transportation, medicine, commerce, and finance, with
implications for individual humans and societies. This emergence sometimes arises in conversations
about an Internet of Things, but that effort generally refers to the mere problem of getting ‘things’
onto the Internet, not to the far grander set of challenges associated with building systems that
analyze those data streams to discover facts about the world and permit ‘things’ to interact with
humans at a far higher level of abstraction than mere bits.

For example, returning to my personal anecdote, we might imagine living our lives in a societal-scale
medical system that sets up data flows and data-analysis flows between doctors and devices positioned
in and around human bodies, thereby able to aid human intelligence in making diagnoses and
providing care. The system would incorporate information from cells in the body, DNA, blood tests,
environment, population genetics, and the vast scientific literature on drugs and treatments. It would
not just focus on a single patient and a doctor, but on relationships among all humans, just as current
medical testing allows experiments done on one set of humans (or animals) to be brought to bear in

5
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

the care of other humans. It would help maintain notions of relevance, provenance, and reliability, in
the way that the current banking system focuses on such challenges in the domain of finance and
payment. While one can foresee many problems arising in such a system—privacy issues, liability
issues, security issues, etc.—these concerns should be viewed as challenges, not show-stoppers.

We now come to a critical issue: is working on classical human-imitative AI the best or only way to
focus on these larger challenges? Some of the most heralded recent success stories of ML have in fact
been in areas associated with human-imitative AI—areas such as computer vision, speech recognition,
game-playing, and robotics. Perhaps we should simply await further progress in domains such as
these. There are two points to make here. First, although one would not know it from reading the
newspapers, success in human-imitative AI has in fact been limited; we are very far from realizing
human-imitative AI aspirations. The thrill (and fear) of making even limited progress on human-
imitative AI gives rise to levels of over-exuberance and media attention that is not present in other
areas of engineering.

Second, and more importantly, success in these domains is neither sufficient nor necessary to solve
important IA and II problems. On the sufficiency side, consider self-driving cars. For such technology
to be realized, a range of engineering problems will need to be solved that may have little relationship
to human competencies (or human lack-of-competencies). The overall transportation system (an II
system) will likely more closely resemble the current air-traffic control system than the current
collection of loosely-coupled, forward-facing, inattentive human drivers. It will be vastly more
complex than the current air-traffic control system, specifically in its use of massive amounts of data
and adaptive statistical modeling to inform fine-grained decisions. Those challenges need to be in the
forefront versus a potentially-distracting focus on human-imitative AI.

As for the necessity argument, some say that the human-imitative AI aspiration subsumes IA and II
aspirations, because a human-imitative AI system would not only be able to solve the classical
problems of AI (e.g., as embodied in the Turing test), but it would also be our best bet for solving IA
and II problems. Such an argument has little historical precedent. Did civil engineering develop by
envisaging the creation of an artificial carpenter or bricklayer? Should chemical engineering have been
framed in terms of creating an artificial chemist? Even more polemically: if our goal was to build
chemical factories, should we have first created an artificial chemist who would have then worked out
how to build a chemical factory?

A related argument is that human intelligence is the only kind of intelligence we know, thus we should
aim to mimic it as a first step. However, humans are in fact not very good at some kinds of reasoning—
we have our lapses, biases, and limitations. Moreover, critically, we did not evolve to perform the
kinds of large-scale decision-making that modern II systems must face, nor to cope with the kinds of
uncertainty that arise in II contexts. One could argue that an AI system would not only imitate human

6
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

intelligence, but also correct it, and would also scale to arbitrarily large problems. Of course, we are
now in the realm of science fiction—such speculative arguments, while entertaining in the setting of
fiction, should not be our principal strategy going forward in the face of the critical IA and II problems
that are beginning to emerge. We need to solve IA and II problems on their own merits, not as a mere
corollary to a human-imitative AI agenda.

It is not hard to pinpoint algorithmic and infrastructure challenges in II systems that are not central
themes in human-imitative AI research. II systems require the ability to manage distributed
repositories of knowledge that are rapidly changing and are likely to be globally incoherent. Such
systems must cope with cloud-edge interactions in making timely, distributed decisions, and they must
deal with long-tail phenomena where there is lots of data on some individuals and little data on most
individuals. They must address the difficulties of sharing data across administrative and competitive
boundaries. Finally, and of particular importance, II systems must bring economic ideas such as
incentives and pricing into the realm of the statistical and computational infrastructures that link
humans to each other and to valued goods. Such II systems can be viewed as not merely providing a
service, but as creating markets. There are domains such as music, literature, and journalism that are
crying out for the emergence of such markets, where data analysis links producers and consumers.
And this must all be done within the context of evolving societal, ethical, and legal norms.

Of course, classical human-imitative AI problems remain of great interest as well. However, the
current focus on doing AI research via the gathering of data, the deployment of deep learning
infrastructure, and the demonstration of systems that mimic certain narrowly-defined human skills—
with little in the way of emerging explanatory principles—tends to deflect attention from major open
problems in classical AI. These problems include the need to bring meaning and reasoning into
systems that perform natural language processing, the need to infer and represent causality, the need
to develop computationally-tractable representations of uncertainty and the need to develop systems
that formulate and pursue long-term goals. These are classical goals in human-imitative AI, but in the
current hubbub over the AI revolution it is easy to forget that they are not yet solved.

IA will also remain quite essential, because for the foreseeable future, computers will not be able to
match humans in their ability to reason abstractly about real-world situations. We will need well-
thought-out interactions of humans and computers to solve our most pressing problems. And we will
want computers to trigger new levels of human creativity, not replace human creativity (whatever that
might mean).

It was John McCarthy (while a professor at Dartmouth, and soon to take a position at MIT) who coined
the term AI, apparently to distinguish his budding research agenda from that of Norbert Wiener (then
an older professor at MIT). Wiener had coined “cybernetics” to refer to his own vision of intelligent
systems—a vision that was closely tied to operations research, statistics, pattern recognition,

7
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

information theory, and control theory. McCarthy, on the other hand, emphasized the ties to logic. In
an interesting reversal, it is Wiener’s intellectual agenda that has come to dominate in the current era,
under the banner of McCarthy’s terminology. (This state of affairs is surely, however, only temporary;
the pendulum swings more in AI than in most fields.)

Beyond the historical perspectives of McCarthy and Wiener, we need to realize that the current public
dialog on AI—which focuses on narrow subsets of both industry and of academia—risks blinding us to
the challenges and opportunities that are presented by the full scope of AI, IA, and II.

This scope is less about the realization of science-fiction dreams or superhuman nightmares, and more
about the need for humans to understand and shape technology as it becomes ever more present and
influential in their daily lives. Moreover, in this understanding and shaping, there is a need for a
diverse set of voices from all walks of life, not merely a dialog among the technologically attuned.
Focusing narrowly on human-imitative AI prevents an appropriately wide range of voices from being
heard.

While industry will drive many developments, academia will also play an essential role, not only in
providing some of the most innovative technical ideas, but also in bringing researchers from the
computational and statistical disciplines together with researchers from other disciplines whose
contributions and perspectives are sorely needed—notably the social sciences, the cognitive sciences,
and the humanities.

On the other hand, while the humanities and the sciences are essential as we go forward, we should
also not pretend that we are talking about something other than an engineering effort of
unprecedented scale and scope; society is aiming to build new kinds of artifacts. These artifacts should
be built to work as claimed. We do not want to build systems that help us with medical treatments,
transportation options, and commercial opportunities only to find out after the fact that these systems
don’t really work, that they make errors that take their toll in terms of human lives and happiness. In
this regard, as I have emphasized, there is an engineering discipline yet to emerge for the data- and
learning-focused fields. As exciting as these latter fields appear to be, they cannot yet be viewed as
constituting an engineering discipline.

We should embrace the fact that we are witnessing the creation of a new branch of engineering. The
term engineering has connotations—in academia and beyond—of cold, affectless machinery, and of
loss of control for humans, but an engineering discipline can be what we want it to be. In the current
era, we have a real opportunity to conceive of something historically new: a human-centric
engineering discipline. I will resist giving this emerging discipline a name, but if the acronym AI
continues to serve as placeholder nomenclature going forward, let’s be aware of the very real

8
Harvard Data Science Review • 1.1 Arti cial Intelligence—The Revolution Hasn’t Happened Yet

limitations of this placeholder. Let’s broaden our scope, tone down the hype, and recognize the serious
challenges ahead.

Discussion
Read commentary on this article by:

Rodney Brooks (MIT)

Read a rejoinder by:Michael I. Jordan (UC Berkeley)

Acknowledgments
There are a number of individuals whose comments during the writing of this article have helped me
greatly, including Jeff Bezos, Dave Blei, Rod Brooks, Cathryn Carson, Tom Dietterich, Charles Elkan,
Oren Etzioni, David Heckerman, Douglas Hofstadter, Michael Kearns, Tammy Kolda, Ed Lazowska,
John Markoff, Esther Rolf, Maja Mataric, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, Ben Recht, Theodoros Rekatsinas,
Barbara Rosario, and Ion Stoica. I would like to add a special thanks to Cameron Baradar at The House,
who first encouraged me to contemplate writing such a piece.

This article is © 2019 by Michael I. Jordan. The article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY 4.0) International license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode),
except where otherwise indicated with respect to particular material included in the article. The
article should be attributed to the author identified above.