At present, there is no widely agreed upon definition for cognitive computing in either academia or industry.
In general, the term cognitive computing has been used to refer to new hardware and/or software that mimics the functioning of the human brain (2004). In this sense, cognitive computing is a new type of computing
with the goal of more accurate models of how the human brain/mind senses, reasons, and responds to stimulus. Cognitive computing applications link data analysis and adaptive page displays (AUI) to adjust content for a particular type of audience. As such, cognitive computing hardware and applications strive to be more affective and more influential by design.
The term "cognitive system" also applies to any artificial construct
able to perform a cognitive process where a cognitive process is the
transformation of data, information, knowledge, or wisdom to a new level
in the DIKW Pyramid. While many cognitive systems employ techniques having their origination in artificial intelligence research, cognitive systems, themselves, may not be artificially intelligent. For example, a neural network trained to recognize cancer on an MRI
scan may achieve a higher success rate than a human doctor. This system
is certainly a cognitive system but is not artificially intelligent.
Cognitive systems may be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real-time, or near real-time, and may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided).
Cognitive analytics
Cognitive computing-branded technology platforms typically specialize in the processing and analysis of large, unstructured datasets.
Applications
Education
Even if cognitive computing can not take the place of teachers, it
can still be a heavy driving force in the education of students.
Cognitive computing being used in the classroom is applied by
essentially having an assistant that is personalized for each individual
student. This cognitive assistant can relieve the stress that teachers
face while teaching students, while also enhancing the student's
learning experience over all. Teachers may not be able to pay each and every student individual
attention, this being the place that cognitive computers fill the gap.
Some students may need a little more help with a particular subject. For
many students, Human interaction between student and teacher can cause anxiety and can be uncomfortable. With the help of Cognitive Computer tutors, students will not have to face their uneasiness and can gain the confidence to learn and do well in the classroom. While a student is in class with their personalized assistant, this
assistant can develop various techniques, like creating lesson plans, to
tailor and aid the student and their needs.
Healthcare
Numerous tech companies are in the process of developing technology
that involves cognitive computing that can be used in the medical field.
The ability to classify and identify is one of the main goals of these
cognitive devices. This trait can be very helpful in the study of identifying carcinogens.
This cognitive system that can detect would be able to assist the
examiner in interpreting countless numbers of documents in a lesser
amount of time than if they did not use Cognitive Computer technology.
This technology can also evaluate information about the patient, looking
through every medical record in depth, searching for indications that
can be the source of their problems.
Commerce
Together with Artificial Intelligence, it has been used in warehouse
management systems to collect, store, organize and analyze all related
supplier data. All these aims at improving efficiency, enabling faster
decision-making, monitoring inventory and fraud detection
Human Cognitive Augmentation
In situations where humans are using or working collaboratively with
cognitive systems, called a human/cog ensemble, results achieved by the
ensemble are superior to results obtainable by the human working alone.
Therefore, the human is cognitively augmented.In cases where the human/cog ensemble achieves results at, or superior
to, the level of a human expert then the ensemble has achieved synthetic
expertise. In a human/cog ensemble, the "cog" is a cognitive system employing virtually any kind of cognitive computing technology.
The powers of cognitive computing and artificial intelligence
hold the potential to affect almost every task that humans are capable
of performing. This can negatively affect employment for humans, as
there would be no such need for human labor anymore. It would also
increase the inequality of wealth;
the people at the head of the cognitive computing industry would grow
significantly richer, while workers without ongoing, reliable employment
would become less well off.
The more industries start to use cognitive computing, the more difficult it will be for humans to compete. Increased use of the technology will also increase the amount of work that AI-driven robots
and machines can perform. Only extraordinarily talented, capable and
motivated humans would be able to keep up with the machines. The
influence of competitive individuals in conjunction with artificial
intelligence/cognitive computing with has the potential to change the
course of humankind.
The project is run by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, which is directed by Lomborg and was part of the Copenhagen Business School, but it is now an independent 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation
registered in the USA. The project considers possible solutions to a
wide range of problems, presented by experts in each field. These are
evaluated and ranked by a panel of economists. The emphasis is on
rational prioritization by economic analysis. The panel is given an
arbitrary budget constraint and instructed to use cost–benefit analysis
to focus on a bottom line approach in solving/ranking presented
problems. The approach is justified as a corrective to standard practice
in international development, where, it is alleged, media attention and the "court of public opinion" results in priorities that are often far from optimal.
History
The project has held conferences in 2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012. The 2012 conference ranked bundled micronutrient interventions the highest priority, and the 2008 report identified supplementing vitamins for undernourished children as the world’s best investment. The 2009 conference, dealing specifically with global warming, proposed research into marine cloud whitening
(ships spraying seawater into clouds to make them reflect more sunlight
and thereby reduce temperature) as the top climate change priority,
though climate change itself is ranked well below other world problems.
In 2011 the Copenhagen Consensus Center carried out the Rethink HIV
project together with the RUSH Foundation, to find smart solutions to
the problem of HIV/AIDS.
In 2007 looked into which projects would contribute most to welfare in
Copenhagen Consensus for Latin America in cooperation with the Inter-American Development Bank.
The initial project was co-sponsored by the Danish government and The Economist. A book summarizing the Copenhagen Consensus 2004 conclusions, Global Crises, Global Solutions, edited by Lomborg, was published in October 2004 by Cambridge University Press, followed by the second edition published in 2009 based on the 2008 conclusions.
Copenhagen Consensus 2012
In May 2012, the third global Copenhagen Consensus was held, gathering economists to analyze the costs and benefits of
different approaches to tackling the world‘s biggest problems. The aim
was to provide an answer to the question:
If you had $75bn for worthwhile causes, where should you start?
A panel including four Nobel laureates met in Copenhagen, Denmark, in
May 2012. The panel’s deliberations were informed by thirty new economic
research papers that were written just for the project by scholars from
around the world.
In addition, the Center commissioned research on Corruption and trade barriers, but the Expert Panel did not rank these for Copenhagen Consensus 2012,
because the solutions to these challenges are political rather than
investment-related.
Outcome
Given the budget restraints, they found 16 investments worthy of investment (in descending order of desirability):
Bundled micronutrient interventions to fight hunger and improve education
Expanding the subsidy for malaria combination treatment
Expanded childhood immunization coverage
Deworming of schoolchildren, to improve educational and health outcomes
During the days of the Copenhagen Consensus 2012 conference, a series of articles was published in Slate Magazine each about a challenge that was discussed, and Slate readers could make
their own ranking, voting for the solutions which they thought were
best. Slate readers' ranking corresponded with that of the Expert Panel
on many points, including the desirability of bundled micronutrient
intervention; however, the most striking difference was in connection
with the problem of overpopulation. Family planning ranked highest on the Slate priority list, whereas it didn't feature in the top 16 of the Expert Panel's prioritisation.
Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level
Microfinance
Improved stove intervention to combat Air Pollution
Large, multipurpose dam in Africa
Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles
Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles
Diesel vehicle particulate control technology
Tobacco tax
R&D and carbon dioxide emissions reduction
Carbon dioxide emissions reduction
Unlike the 2004 results, these were not grouped into qualitative bands such as Good, Poor, etc.
Gary Yohe, one of the authors of the global warming paper, subsequently accused Lomborg of "deliberate distortion of our conclusions", adding that "as one of the authors of the Copenhagen Consensus
Project's principal climate paper, I can say with certainty that Lomborg
is misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory".
Kåre Fog further pointed out that the future benefits of emissions
reduction were discounted at a higher rate than for any of the other 27 proposals, stating "so there is an obvious reason why the climate issue always is ranked last" in Lomborg's environmental studies.
In a subsequent joint statement settling their differences,
Lomborg and Yohe agreed that the "failure" of Lomborg's emissions
reduction plan "could be traced to faulty design".
Climate Change Project
In 2009, the Copenhagen convened an expert panel specifically to examine solutions to climate change. The process was similar to the 2004 and 2008 Copenhagen Consensus,
involving papers by specialists considered by a panel of economists. The
panel ranked 15 solutions, of which the top 5 were:
Research into marine cloud whitening (involving ships spraying
sea-water into clouds so as to reflect more sunlight and thereby reduce
temperatures)
Technology-led policy response
Research into stratospheric aerosol injection (involving injected ?sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere to reduce sunlight)
The benefits of the number 1 solution are that if the research proved
successful this solution could be deployed relatively cheaply and
quickly. Potential problems include environmental impacts e.g. from
changing rainfall patterns.
Measures to cut carbon and methane emissions, such as carbon taxes, came bottom of the results list, partly because they would take a long time to have much effect on temperatures.
Copenhagen Consensus 2004
Process
Eight economists met May 24–28, 2004 at a roundtable in Copenhagen.
A series of background papers had been prepared in advance to summarize
the current knowledge about the welfare economics of 32 proposals
("opportunities") from 10 categories ("challenges"). For each category,
one assessment article and two critiques were produced. After a
closed-door review of the background papers, each of the participants
gave economic priority rankings to 17 of the proposals (the rest were
deemed inconclusive).
The
panel agreed to rate seventeen of the thirty-two opportunities within
seven of the ten challenges. The rated opportunities were further
classified into four groups: Very Good, Good, Fair and Bad; all results
are based using cost–benefit analysis.
Very good
The highest priority was assigned to implementing certain new measures to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. The economists estimated that an investment of $27 billion could avert nearly 30 million new infections by 2010.
Policies to reduce malnutrition and hunger were chosen as the second priority. Increasing the availability of micronutrients, particularly reducing iron deficiency anemia through dietary supplements, was judged to have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs, which were estimated at $12 billion.
Control malaria
Third on the list was trade liberalization; the experts agreed that modest costs could yield large benefits for the world as a whole and for developing nations.
The fourth priority identified was controlling and treating malaria; $13 billion costs were judged to produce very good benefits, particularly if applied toward chemically-treated mosquito netting for beds.
Good
The fifth priority identified was increased spending on research into new agricultural technologies
appropriate for developing nations. Three proposals for improving
sanitation and water quality for a billion of the world’s poorest
followed in priority (ranked sixth to eighth: small-scale water
technology for livelihoods, community-managed water supply and
sanitation, and research on water productivity in food production).
Completing this group was the 'government' project concerned with
lowering the cost of starting new businesses.
Fair
Ranked tenth was the project on lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers.
Eleventh and twelfth on the list were malnutrition projects – improving
infant and child nutrition and reducing the prevalence of low birth weight. Ranked thirteenth was the plan for scaled-up basic health services to fight diseases.
Poor
Ranked
fourteenth to seventeenth were: a migration project (guest-worker
programmes for the unskilled), which was deemed to discourage
integration; and three projects addressing climate change (optimal carbon tax, the Kyoto Protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax), which the panel judged to be least cost-efficient of the proposals.
Global warming
The
panel found that all three climate policies presented have "costs that
were likely to exceed the benefits". It further stated "global warming
must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a
shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive."
In regard to the science of global warming, the paper presented by Cline relied primarily on the framework set by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
and accepted the consensus view on global warming that greenhouse gas
emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the global
warming. Cline relies on various research studies published in the
field of economics and attempted to compare the estimated cost of
mitigation policies against the expected reduction in the damage of the
global warming.
Cline used a discount rate of 1.5%. (Cline's summary is on the project webpage.)
He justified his choice of discount rate on the ground of
"utility-based discounting", that is there is zero bias in terms of
preference between the present and the future generation (see time preference).
Moreover, Cline extended the time frame of the analysis to three
hundred years in the future. Because the expected net damage of the
global warming becomes more apparent beyond the present generation(s),
this choice had the effect of increasing the present-value cost of the
damage of global warming as well as the benefit of abatement policies.
Criticism
Members of the panel including Thomas Schelling and one of the two perspective paper writers Robert O. Mendelsohn
(both opponents of the Kyoto protocol) criticised Cline, mainly on the
issue of discount rates. (See "The opponent notes to the paper on
Climate Change".)
Mendelsohn, in particular, characterizing Cline's position, said that
"[i]f we use a large discount rate, they will be judged to be small
effects" and called it "circular reasoning, not a justification". Cline
responded to this by arguing that there is no obvious reason to use a
large discount rate just because this is what is usually done in
economic analysis. In other words, climate change ought to be treated
differently from other, more imminent problems. The Economist quoted
Mendelsohn as worrying that "climate change was set up to fail".
Moreover, Mendelsohn argued that Cline's damage estimates were
excessive. Citing various recent articles, including some of his own, he
stated that "[a] series of studies on the impacts of climate change
have systematically shown that the older literature overestimated
climate damages by failing to allow for adaptation and for climate
benefits."
The 2004 Copenhagen Consensus attracted various criticisms:
Approach and alleged bias
The
2004 report, especially its conclusion regarding climate change, was
subsequently criticised from a variety of perspectives. The general
approach adopted to set priorities was criticised by Jeffrey Sachs, an American economist and advocate of both the Kyoto protocol and increased development aid, who argued that the analytical framework
was inappropriate and biased and that the project "failed to mobilize
an expert group that could credibly identify and communicate a true
consensus of expert knowledge on the range of issues under
consideration.".
Tom Burke, a former director of Friends of the Earth,
repudiated the entire approach of the project, arguing that applying
cost–benefit analysis in the way the Copenhagen panel did was "junk
economics".
John Quiggin,
an Australian economics professor, commented that the project is a mix
of "a substantial contribution to our understanding of important issues
facing the world" and an "exercises in political propaganda" and argued
that the selection of the panel members was slanted towards the
conclusions previously supported by Lomborg. Quiggin observed that Lomborg had argued in his controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist
that resources allocated to mitigating global warming would be better
spent on improving water quality and sanitation, and was therefore seen
as having prejudged the issues.
Under the heading "Wrong Question", Sachs further argued that:
"The panel that drew up the Copenhagen Consensus was asked to allocate
an additional US$50 billion in spending by wealthy countries,
distributed over five years, to address the world’s biggest problems.
This was a poor basis for decision-making and for informing the public.
By choosing such a low sum — a tiny fraction of global income — the
project inherently favoured specific low-cost schemes over bolder,
larger projects. It is therefore no surprise that the huge and complex
challenge of long-term climate change was ranked last, and that scaling
up health services in poor countries was ranked lower than interventions
against specific diseases, despite warnings in the background papers
that such interventions require broader improvements in health
services."
In response Lomborg argued that $50 billion was "an optimistic
but realistic example of actual spending." "Experience shows that
pledges and actual spending are two different things. In 1970 the UN set
itself the task of doubling development assistance. Since then the
percentage has actually been dropping". "But even if Sachs or others
could gather much more than $50 billion over the next 4 years, the
Copenhagen Consensus priority list would still show us where it should
be invested first."
Thomas Schelling,
one of the Copenhagen Consensus panel experts, later distanced himself
from the way in which the Consensus results have been interpreted in the
wider debate, arguing that it was misleading to put climate change at
the bottom of the priority list. The Consensus panel members were
presented with a dramatic proposal for handling climate change. If given
the opportunity, Schelling would have put a more modest proposal higher
on the list. The Yale economist Robert O. Mendelsohn
was the official critic of the proposal for climate change during the
Consensus. He thought the proposal was way out of the mainstream and
could only be rejected. Mendelsohn worries that climate change was set
up to fail.
Michael Grubb, an economist and lead author for several IPCC reports, commented on the Copenhagen Consensus, writing:
To try and define climate policy as a trade-off against
foreign aid is thus a forced choice that bears no relationship to
reality. No government is proposing that the marginal costs associated with, for example, an emissions trading system, should be deducted from its foreign aid
budget. This way of posing the question is both morally inappropriate
and irrelevant to the determination of real climate mitigation policy.
Panel membership
Quiggin
argued that the members of the 2004 panel, selected by Lomborg, were
"generally towards the right and, to the extent that they had stated
views, to be opponents of Kyoto." Sachs also noted that the panel members had not previously been much involved in issues of development economics and were unlikely to reach useful conclusions in the time available to them. Commenting on the 2004 Copenhagen Consensus, climatologist and IPCC author Stephen Schneider criticised Lomborg for only inviting economists to participate:
In order to achieve a true consensus, I think Lomborg
would've had to invite ecologists, social scientists concerned with
justice and how climate change impacts and policies are often
inequitably distributed, philosophers who could challenge the economic
paradigm of "one dollar, one vote" implicit in cost–benefit analyses
promoted by economists, and climate scientists who could easily show that Lomborg's claim that climate change will have only minimal effects is not sound science.
Lomborg countered criticism of the panel membership by stating that
"Sachs disparaged the Consensus 'dream team' because it only consisted
of economists. But that was the very point of the project. Economists
have expertise in economic prioritization. It is they and not
climatologists or malaria experts who can prioritize between battling
global warming or communicable disease".
