Monthly Archives: April 2020

In an earlier segment of the podcast, Can We Upload Ourselves to a Computer and Live Forever?, Walter Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks and computer scientist Selmer Bringsjord discussed whether we could achieve immortality by uploading our minds to computers.

The basic problem with that idea is that human minds arent computable. Peter and Jane are not bits and bytes. Here, they continue the discussion, addressing the notorious Hard Problem of consciousness. People are conscious and even the most sophisticated foreseeable computers are not. And we are not at all sure what consciousness even is.

A partial transcript of the podcast follows (start at 8:50).

08:50 | Is consciousness a special case of cognition?

Robert J. Marks: In your paper, you claim that consciousness is a special case of cognition. Thats the first time Ive heard that sort of claim. Could you elaborate and unwrap that a little bit?

Selmer Bringsjord (right): Let me just say that I couldnt agree with you more about the delayed scrutiny [claims about uploading our minds to computers are pegged to an indefinite future] and the antidote to that is just taking a bet. But nobody wants to take the bets. So if Id been around when Herb Simon well, were talking the Fifties and he said, in a few years, were going to work it out. Or Marvin Minsky well, its a few summers or maybe even one summer, dont worry, well bring you back this AI.

What I dont get about this is, Well, really, heres five thousand dollars, heres fifty, heres a hundred, heres my entire 403B that says right now, you can take it and my descendants will sort this out. Lets work out the contract. Im willing to make a bet. Lets make a bet But no ones willing to take the bet.

Note: Its possible to get a great deal of attention for promising thinking computers in the indefinite future without making any bets as to performance or even being held accountable for lack thereof.

Herbert Simon (19162001): Machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work that a man can do. (1965).

Marvin Minsky (19272016): Within 10 years computers wont even keep us as pets. (1967)

Robert J. Marks: Its kind of an algorithm of the gaps that someday we are going to have an algorithm that does this sort of thing, yet it has been promised since sixty years ago and nothing has really happened. And nothing has passed, as Ive seen it, the Lovelace test that you proposed about fifteen years ago. So, consciousness isa special case of cognition?

Selmer Bringsjord: Right. I certainly will agree that that is not in any way universally affirmed and some people steer clear of consciousness and try to prevent consciousness from entering the scientific discussion, whether its neuroscience or even sometimes things that are more formal like treatments in decision theorywhether its normatively correct, that is, whether the agents are good at it, whether theyre making bad decisions. No, no, lets come up with an account of decision-making that doesnt take the consciousness associated with desire seriously. So we dont have to worry about what desire really is and the consciousness associated with that, lets keep it separate

If were going to be honest with each other, you cant instantiate these things in agents, at least agents of the human variety, unless that agent has feelings. Unless there is something that it is actually like to be human, unless the human feels pain, unless the human feels pleasure Lets just write down the activities that are part of being a cognitive agent as opposed to just an agent because in AI a textbook can say that an agent just computes a function from the percepts of the environment to actions. So even something that computes the square root is technically an agent in AI. But when we say a cognitive agent, we cant suppress consciousness rising up before our faces and we have to deal with it. But again, some people can try to dodge it.

Note: Approaches to consciousness that are currently under discussion in science principally fall into one of three categories:

It is a material phenomenon: Philosopher Galen Strawson argues that, in order to exist in any scientific sense, consciousness must be wholly physical.

It is an illusion, naturally selected to aid survival: Neuroscientist Michael Graziano espouses this view. The problem is that, as Michael Egnor explains, If consciousness evolved as an aid to reproduction, there is little reason to credit it with any particular effectiveness as a tool for ascertaining truth. Its an aid to coitus, not contemplation.

It exists and pervades nature but we are only aware of human consciousness: Thats the panpsychist view: Scientific American, for example, has given panpsychism considerable respectful space in recent years because the alternative appear to make even less sense.

The idea that consciousness is a real but immaterial phenomenon is not at present considered a scientific idea, irrespective of evidence.

13:16 | Are consciousness and cognition non-algorithmic?

Robert J. Marks (right): So, if we have these things cognition and consciousness, which are attributes of humans, your claim in your paper is that they are non-algorithmic, that is, that you cant write a computer program to simulate them. They are not computable. What is your argument that cognition is not computable?

Selmer Bringsjord: Well, first, to be careful, some of them are not computable. Clearly, playing checkers is a computable process, provably so by definition. If we want a simpler case, applicable even to young children, then Tic Tac Toe. Even a very young child can learn an infallible algorithm for Tic Tac Toe but when they make those decisions theyre doing something thats computable. But Im talking about things that distinguish the human person.

14:48 | Examples of cognition that are not computable

Robert J. Marks: So what would be some examples of cognition that were not computable? Clearly, chess and checkers are computable.

Selmer Bringsjord: Well, at the top of the list is conjectured discovery and confirmation in the formal sciences orto use what is probably good enoughmathematics.

Doing mathematics where you are conjecturing and making discoveries and confirming them is untouchable. I have a booketernally undone but getting quite close nowon Gdels great theorems. If you just look at one little piece of his career, where he proves that the continuum hypothesis (basically that there is no set between the natural numbers and the reals) this is astounding. So when we talk about AI doing all this work, it doesnt really do anything in mathematics.

The great thing about that one is that we can inspect the output produced by humans that are playing in this space. So its not like they just give us vague reports about doing these amazing things. They write their results down. So we can look at the results and we can say, Can a machine generate something like this? and the answer is, flat out, with a ring of iron, no. This would be my number one.

Number two would be creativity As much as he was a maniac, Wagner. I mean, how does one human being create the storyline, the music, the libretto, which is essentially poetry, and produce that out of whole cloth?

Lets just think about love. Whats it like for one person to genuinely love another person and be loved by that person. Now, we cant mathematize that. Weve got no account of what it is. In fact, the leadng formal account of human emotionsthe so-called OCC account, which I like very muchhas come up totally empty on any kind of formal account of love. And yet, we love people and we want to be loved and we know what were talking about so every human being on the face of the planet can just see that there is a major problem here!

Note: Transhumanists do not usually try to explain how they would create immortality by capturing human consciousness in a machine so one can only evaluate the social movement in terms of the issues it would raise if their ideas were remotely possible. Here are a few questions that have been raised:

What does it mean for conventional notions of the person? As Jonathan Bartlett asks, If I kill you, but upload your mind into an android, did I murder you or just modify you?

Bartletts question is especially pertinent because schemes for reproducing you as a computer program may require killing you first..

Would you want immortal life as a computer program? What would be left of life as it matters to us? Heres a test question: Would you give up your right arm for a robotic device that performs better?

Next: Why a computer will not write the Great 21st Century Novel

Earlier: Can human minds be reduced to computer programs? In Silicon Valley that has long been a serious belief. But are we really anywhere close?

Robert J. Marks and Selmer Bringsjord were discussing issues around human vs. computer thinking abilities:

Thinking machines? The Lovelace test raises the stakes. The Turing test has had a free ride in science media for far too long, says an AI expert. (This is the partial transcript and notes to the earlier part of the podcast.)

and

Thinking machines? Has the Lovelace test been passed? Surprising results do not equate to creativity. Is there such a thing as machine creativity? The feats of machines like AlphaGo are due to superior computational power, not to creativity at originating new ideas. Dr. Bringsjord sees the ability to write, say, a novel of ideas as a more realistic test of human vs. computer achievement.

See original here:

Why Our Minds Can't Really Be Uploaded to Computers - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Philosophers involvedin the theories ofpost-humanism and transhumanismare captivated by the possibilities, or dangers, that the future poses to our understanding of human life.

According to Wikipedia,the idea of the post-human originates in the fields of science fiction, futurology, contemporary artand philosophy that literally refers to a person or entity that exists in a state beyond being human. In other words, a human so advanced that he or she is more or less distinct from our current conception of the ordinary person. This will mostly be facilitated by technological developments.

Steps towards post-humanism are already set in motion: they are not simply dystopian fantasies. Despite some of the hype around AI and robots might lead us to believe, noneof these massive changes are happening soon. These developments will be made in incrementally;often two steps forwards and three steps back. This is more linked to the way we humans are, rather than to the state of technology.

Philosophers such as Francesca Ferrando argue that transhumanism understands the meaning of humanity, in relation to technology and ecology. We should start to see humans not as the pinnacle of evolution and the rulers of the world, but as an integral part of the biosphere equal to other organisms. No longer can it be"them and us", with uncontrolled exploitation.

Humans are tribalistic in nature. There is discrimination between gender, race, nationality, ability. We will need to overcome this, yet progress here isn't linear. It is questionable if humanity can overcome tribalism. We might solve some form of these issues.At the same time, humans in their current form will rapidly find new ones to fight over (technology, robots, AI and so on).

In order to overcome some of these deeply ingrained human obstacles, post-humanism pointsto technologies that can be of assistance to manage humanity and our planet earth in a more sustainable way. A prerequisite for this is open societies.

Key issues that humanity will have to surmountare corruption, despotism and roadblocks to human development, whether itbesocially, culturally or economically. None of this will be easy and in the political reality of today, it could be seen as pure fantasy. But over decennia and centuries, things will change.

It is also interesting to contemplate what driveshumans to develop these new technologies.

From a philosophical and scientific point of view, we can think of scenarios that could take us further. Even if we see a global crisis creating massive havoc among our global population, we have already developed technologies that can assist us beyond such a situation, and with the coronavirus, we are seeing a spur of internationally collaborative developments that will greatly enhance this situation further.

In small ways, we are already seeing that "post-humans" will be far more intertwined with technology.

Look at pacemakers, bionic ears and eyes, artificial limbs and so on. We already have smart pills. Cybernetics has seen many breakthroughs in recent years, including the development of advanced prosthetics, used to provide amputees with a better quality of life.

The latest developments here are linking these prostheses direct to our brain and nervous system, making it increasingly more seamless. Soon individuals, otherthan disabled persons, may want similar functionalities. Think here for example about athletes the military and people that are already experimenting themselves with these technologies.

The MIT Media Lab is one of many organisations looking into cyborg developments. This is a being with both organic and biomechatronic body parts.

Going one step further, we are seeing the technology ofhumanoids. They are something that has an appearance resembling a human without being one. The current attempts still look underdeveloped,but compare them with the robots from a few decades ago.

Away from the hardware, now on to the software. Digital technology is already having an enormous impact on how we see ourselves.We already have some primitive forms of digital twins: our persona in digital formats, such as on social media. But there are other developments underway that would go far beyond that, if they ever get off the ground.

Neurotechnology is also a growth area. Utilising nanotechnologies, these technologies are progressing well with developments such as Neuralink: an optogenetic technology that will allow a human brain to download directly from a computer.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies will soon be able to assist humans withthe most complex and difficult problems. Through mind-uploading such as theNectomeprogram and mind-merging, the best brains of the world can work together, creating the Brainternet.

A technology known as neural-lace will see the implanting tiny of electrodes into the brain. The result would be the enhancement of memory and cognitive powers by effectively merging humans and AI. Could this lead to a universal consciousness? Is this what we need to overcomecurrent tribal human problems? Is it consciousness, rather than physical appearance, that makes us human?

Obviously, we would need to redefine what human means in such a situation. Who knows what lays ahead in the centuries, let alone the millennia (hopefully) in front of us? Planet earth perhaps has another billion years to goand it's highly unlikely that humans remain the same as humanswe knowtoday. Will we be able to travel to distant galaxies and in what form will we travel?

Most likely, it will be in some form of software that could emulate our mind. It would require highly integrated computer technologies that could instantly process zettabytes of information, something that is extremely hard to fathom.

A huge question will be how are we going to manage these developments? There will, of course, be many ethical issues that we as a society need to address. We also know that looking at the current unwanted digital technology developments that are happening, we must start planning for the futurebefore technologies like AI makethe decisions for us.

Many industry leaders and scientists have urged governments to start this process now. But like taking preventative measures in relation to the current pandemic, governments equally have been procrastinating in this area.

Rather than trying to preempt developments in the decades or centuries ahead, we should follow and, wherever necessary, regulate these developments as we go. However, it is critical to take this post-human concept into account and have a holistic discussion about these topics between scientists, technologists, politicians and indeed the broader community.

Though, it is impossible to make transhuman predictions from our current position.On the positive side, in order to overcome the current political, cultural, social and economic problems, we will need technology to ensure that all global citizens will have a viable and sustainable place to live with a good quality lifestyle.

Scientists and engineers are certainly making progress.

Paul Buddeis an Independent Australia columnist and managing director ofPaul Budde Consulting, an independent telecommunications research and consultancy organisation. You can follow Paul on Twitter@PaulBudde.

Support independent journalism Subscribeto IA.

The rest is here:

The benefits and risks of AI and post-human life - Independent Australia

If you thought we were living in cursed times, just remember thatRound The Twist existed and all of a sudden things will start to feel a bit more normal.

Now, some legend at the Australian Childrens Television Foundation (ACTF) has started uploading full-length episodes of Round The Twist to their Twisted Lunchbox YouTube channel.

Remember that logo at the end a bunch Aussie kids show in the 90s and 2000s? Yep, thats the ACTF logo.

So now you can spend your iso days reliving the supernatural chaos that constantly besieged Port Niranda and its goddamn lighthouse.

And honestly what the fuck were we watching back then?

Its genuinely surprising that seeing Pete give birth to a tree dryad didnt traumatise an entire generation.

To think that this was not only designed for children, but even shown in primary schools is wild.

And now its online, in all its supernatural glory, for us to binge-watch.

Theres also the unforgettable pilot episode, where a ghost haunts the outdoor loo of the familys lighthouse. Very normal premise for a very normal kids show.

Its not just 90s kids who who can relive their childhood, because the ACTF is uploading more recent shows too.

There are full-length eps of Noah & Saskia, Genie From Down Under,Mortified,Fleabitten and more.

The ACTFs uploading episodes every Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday, which is honestly a bloody godsend when people are somehow running out of things to binge-watch.

Now we finally have just the thing to watch after a long day of school isolation.

See the rest here:

Full-Length Eps Of 'Round The Twist' Are On YouTube To Take Your Mind Off These Chaotic Times - Pedestrian TV

Upload plunges viewers into a future that seems almost disturbingly plausible. Advertising is everywhere, self-driving cars zoom along on the highways, mobile-device screens appear at the flick of a wrist and food is printed instead of cooked. Given some version of all these things is already with us, the idea that the technologys been perfected and accepted in the future doesn't seem so far-fetched. Add to this the idea that people are wearing face masks on crowded public transportation (although the show was shot well before the coronavirus pandemic), and the show's vision of the future feels downright prescient. So the idea that people can upload their consciousness to a corporately created version of the afterlife -- as long as they do so moments before they die -- fits within the shows premise. Upload is the story of one man's experience uploading to the posh, girlfriend-approved digital afterlife Lakeview, and the highs and lows that come with it.

After 27-year-old Nathan(Robbie Amell) is badly injured in a freak self-driving car accident, his girlfriend, Ingrid (Allegra Edwards), insists he upload to her preferred destination. There are many digital afterlife options at just as many price points, but Lakeview is the only place Ingrid lets Nathan consider. Under pressure and not especially capable of making well thought-out decisions, Nathan agrees. Soon he finds himself in a rigid, well-manicured world. Its beautiful, but its not exactly real life, especially since any extras -- in-room dining, better golf clubs, a cold have a price, and Ingrid holds the password to Nathans account. Although Nathan initially has trouble adjusting to his new circumstances, he quickly bonds with his "angel," Nora (Andy Allo), the customer support rep responsible for him. He also learns that his death may not have been so accidental, setting up a mystery that helps drive the plot along.

RELATED: Upload: First Trailer for Robbie Amell's Amazon Prime Sci-Fi Series Debuts

Yet, Upload has more on its mind than the exploration of its digital afterlife or the mystery of what happened to Nathan. From its first episode, the series has a strong undercurrent of social commentary about class. While it never hits viewers over the head with it, the series often returns to themes about haves and have nots. Before his untimely demise, Nathan and his partner were working on an open-source digital afterlife that would have enabled anyone to create their own ideal post-death experience, regardless of means -- a project that would have challenged the extremely lucrative paid digital afterlife industry.

Just like Upload's depiction of the future, its social commentary feels pertinent to our current day and age, but that doesnt make the show feel heavy or difficult to watch. This is a Greg Daniels show after all, and the man who created The Office and Parks and Recreation still knows how to land a joke. That said, this isnt as uproariously funny as Daniels' past comedies. The humor here is more wry, although there are some laugh out loud moments (including when a newly uploaded Nathan learns he'll never miss the toilet again). Plus, the characters are a lot of fun to spend time with, and even the unlikable Ingrid shows her endearing side by the end of the first season.

Part of the credit for that goes to the cast. As Nathan, Amell comes across as a less quirky Jason Ritter, and despite being vain and a bit reckless, his good-guy status is never in doubt. Meanwhile, Kevin Bigley as Luke, Nathan's friend at Lakeview, and Zainab Johnson as Aleesha, Nora's friend at work, fill in the digital and real worlds and offer a counterpoint to the two leads. Also, The X-Files' William B. Davis is a delight in a small role as Nathans billionaire neighbor who enjoys dining on endangered species.

However, the biggest standouts are Allo as Nora and Edwards as Ingrid. Allo brings nuance to the down-on-her-luck Nora, and makes it easy to understand why Nathan immediately gravitates to her. And although Edwards is playing a character that the audience is meant to root against, as the show continues, new and different parts of Ingrid are revealed that make her more sympathetic, even as she maintains her entitled attitude.

RELATED: Netflix's Space Force First Look Photos Revealed, Premiere Date Set

The other shows Daniels is known for were workplace sitcoms, of course, and there is some of that in Upload as well, especially in the real world Nora occupies. She navigates a difficult office environment on a daily basis, including a demanding boss and eccentric co-workers. Yet the inner-workings of the company that runs the digital afterlife are not the shows main concern.

While The Office and Parks and Recreation found absurdity in the mundane, the world presented in Upload is anything but ordinary. Thats part of what makes the show so enjoyable -- it presents a fully realized vision of the future whose characters are grappling with that reality just like we grapple with ours. Upload is layered and engaging, and while it brings up some big ideas, its consistently entertaining. If the show continues for additional seasons, it has the potential to become just as beloved as Daniels' other classics.

Created by Greg Daniels (The Office), Upload stars Robbie Amell, Andy Allo, Allegra Edwards, Zainab Johnson and Kevin Bigley. The series premieres May 1 on Amazon Prime Video.

NEXT: Robbie & Stephen Amell Land Sci-Fi Series Code 8 at Quibi

Dragon Ball Super Reveals the TRUTH About Goku's Ultra Instinct Abilities

Freelance writer and pop culture enthusiast living in Los Angeles. Co-author of the books Mad Men Unzipped and the recently released Finding Truth in Fiction, about audience's positive responses to fictional stories.

Read more here:

REVIEW: Upload Is an Entertaining, Fully Realized Vision of the Future - CBR - Comic Book Resources

All in jest

Stand-up comedian Shamik Chakrabarti will go online to crack some jokes. Chakrabarti quit his job to pursue a career in comedy. He is a self-proclaimed analog guy in a digital world, who spends most of his waking hours staring at computer and smartphone screens. His comedy material comprises rants on various topics. Pay Rs 100 to watch him live on Instagram on April 22. Sign up on www. bookmyshow.com.

Enjoy a dance recitalDifferent artistes will make an appearance in Art Heals, which is an initiative to give back to society during lockdown. The programme begins with initiatives such as breathing exercises and music. A session of dance is planned as well. The Art Heals series is now in its fourth week. So catch a dance performance featuring VP Dhananjayan and Shantha Dhananjayan, on April 23 at 6 pm. Sign up on http://www.bookmyshow.com.

Poetry and moreShekhar Recites Sahir -Part 1 features veteran actor Shekhar Suman. He will go live on Instagram to recite verses by Sahir Ludhiyanvi, who was a poet and lyricist. Listen to Sahir Ludhiyanvis famous works such as Kabhi Kabhi among others. You must be 12 years and above to enjoy the show. Recording or uploading of this stream is not permitted. So catch Shekhar Suman live on April 26 at 5 pm. Sign up on http://www.bookmyshow. com.

Mind speakOnkar Kishan Khullar, who is also known as Digital Gandhi, is an artiste with over 300 million views online. He is hailed as the break-up guru, artist, author and three-time dropout, social entrepreneur and rapper. Watch him take on problems related to love and breakups until May 3. Sign up on http://www.bookmyshow. com.

CHECK OUT

Visit link:

EVENTS ONLINE: All in jest - Pune Mirror

1. Danceworks Free Online Classes

Some of the best modern dancers in the city are members of this storied performance company. And now many of them are also teaching free dance-centric classes, from barre to tap. You can even tune into many of the classes, live, if you want a Peloton-like workout experience.

Every Tuesday, this beloved Brew City childrens theater company is uploading a new batch of educational content pegged to one of its recently staged plays. Part lesson plan, part interactive family fun, the downloadable PDFs should appeal to kids, and parents, interested in theater.

This Walkers Point-based bar and DIY space has started selling make-at-home craft kits. The kits which range in price from $18-38 were made with a lot of age ranges and ability levels in mind. Parents with kids can opt to tackle a simple painting project. More experienced artists can try their hand at hoop weaving. And delivery is free if you live within 10 miles of the companys studio.

A sure sign that were starting to get stir crazy: The homeowners among us have been finding actual enjoyment in the maintenance things that are usually not so great. You were going to have to clean the gutters and rake leaves and start the spring planting soon enough anyway. But also consider some projects with some staying power, like reorganizing the shed or carving out a new flowerbed where youve always wanted one.

On Monday nights at 6:30 p.m., Milwaukee Public Libraries are hosting a virtual story time for families with young children. There will be stories, songs and rhymes to help develop early literacy skills and encourage a love of reading. Event organizers recommend cozy PJs and stuffed animals.

comments

Read more from the original source:

5 Things to Do in Milwaukee This Week That Don't Involve a Crowd: April 20-23 - Milwaukee Magazine

BuzzFeed News; Getty Images

The journalists at BuzzFeed News are proud to bring you trustworthy and relevant reporting about the coronavirus. To help keep this news free, become a member and sign up for our newsletter, Outbreak Today.

Over the last week, two overlapping teams of scientists in California released the first results of big antibody surveys to determine how many people have already been infected with the coronavirus. Their estimates were jaw-dropping.

In Silicon Valley, the true number of coronavirus infections could be 50 to 85 times higher than the number of reported ones. And in Los Angeles County, there might be 28 to 55 times more people infected than the official count.

The numbers, covered in the national press and shared widely on social media, suggested that far more people than previously realized have hidden infections. If that many people have already gotten sick, it also changes the calculation about how frequently the virus can lead to death. In the US, death rates of confirmed cases are over 5%, a high number driven in part by a lack of diagnostic testing.

But the new numbers out of Northern California suggest the virus may kill a much smaller portion of the wider pool of diagnosed and undiagnosed cases, in this case around 0.12% to 0.2%. That would be closer to the death rate for the flu, which is about 0.1%.

Right-wing and libertarian sites immediately seized on the findings, arguing that the economic shutdown has not been worth the public health gains.

Most experts agree there are far more coronavirus infections in the world than are being counted. But almost as instantly as the California numbers were released, critics called out what they saw as significant problems with, or at least big questions about, how the scientists had arrived at them. Chief among their concerns was the accuracy of the test underpinning both studies, and whether the scientists had fully accounted for the number of false positives it might generate.

I think the authors of the above-linked paper owe us all an apology, Andrew Gelman, a statistics and political science professor at Columbia University, wrote on his blog last weekend in reference to the study out of Santa Clara County, home to tech giants like Apple and Google. He added, I think they need to apologize because these were avoidable screw-ups. Theyre the kind of screw-ups that happen if you want to leap out with an exciting finding and you dont look too carefully at what you might have done wrong.

The two antibody surveys, led by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Southern California, are the largest conducted in the US to date. Scientists worldwide are counting on widespread use of these blood-based tests, also known as serological tests, to eventually answer important questions about the pandemic, from who might be immune to reinfection to exactly how widespread the disease is. Such studies are underway around the world, from Germany to Italy to New York.

These are extremely valuable studies, and when theyre done right, theyre going to tell us really important things, Marm Kilpatrick, an infectious disease researcher at the University of California at Santa Cruz, told BuzzFeed News. I just think if theyre not done in careful ways, they can mislead us about whats actually happening.

Kilpatrick worries that the results of these two studies could in turn erode public trust in the need for lockdowns. If thats based on faulty information, that would be terrible, he said.

Here are some of the biggest criticisms about the studies.

The pandemic has kicked academic publishing into warp speed, and scientists are uploading discoveries to the internet every day, bypassing the normal checks of peer review in favor of quickly sharing information. Even so, both research teams who share a member, Neeraj Sood of USC have moved at a pace thats raised some eyebrows in the scientific community. They floated the possibility of scores of uncounted infections to the media before presenting data to back it up, leading some observers to question whether they had rushed to prove a preconceived theory.

On March 17 in Stat, before the antibody surveys had started, Stanford professor John Ioannidis bemoaned the lack of reliable data about the virus, a fiasco that creates tremendous uncertainty about the risk of dying from Covid-19. The next week, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?, two other Stanford faculty argued that projections of the death toll could plausibly be orders of magnitude too high.

Last Friday, a team led by those three researchers uploaded a preliminary draft, or a preprint, about their Santa Clara County study. By early April, there were 956 confirmed cases there. But based on their serological study of 3,300 people, the researchers concluded that the actual number of infections was between 48,000 and 81,000.

On Medrxiv, the preprint server where their results were posted, readers have left 300 comments and counting.

Asked to comment for this story, Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford professor of medicine and the papers senior author, acknowledged by email Monday night that his team had received a vast number of comments and suggestions on our working paper. They are planning to soon release a revised version incorporating many of the suggestions, with a new appendix addressing many of the most important criticisms we have heard, he wrote.

This is exactly the way peer review should work in science, he added.

And on Monday afternoon, the Los Angeles results were shared in a press conference staged by health officials from Los Angeles County and Sood, vice dean for research at USCs Price School of Public Policy and co-leader of the study there. In early April, the county had reported nearly 8,000 cases. But according to the new serological study of 863 people, the researchers estimated the true number of infections was between 221,000 and 442,000.

Those figures, according to an accompanying press release, suggest that the fatality rate is much lower than thought.

In an unexpected twist later that night, Sood said he then learned that a draft of his paper, which had not been released as part of the press conference, had mysteriously been posted to RedState.com, a right-wing blog. The site took it down upon his request though not before a few scientists found it.

In an interview Tuesday afternoon, Sood said he had no idea how the report wound up online without his permission. Its just upsetting to me that it was done, because I really tried to make sure that something like this doesnt happen, he told BuzzFeed News. (BuzzFeed News has a cached copy but is not discussing it here.)

Sood said he had no choice but to release the numbers under county rules, because anything the public health department is involved with must be disclosed to the countys leaders. But we clearly couched those results as these are preliminary findings,' he said.

Sood said he plans to eventually post a paper online, but only once it has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication.

I don't want crowd peer review or whatever you want to call it, he said. Its just too burdensome and Id rather have a more formal peer review process.

Still, skipping the traditional step of data sharing didnt go over well with some scientists.

You cant report the conclusions without providing scientific evidence or you shouldnt, said Natalie Dean, a University of Florida biostatistician.

A Stanford medical student administers a coronavirus antibody study in Mountain View, California, on April 3.

One of scientists biggest concerns is that the researchers were overly confident in their tests false-positive rate and failed to account for the likely possibility that it could be lower or higher a potential difference that would dramatically affect the studies conclusions.

Tests like these look for antibodies formed by the immune system in response to a past infection, and differ from the nasal- and throat-swab diagnostic tests that spot current infections. Antibodies are usually an indicator of immunity against infectious diseases, but since this virus has only existed for about four months, scientists dont yet know how long such protection might last.

Nevertheless, antibody tests have been touted as key to identifying who might be safe from reinfection and could help reopen the economy. To increase their availability, the FDA is letting them be sold without checking the accuracy rates advertised by their manufacturers. As a result, only four have emergency authorization from the agency and more than 120 others have varying and unverified degrees of accuracy.

Both California studies used tests from Premier Biotech, a Minnesota-based company. These tests were used because they were donated and their accuracy claims were independently verified at Stanford, Sood said in an interview last week.

Before being deployed in Northern California, Premiers test kit was run against a total of 401 samples known to be coronavirus-negative: 371 in the manufacturers testing, 30 in Stanfords testing. Across the two sets of results, Premiers test reported that 399 of the 401 were negative.

The researchers interpreted this to mean that it most likely had a false-positive rate of 0.5%, according to the report. At the same time, it could also range somewhere between 0.1% and 1.7%, according to the researchers confidence interval, a statistical term that accounts for a range of possible errors.

That matters because the Santa Clara study found antibodies in 50 of the 3,330 participants, or 1.5%. Since the tests false-positive rate could be as high as 1.7%, it is possible that many of the so-called positives were not, in fact, positive.

Literally every single one could be a false positive, Kilpatrick said. No one thinks all of them were, but the problem is we cant actually exclude the possibility.

That possibility is even harder to rule out in situations when the number of actual infections is low. If only a minority of Santa Clara County residents are infected, the test would have a higher likelihood of turning up false positives.

In their analysis, the researchers adjusted for this range of rates while calculating their infection estimates. But given the small number of samples used to validate the test, coupled with the fact that the test is almost as new as the virus, critics say its possible that the true false-positive rates could be even higher than presented. The test also generates a large percentage of false negatives, 20%, with a possible range of up to 28%, according to the combined validation efforts.

Theres more uncertainty than theyve accounted for, Dean said.

The wide range in estimates for infections in Santa Clara County in early April from 48,000 to 81,000 infections reflects the difference in accuracy rates calculated for the test across the two times it was validated. Using the manufacturers rates to correct for the total, 2.5% of the county was infected. Using Stanfords, about 4.2% were.

As for the Southern California study, there isnt yet full data to analyze. But researchers there found antibodies in about 35 out of 836 people, or 4.1% of those tested.

So far, serology tests across the world have produced a wide variety of estimates of the number of true coronavirus infections, with those from the California studies on the lower end. At Wuhans Zhongnan Hospital, 2.4% of its 3,600 employees were found to have antibodies. Tests on 500 residents of a German town turned up antibodies in 14% of them. And a study near Boston found that 32% of 200 people had been previously infected.

On Monday, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus maintained that the prevalence was low, not more than 2 to 3 percent.

Even slight increases or decreases in the number of positives matter because, in such a small sample, they could make a big difference in the estimated infections across the population.

Sood said that he and the Stanford team had done their best to adjust for the tests false positives and false negatives, while acknowledging that they were taking a second look at their confidence intervals. As new data comes in about these tests, we will update these results, he said.

None of this means that testing shouldnt have been done, or that the researchers shouldnt have published their data.

The error, observers say, was in not being more upfront about how little the numbers could be trusted.

The fact that they made mistakes in their data analysis does not mean that their substantive conclusions are wrong (or that theyre right), Gelman said by email. It just means that there is more uncertainty than was conveyed in the reports and public statements.

Another aspect of the Santa Clara County study that has been flagged as a major problem is how it found participants: Facebook ads.

Spreading the word about tests through social media, the researchers said, helped the study get off the ground quickly and allowed organizers to target people by zip code and demographic characteristics like sex, race, and age. Then they had people drive through three testing sites.

One potential downside of this approach, though, is that since testing is so scarce in the US, the mention of a test may have drawn disproportionate numbers of people whod had COVID-19 symptoms but werent able to get tested. That could have inflated the number of positive results. Its unclear by how much: The researchers said they collected data about symptoms but didnt describe how many of the positive testers had symptoms or what the symptoms were.

This recruiting resulted in a group that was markedly different from Santa Clara Countys overall population in a couple ways: Certain zip codes and white women were overrepresented; Latino and Asian people were underrepresented. Given they were Facebook users, the test likely didnt include people without internet access.

When calculating the estimated infections, the researchers accounted for these differences as well as the tests accuracy rates in order to try to make their results representative of the county. They didnt adjust for age, though, even though some of the age groups were also not representative: 5% of participants were over 64, compared with 13% in the county. Sood said that they did not have enough participants across age groups to adjust for age.

All these decisions, among others, influenced the final estimate of infections. When the demographic and geographic differences were adjusted for, the percentage of positive results across the population, 1.5%, nearly doubled.

Kilpatrick believes the researchers did themselves a disservice by not recruiting a more representative group from the get-go. If the group that did the Stanford study had asked any of the scientists who do these studies all the time, Were thinking of recruiting on Facebook, wed say, Dont do it, he said.

An ideal way to recruit, Kilpatrick said, would be to use a county database of addresses and send letters to a subset of random addresses, making sure that any one neighborhood isnt overrepresented. Of course, he acknowledged, theres always the chance that lots of people wouldnt respond anyway.

Other serology studies have taken their own approaches to finding participants. In the Boston suburb of Chelsea, researchers pinpricked the fingers of random passersby in Bellingham Square. Starting this week, New York is testing more than 3,000 people in supermarkets across the state.

For the Los Angeles County study, Sood said he and his team went a different way: They enlisted a market research firm with a proprietary database of thousands of emails and phone numbers of county residents. They invited a random subset to participate in a study about COVID, but didnt say it was about testing.

The team set about recruiting people to fulfill quotas for race/ethnicity, age, and so on, based on the countys demographics. Once a subgroups quota was met, they stopped enrolling people. To make sure they were reaching underrepresented groups, the market research firm made follow-up calls to people in those categories.

Participants were then invited to drive through six testing sites on a recent weekend. Staff also went to some respondents homes to do testing there.

Even though Sood says they went to great lengths to make the group representative of the population, he acknowledged that there is no perfect recruitment strategy.

Of the Santa Clara County study, he said the team had done their best with limited resources. We still thought it was worthwhile doing it even though we fully recognize our methods were not anywhere close to perfect, he said. We still thought it would provide useful information and it would add to the debate about whats going on.

Few people would turn down the chance to find out whether theyve had the coronavirus. But Dean questioned whether, from a public health messaging standpoint, it is helpful to fixate on these infection estimates when they are so preliminary.

No matter how many people may or may not be infected numbers that scientists wont be able to pin down for a long time the real numbers that matter right now, in terms of conveying the threat of the disease, are those of the bodies ending up in ICU beds and funeral homes.

Either way, were ending up with a lot of people being hospitalized and dying, she said. Everyone needs to keep that part in mind.

Go here to see the original:

Two Antibody Studies Say Coronavirus Infections Are More Common Than We Think. Scientists Are Mad. - BuzzFeed News