New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

When AI Steers Us Astray

A new debugging tool can pinpoint errors that cause neural networks to make mistakes

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

As artificial-intelligence systems become widespread, the chances grow that their glitches will have dangerous consequences. For example, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently fooled a Google-trained AI program into identifying a plastic toy turtle as a rifle. If a future robot cop or soldier made such an error, the results could be tragic. But researchers are now developing tools to sniff out potential flaws among the billions of virtual “brain cells” that make up such systems.

Many image-recognition programs, car autopilots and other forms of AI use artificial neural networks, in which components dubbed “neurons” are fed data and cooperate to solve a problem—such as spotting obstacles in the road. The network “learns” by repeatedly adjusting the connections between its neurons and trying the problem again. Over time, the system determines which neural connection patterns are best at computing solutions. It then adopts these as defaults, mimicking how the human brain learns.

A key challenge of this technology is that developers often do not know how networks arrive at their decisions. This can make it hard to figure out what went wrong when a mistake is made, says Junfeng Yang, a computer scientist at Columbia University and a co-author of a new study presented last October at a symposium in Shanghai.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Yang and his colleagues created DeepXplore, a program designed to debug AI systems by reverse engineering their learning processes. It tests a neural network with a wide range of confusing real-world inputs and tells the network when its responses are wrong so that it can correct itself. For example, DeepXplore could determine if a camera image fed to a car-driving AI system mistakenly steered a vehicle toward pedestrians. The debugging tool also monitors which neurons in a network are active and tests each one individually. Previous AI-debugging tools could not tell if every neuron had been checked for errors, Yang says.

In tests on 15 state-of-the-art neural networks—including some used in self-driving cars and computer malware detection—DeepXplore discovered thousands of bugs missed by earlier technology. It boosted the AI systems' overall accuracy by 1 to 3 percent on average, bringing some systems up to 99 percent. DeepXplore's technique could help developers build “more accurate and more reliable” neural networks, says Shan Lu, a computer scientist at the University of Chicago, who did not take part in the new research. This approach, Lu adds, “in turn can benefit many scientific research disciplines and our daily lives.”

Charles Q. Choi is a frequent contributor to Scientific American. His work has also appeared in The New York Times, Science, Nature, Wired, and LiveScience, among others. In his spare time, he has traveled to all seven continents.

More by Charles Q. Choi
Scientific American Magazine Vol 318 Issue 3This article was published with the title “'I'm Sorry, Dave'” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 318 No. 3 (), p. 20
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0318-20b

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe