Allen School Colloquium: Rediet Abebe (Harvard Society of Fellows)

00:57:47
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1NqpK4gDrM

Resumo

TLDRRediet Abebe, a Harvard junior fellow, presents her research on the application of algorithms and AI for social good, focusing on effectively addressing issues like poverty and resource allocation. She identifies key challenges in measuring social problems and optimally allocating scarce resources to aid disadvantaged communities. Abebe discusses her work on modeling income shocks, which have substantial impacts on resource allocation and poverty dynamics. Throughout the talk, audience members engage in discussions about the implications and effectiveness of various interventions, highlighting the need for thoughtful design in algorithms used in public policy. The conversation emphasizes that understanding the complexity of social problems and refining objective functions is vital for successful outcomes in social interventions.

Conclusões

  • 👩‍🎓 Rediet Abebe is a recognized innovator in algorithms and social good.
  • 📊 Measuring social issues like poverty is challenging due to data sparsity.
  • 💡 Algorithmic techniques can help optimize resource allocation effectively.
  • 🔍 Understanding income shocks is crucial for accurate welfare measurement.
  • 🎯 Interventions should be designed with careful consideration of objectives.
  • 🌍 Collaboration across various fields is essential for addressing social problems.
  • 📉 Informed interventions can mitigate long-term effects of poverty.
  • ⚖️ Setting objective functions impacts the effectiveness of resource distribution.
  • 🔄 Income subsidies can vary in impact depending on their design and constraints.

Linha do tempo

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    Anna Karlin welcomes Rediet Abebe, who is recognized for her impactful research at the intersection of algorithms, AI, and social good. Abebe expresses excitement about the rapid organization of the event and her eagerness to share her research.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    Abebe emphasizes the significance of algorithmic techniques in improving societal welfare. However, she outlines several key challenges in this field, such as measurement difficulties, limited resources, and information access barriers, all of which complicate interventions for disadvantaged communities.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    The talk focuses on two intervention types: the allocation of societal resources and the improvement of information access for disadvantaged groups. Abebe highlights the critical measurement challenges in these areas, especially in quantifying poverty and its complexities beyond simple financial metrics.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    Using poverty as a case study, Abebe discusses the inadequacy of conventional income measurements, which often miss significant aspects of disadvantage, such as income shocks. She presents empirical evidence showing the real-world implications of income shocks on homelessness and other adverse outcomes.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    Abebe and her collaborators propose a model to account for income shocks in resource allocation, aiming to minimize the risk of ruin for families experiencing these financial disruptions. The focus is on ensuring families do not fall below a certain threshold of resources.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    Through the modeling process, Abebe illustrates the core objectives and constraints of allocating income subsidies. She discusses using a greedy algorithm to determine how resources can be optimally distributed among families based on their individual profiles and risk assessments.

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    The discussion extends to alternative objective functions, such as min-max configurations where the goal shifts from minimizing ruin generally to helping those most at risk, showcasing the nuanced trade-offs in resource distribution strategies.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:40:00

    The potential impact of different intervention types is explored, emphasizing the varying effectiveness of income subsidies versus wealth subsidies. Abebe draws attention to the importance of designing interventions according to specific community needs and characteristics.

  • 00:40:00 - 00:45:00

    Addressing information provisioning, Abebe shares research focused on understanding the information needs related to HIV and AIDS across Africa. Findings indicate significant gaps in access to accurate health information, prompting efforts to leverage search data for better health interventions.

  • 00:45:00 - 00:50:00

    Abebe's collaborative work highlights the analysis of search data and its implications for public health strategies. She points out discrepancies in the quality of online content related to health information and the necessity of enhancing access to credible resources.

  • 00:50:00 - 00:57:47

    The talk concludes with an appeal to think critically about the role of computing in addressing societal issues, alongside an overview of ongoing projects within the Mechanism Design for Social Good initiative, underscoring the community's commitment to impactful research.

Mostrar mais

Mapa mental

Vídeo de perguntas e respostas

  • Who is Rediet Abebe?

    Rediet Abebe is a junior fellow at Harvard Society of Fellows, recognized for her work in algorithms and AI focused on social good.

  • What are the challenges in applying algorithmic techniques to social problems?

    The key challenges include profound measurement difficulties and the scarcity of resources to implement interventions.

  • What is the focus of Abebe's research?

    Her research focuses on optimizing societal resource allocation and improving access to information for disadvantaged communities.

  • How can algorithms improve societal welfare?

    Algorithms can provide insights into resource allocation, help identify social needs, and improve decision-making processes in public sectors.

  • What is the significance of income shocks in poverty measurement?

    Income shocks, such as sudden expenses, can significantly impact individuals' welfare and are often not captured in standard income measurements.

Ver mais resumos de vídeos

Obtenha acesso instantâneo a resumos gratuitos de vídeos do YouTube com tecnologia de IA!
Legendas
en
Rolagem automática:
  • 00:00:05
    Anna Karlin: Good Afternoon.
  • 00:00:06
    It's a great pleasure to welcome Rediet Abebe here.
  • 00:00:09
    She is a junior fellow at the Harvard Society of Fellows.
  • 00:00:12
    She got her PhD in computer science at Cornell with Jon Kleinberg.
  • 00:00:16
    Her research is in algorithms and AI with a focus on social good and
  • 00:00:21
    she co-founded a very important interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research group
  • 00:00:27
    and series of workshops called:
  • 00:00:29
    Mechanism Design for Social Good.
  • 00:00:31
    Actually, together with my student, Kira Goldner, which I am very proud.
  • 00:00:37
    And she's been recognized as one of the MIT Technology Reviews, 35 Innovators Under 35,
  • 00:00:43
    one to watch by 2018 Bloomberg 50 List
  • 00:00:47
    and we are very very happy to have her here today.
  • 00:00:50
    Rediet Abebe: Thank you.
  • 00:00:53
    There's more seats at the front.
  • 00:00:55
    If you all want to, if you all want to come up, I'll feel less lonely up here.
  • 00:00:58
    I'm gonna continue to put you on the spot until you come up and so you might as well just come up now.
  • 00:01:04
    All right.
  • 00:01:06
    All right. I'll just wait until everyone is settled in.
  • 00:01:09
    Very good.
  • 00:01:10
    We have a few more we have a few more.
  • 00:01:12
    What's up? Yeah. Yeah. I know, I just.
  • 00:01:15
    Audience: West Coast time.
  • 00:01:15
    Rediet Abebe: West Coast time. I see, okay.
  • 00:01:18
    If you can time also we call it. So, we're good.
  • 00:01:22
    All right.
  • 00:01:24
    There's two more
  • 00:01:26
    But you can also be at the back. I won't continue to put people on the spotlight. Good.
  • 00:01:30
    All right, so, thank you so much for the invitation to visit here
  • 00:01:35
    and just the speed with which you made it happen.
  • 00:01:37
    It's honestly kind of incredible how quickly all this came together.
  • 00:01:41
    I'm really excited to be here,
  • 00:01:43
    this is an institution that I've long known for being very strong in theory,
  • 00:01:47
    but also in the ICTD community.
  • 00:01:49
    And as someone who cares about both sides of these things, I'm really excited to be here.
  • 00:01:53
    And so I'm gonna be able to share with you all some work that I've done.
  • 00:01:56
    That's kind of at the
  • 00:01:58
    interface of theory and AI but also with applications
  • 00:02:01
    to, you know, development contacts.
  • 00:02:04
    So, very happy to share this with you all.
  • 00:02:08
    So, over the years,
  • 00:02:10
    we've seen that algorithmic and computational techniques
  • 00:02:13
    have been useful in a variety of
  • 00:02:16
    public sector context so we know instances like mechanism design for kidney exchange or
  • 00:02:22
    the use of machine learning for poverty mapping or using statistical methods for homelessness
  • 00:02:29
    service allocations.
  • 00:02:31
    But, across many domains there remain
  • 00:02:35
    significant major opportunities for
  • 00:02:37
    exploration and the prospect that we may be able to develop unified frameworks for
  • 00:02:43
    applying algorithmic and computational insights to improve societal welfare.
  • 00:02:49
    And in this endeavor of applying algorithmic techniques of temporal societal welfare,
  • 00:02:54
    we face a couple of key challenges that I've served as a sort of background or backdrop to my research.
  • 00:03:01
    The first is that, there are profound measurement challenges
  • 00:03:05
    so a lot of social problems that we want to address
  • 00:03:08
    Like, let's say poverty or inequality or stigma are known to be very difficult to measure.
  • 00:03:13
    So there's issues of data sparsity,
  • 00:03:16
    maybe we don't have good ground truth data,
  • 00:03:18
    maybe there's sort of hidden interactions that we can't get at.
  • 00:03:21
    And so, even just knowing the extent of the problem can be very challenging.
  • 00:03:26
    The second is that
  • 00:03:27
    a lot of resources that we need to implement interventions
  • 00:03:31
    to improve access to opportunity are
  • 00:03:33
    often finite and and many times actually very scarce.
  • 00:03:37
    So you can think about let's say,
  • 00:03:39
    allocating
  • 00:03:41
    government subsidies or low-income housing resources or even human resources like doctors.
  • 00:03:46
    A lot of times you're in situations
  • 00:03:48
    where we just don't have enough resources to allocate
  • 00:03:51
    and we have to make hard decisions.
  • 00:03:53
    And the third is that when we're thinking about
  • 00:03:56
    information, right, which is not a finite resource.
  • 00:03:59
    We can still have other
  • 00:04:01
    barriers or bottlenecks so we often have
  • 00:04:04
    sort of things like social segregation or maybe unmodeled interactions or infrastructural
  • 00:04:09
    challenges that make us such that on the one side we have,
  • 00:04:12
    You know communities that are in desperate need of specific types of information
  • 00:04:16
    And the information is kind of bottlenecked and kind of stuck on the other side.
  • 00:04:21
    So these are the sort of three key challenges
  • 00:04:24
    that we face here and we asked the question:
  • 00:04:27
    How can we design and analyze and potentially even deploy
  • 00:04:30
    algorithmic and computational techniques that can address these challenges to improve access to opportunity?
  • 00:04:36
    And we'll focus specifically on
  • 00:04:38
    communities of individuals
  • 00:04:42
    that have often not had these opportunities or disadvantaged communities.
  • 00:04:46
    So this is the kind of overarching question of my research and I
  • 00:04:50
    specifically look at two types of interventions here.
  • 00:04:53
    So the first intervention is allocating societal resources.
  • 00:04:57
    Like what we mentioned:
  • 00:04:58
    government subsidies, you know, seats and classrooms things like that,
  • 00:05:01
    other public goods you might think of.
  • 00:05:03
    And the second is,
  • 00:05:05
    improving access to information for
  • 00:05:09
    disadvantaged communities.
  • 00:05:10
    So these are the two interventions that we'll look at,
  • 00:05:13
    and we'll find that in both of these different types of interventions
  • 00:05:17
    there are severe measurement challenges, so
  • 00:05:20
    Sort of an important a very difficult first step is actually quantifying the extent of the problem.
  • 00:05:25
    The need for interventions, maybe receptiveness the different types of interventions or maybe
  • 00:05:30
    Potentially disparities that might exist between different types of communities.
  • 00:05:34
    So oftentimes quantifying that is a very challenging and important first step.
  • 00:05:38
    So, just to see an example, let's think about poverty.
  • 00:05:42
    Poverty is a problem that is highly prevalent across the U.S.
  • 00:05:45
    Something like 10 to 15% of all individuals are currently in poverty.
  • 00:05:50
    And if you look at people who've experienced poverty at some point,
  • 00:05:52
    that percentage actually goes much higher.
  • 00:05:55
    But, despite the prevalence of poverty,
  • 00:05:58
    we know that it's very difficult to measure and oftentimes,
  • 00:06:01
    what we do is we rely on simple measurements of economic welfare
  • 00:06:06
    like people's income or their wealth or other sort of very simple metrics.
  • 00:06:11
    And we use these metrics to make very consequential decisions
  • 00:06:15
    about what families will get these resources and why they get them.
  • 00:06:19
    But, at the same time, there's a lot of empirical work that shows that the simple
  • 00:06:25
    sort of income only measurements which are very prevalent, for instance,
  • 00:06:29
    are just not doing a good enough job, right?
  • 00:06:31
    So, if you look at the poverty tracker study, which is
  • 00:06:35
    Longitudinal study that's been conducted at Columbia University in the
  • 00:06:38
    Population Research Center
  • 00:06:40
    they have a series of
  • 00:06:41
    reports that show that these income only measurements actually don't capture the full magnitude of disadvantage
  • 00:06:47
    and so we have a lot of families
  • 00:06:49
    that are kind of going under the radar because they don't look like they're struggling
  • 00:06:53
    if you're only looking at income.
  • 00:06:54
    But this really applies
  • 00:06:55
    to a lot of other metrics that we would use,
  • 00:06:57
    wealth would be another example.
  • 00:07:00
    And so you might ask,
  • 00:07:02
    "okay if income only measurements are not
  • 00:07:05
    accurately capturing the extent of disadvantage, what exactly are we missing?"
  • 00:07:11
    One dimension that we know is missing in these measurements is income shocks.
  • 00:07:15
    So, income shocks are things like,
  • 00:07:18
    maybe an unexpected expense that you have to deal with like a medical expense or even a parking ticket
  • 00:07:23
    or maybe sort of an interruption and your income flow,
  • 00:07:25
    maybe you lose your job or you have a delayed paycheck, right?
  • 00:07:29
    And there's a lot of empirical work that shows that these income shocks can play a very significant role.
  • 00:07:34
    Just to see an example,
  • 00:07:36
    There's work by Matt Desmond who's a Princeton Sociologist
  • 00:07:40
    who looked at homelessness and housing instability in Milwaukee,
  • 00:07:43
    but really now across the U.S.
  • 00:07:45
    And his work highlights the lives of people like
  • 00:07:48
    Ara Sparkman, that you see pictured here.
  • 00:07:51
    Ara Sparkman is, at the time of this picture, she was 42.
  • 00:07:54
    She is from from Milwaukee
  • 00:07:56
    and this picture was taken the day that she was evicted from her home.
  • 00:08:00
    And her life,
  • 00:08:02
    and the lives of many others, that have been kind of brought to light through his work,
  • 00:08:06
    show that these sort of income shocks
  • 00:08:08
    can play a significant role in starting these cycles of
  • 00:08:11
    poverty that can be very challenging to get out of.
  • 00:08:14
    So his work is really just one example of many that we can highlight.
  • 00:08:17
    There's a lot of work in economics and sociology
  • 00:08:20
    if you look at, you know,
  • 00:08:21
    household consumption dynamics or optimal taxation theory that really documents that
  • 00:08:26
    these shocks can play a significant role in may be causing eviction or making it more likely
  • 00:08:32
    causing health issues, worse labor outcomes, all sorts of things.
  • 00:08:36
    So there's ample evidence from the social sciences
  • 00:08:39
    that income shocks significantly matter.
  • 00:08:42
    And yet, today we don't have a sort of algorithmic perspective on this.
  • 00:08:46
    We don't have a perspective that says
  • 00:08:48
    how can we model income shocks and the measurements of welfare and how might that
  • 00:08:53
    change the algorithmic questions that we asked about how we allocate resources.
  • 00:08:58
    So this is precisely the question that we looked at in joint work with Jon Kleinberg & Matt Weinberg
  • 00:09:03
    who was a member of the MD first-year reading group from the beginning days.
  • 00:09:07
    We asked how can we model and how can we design algorithms that optimally allocate subsidies
  • 00:09:13
    when we know that agents are sort of experiencing income shocks.
  • 00:09:17
    So we have a measurement of not just income but also
  • 00:09:20
    income shocks that people might experience.
  • 00:09:23
    So for this, we
  • 00:09:25
    develop a sort of a stylized model of welfare.
  • 00:09:28
    So, imagine that you have 'N' families, you see indexed here.
  • 00:09:32
    For the first family, imagine that on the x axis here.
  • 00:09:35
    You have the time on the y axis
  • 00:09:37
    You have the agents reserve, which is going to characterize that agent.
  • 00:09:41
    Imagine that the agent now has,
  • 00:09:44
    in the beginning to have an initial reserve or wealth of 'u subscript i'
  • 00:09:49
    So that measures, let's say, what their what they have in their savings account and all that their assets combined.
  • 00:09:54
    And they also have a net income of 'c subscript i'
  • 00:09:57
    So this is,
  • 00:09:58
    You can think of this as sort of the difference between
  • 00:10:00
    'what they would bring in every month' minus 'what they would what they would spend on average'
  • 00:10:07
    So, in the absence of income shocks,
  • 00:10:10
    then this agent's reserve at time 't'
  • 00:10:13
    Would be what their initial reserve is, right?
  • 00:10:16
    So their Wealth plus 'c subscript i,' which is their net income, times 't'
  • 00:10:19
    So we're imagining that we're in continuous time.
  • 00:10:22
    So this is what their reserve would be.
  • 00:10:24
    But we're in a setting where agents are experiencing income shocks
  • 00:10:28
    So we will model these income shocks as a sort of a sudden drop in your reserve that you see indicated by these like kind
  • 00:10:35
    of vertical drops that you see there.
  • 00:10:37
    And we make a couple of assumptions that some of which we'll be able to drop
  • 00:10:42
    so we imagine that sharks arrive at randomly selected discrete time points: T1, T2, T3 and so on.
  • 00:10:49
    And we denote the magnitude of the shock by S1, S2, S3, and so on correspondingly.
  • 00:10:55
    For now, we'll assume that shocks have cause on arrival and so you have an arival rate of 'Beta subscript i'
  • 00:11:02
    That's for 'agent i'
  • 00:11:04
    And the magnitude of the shocks are drawn from a distribution 'f subscript i' that's specific to agents.
  • 00:11:11
    So worth noting here, is that your wealth, your income,
  • 00:11:14
    the distribution from which your shocks are drawn,
  • 00:11:16
    and the arrival rates of the shocks are specific to you.
  • 00:11:19
    So you can have different families that can match on some of these and not on others.
  • 00:11:25
    And so, in this setting the reserve changes, but not by much.
  • 00:11:28
    So the reserve is, where your reserve would have been if you didn't experience any shocks
  • 00:11:32
    Minus the total magnitude of shocks that you've experienced up until that point, right?
  • 00:11:36
    So this is what you would have for the agent's reserve and we'll assume that
  • 00:11:41
    That these reserves characterize the agents.
  • 00:11:45
    And what we're really interested in is this insight that we talked about earlier
  • 00:11:49
    from homelessness or eviction literature, really other shock literature which is that,
  • 00:11:55
    once someone falls below a specific threshold of reserve, they now become significantly susceptible to
  • 00:12:01
    experiencing eviction, poor health, job loss
  • 00:12:04
    All these things that don't want families to experience but also are very expensive actually to
  • 00:12:09
    undo rather than just preventing families from experiencing them in the first place.
  • 00:12:15
    So we'll assume that you know, we'll set this threshold as zero
  • 00:12:18
    We'll assume that if you fall below the threshold, you've experienced ruin
  • 00:12:21
    and what we would like to make sure is that families do not experience ruin.
  • 00:12:25
    So, we are we're gonna work in the infinite horizon case
  • 00:12:28
    where we want to make sure that families don't fall below this threshold at any
  • 00:12:31
    point in the infinite horizon case.
  • 00:12:34
    And so,
  • 00:12:35
    what our objective interest is this sort of ruin probability
  • 00:12:39
    in the infinite horizon setting.
  • 00:12:41
    So, this ruin probability, which will denote by
  • 00:12:44
    'psi subscipt i' is a function of your income, your initial wealth,
  • 00:12:48
    the distribution from which your shocks are drawn and the arrival rates of the shocks.
  • 00:12:54
    So, as a planner,
  • 00:12:56
    now, you can intervene.
  • 00:12:58
    So we'll look at a couple of different types of interventions.
  • 00:13:00
    The first one we'll look at is an income subsidy.
  • 00:13:03
    So you imagine that what an income subsidy does
  • 00:13:06
    is it takes your income, 'c subscript i' and it just adds an 'x subscript i'
  • 00:13:10
    So it's basically changing the slope of the diagram
  • 00:13:14
    that you see here from the dotted one to the solid one.
  • 00:13:17
    And maybe that subsidy would have been
  • 00:13:19
    sufficient to make sure that this agent did not experience ruin
  • 00:13:22
    in the timeframe that you see here.
  • 00:13:25
    And will assume that the planner has a fixed budget 'b' for the income subsidies
  • 00:13:29
    that they can give out at any at any time point.
  • 00:13:32
    And, our objective, for now, will be the min-sum objective.
  • 00:13:35
    So the min-sum objective
  • 00:13:37
    wants to minimize the expected number of people that experience ruin.
  • 00:13:41
    So it wants to minimize the sum of their ruin probabilities of the agent,
  • 00:13:46
    subject to the the budget constraint.
  • 00:13:48
    So we have a well-defined optimization problem, right?
  • 00:13:50
    We have a budget for income subsidies that we can give out,
  • 00:13:53
    We have the agent's profile set that's been given to us
  • 00:13:56
    and we want optimize for the min-sum objective
  • 00:14:00
    But, at the same time we also want to see whether there's sort of
  • 00:14:04
    any insights that we can draw from here that might be useful.
  • 00:14:07
    So we want to solve this optimization problem, of course, but we also want to see what
  • 00:14:11
    qualitative insights we can walk away with that might be useful.
  • 00:14:15
    So, we will start with a sort of a special case, that's a well motivated case.
  • 00:14:19
    We'll assume that the agents have zero initial reserve.
  • 00:14:23
    So you can imagine these are families that are sort of living paycheck-to-paycheck,
  • 00:14:25
    don't really have a safety net to fall on.
  • 00:14:28
    And, we'll further assume for now, also that,
  • 00:14:33
    that the agents experience positive drift.
  • 00:14:35
    Meaning that your net income, 'c subscript i,' minus the 'Beta' times the 'Mu'
  • 00:14:39
    So the 'Mu' is the mean of the distribution of your shocks.
  • 00:14:42
    So the 'c subscript i' minus 'Beta' 'Mu subscript i' is positive
  • 00:14:47
    meaning that on average, you're kind of trending up, right?
  • 00:14:50
    So your ruin probability is less than one.
  • 00:14:52
    So, if you had this value being negative, it means that on average you're going down,
  • 00:14:55
    you're gonna experience ruin almost surely.
  • 00:14:58
    So, we'll assume that we have positive drift for now,
  • 00:15:00
    we'll be able to drop that assumption later.
  • 00:15:03
    And in this setting,
  • 00:15:04
    a kind of remarkable results from the theory of probability of fluent probabilities
  • 00:15:09
    is that, actually, your 'psi subscript i' has a very simple expression.
  • 00:15:14
    This is what the additional assumption that you have, kind of, finite mean and variance
  • 00:15:18
    But, assuming that it's a very mild assumption.
  • 00:15:20
    Actually you have this very simple expression
  • 00:15:24
    for your ruin probability for a family.
  • 00:15:28
    So, that makes our lives easier, right?
  • 00:15:31
    Because the min-sum objective was trying to minimize
  • 00:15:34
    for this new function that you see here, 'phi'
  • 00:15:37
    So it's trying to minimize for the sum of their own probabilities
  • 00:15:39
    but you can now rewrite the ruin probabilities as using that expression that we saw from the previous slide.
  • 00:15:45
    And you're trying to
  • 00:15:48
    allocate these income subsidies the 'x subscript i' so that you can
  • 00:15:52
    minimize for the sum of the ruin probabilities.
  • 00:15:55
    Audience: Question
  • 00:15:57
    Audience: So, that previous result was presumably dependent on infinite (inaudible)?
  • 00:16:02
    Abebe: Yes, yes. It's the infinite horizon case.
  • 00:16:04
    Audience: Okay, so does that matter?
  • 00:16:06
    Abebe: So, for the, yeah.
  • 00:16:07
    So, I tried it this in the finite horizon case. The math gets...
  • 00:16:11
    Audience: That's what I would have...
  • 00:16:12
    But does it matter?
  • 00:16:13
    Abebe: Qualitatively, it doesn't.
  • 00:16:14
    Yeah, so I've kind of run a bunch of simulations qualitatively doesn't really seem to matter much.
  • 00:16:18
    Like, it matters a little bit.
  • 00:16:19
    But yeah, that's a good question.
  • 00:16:22
    Yeah, the math is just much easier
  • 00:16:24
    Audience: (inaudible)...eventually everyone ends up ruined.
  • 00:16:27
    Abebe: No, if you have positive...
  • 00:16:29
    Audience: (inaudible)
  • 00:16:30
    Abebe: Oh, sure, sure, sure. Yeah of course.
  • 00:16:31
    Audience: But there would be circumstances in which the infinite case would not be super important
  • 00:16:37
    for actually how normal people would live under some reasonably short finite times?
  • 00:16:44
    Abebe: Yeah, I think you know this.
  • 00:16:45
    I think,
  • 00:16:46
    having the finite horizon case.
  • 00:16:48
    I think that might also make sense in terms of just mapping it to current policy, right?
  • 00:16:51
    And how you make decisions, but yeah.
  • 00:16:54
    I think it's an important consideration.
  • 00:16:57
    Okay, so we're gonna keep going.
  • 00:16:58
    I'm sure there will be a question by the end of the slide
  • 00:17:00
    So, okay. So we're trying to give out this income subsidy, right?
  • 00:17:04
    So we take the partial derivative 'phi' with respect to the 'x subscript i'
  • 00:17:08
    and you have the expression that you see there.
  • 00:17:10
    You can take the second derivative and you find that it's always positive.
  • 00:17:14
    So what the cell says is that this 'phi' is strictly convex, right?
  • 00:17:18
    And so, what that says is that it is kind of straightforward.
  • 00:17:23
    Greedy water-filling algorithm will give you the optimal solution.
  • 00:17:26
    The water-filling algorithm would basically order the agents by their partial values.
  • 00:17:32
    From the agent that has the sort of the most negative value,
  • 00:17:35
    to the agent that has the least negative value.
  • 00:17:37
    Imagine that you have [inaudible] here.
  • 00:17:39
    And what it does is,
  • 00:17:40
    it will increase the income subsidy of the first agent up until the point where their partial value matches
  • 00:17:46
    the partial value the second agent.
  • 00:17:48
    Then agent one and two together, up until the point where they match the
  • 00:17:52
    next person or the next people, in this case, and it keeps going until you've assisted everyone
  • 00:17:58
    Or you've run out of your budget, right?
  • 00:18:01
    And so, because 'phi' is strictly convex,
  • 00:18:03
    we have an optimal solution.
  • 00:18:05
    This kind of, this water filling algorithm gives us the optimal solution
  • 00:18:08
    But what's also interesting about this, is that it gives us a way to index the agents.
  • 00:18:13
    So it gives us these partial values as a sort of priority index
  • 00:18:17
    and it says go with first,
  • 00:18:18
    the first agent and then
  • 00:18:19
    the first and the second agent. First, second, and third agent and so on.
  • 00:18:23
    And it induces this ordering on the agents.
  • 00:18:26
    And that value is different from the agents income. It's something different, right?
  • 00:18:31
    So you might ask, "what if I just order the people just by their income?"
  • 00:18:34
    If I just went from the person has the lowest income
  • 00:18:36
    to the person that has the highest income,
  • 00:18:38
    and that was the ordering that I was going to use rather than this other thing that you have computed.
  • 00:18:42
    And so, a question that we asked here is, well how different can these two orderings be?
  • 00:18:47
    Right? How different can our priority index, that is going to do the optimal thing
  • 00:18:52
    in this particular setting versus just the index that would use people's income,
  • 00:18:57
    how different can those be?
  • 00:18:59
    And as it turns out, I can give you a very simple example.
  • 00:19:02
    You can quickly write this down and verify it if you'd like,
  • 00:19:05
    that shows that the orderings can be the exact reverses of one another.
  • 00:19:08
    So, if you were just saying,
  • 00:19:10
    I'm gonna start with a person that has a lowest income and I'm gonna then go to that person
  • 00:19:13
    has the highest income.
  • 00:19:15
    You might actually be doing the exact reverse of
  • 00:19:17
    what the sort of the optimization problem here would tell you to do.
  • 00:19:23
    And so, we won't get into this, but we actually find that we can find a lower bound of 'root n' here
  • 00:19:30
    that shows that our optimal algorithm versus any algorithm that only uses income
  • 00:19:35
    can actually have this sort of this gap
  • 00:19:38
    that we've been able to account for in this in this lemma.
  • 00:19:41
    So this kind of reminds us of...yeah?
  • 00:19:43
    Audience: I'm sorry but could you give us the intuition behind 'beta' again?
  • 00:19:46
    Abebe: Yeah, so the 'beta' is just the arrival rate.
  • 00:19:48
    So it's how quickly you're experiencing...that I expected you to experience shocks, right?
  • 00:19:56
    So then, this basically tells us that you know
  • 00:19:59
    These things you can have substantial differences.
  • 00:20:01
    In this case, sort of like optimal, the exact reverses.
  • 00:20:03
    And it kind of reminds us of what we saw earlier.
  • 00:20:06
    That, maybe income only measurements are not
  • 00:20:09
    accurately capturing the magnitude of disadvantage.
  • 00:20:11
    Maybe they're not necessarily the best ways to to order things in, at least in this particular setting.
  • 00:20:16
    But there's a lot of other dimensions to this question.
  • 00:20:18
    The second is, we were minimizing for the expected number of people that experience ruin in the min-sum objective,
  • 00:20:24
    but what if you went for a min-max subjective?
  • 00:20:26
    A min-max subjective would say, I want to minimize...
  • 00:20:32
    I want to minimize, the maximum ruin probability that I see.
  • 00:20:35
    Not maximize the minimum probability I see. You're going the opposite direction.
  • 00:20:39
    You're trying to help the person who is the most susceptible to to experiencing ruin.
  • 00:20:43
    That's a different objective function.
  • 00:20:45
    And, as it turns out, in this particular setting we have a very similar solution where you order the agents.
  • 00:20:50
    You have a natural priority ordering,
  • 00:20:52
    You just do this Greedy water-filling algorithm and you have an optimal solution.
  • 00:20:58
    And in that setting, we find that the exact same example that I mentioned to you earlier,
  • 00:21:02
    also gives you that the orderings can be the exact reverses of one another.
  • 00:21:06
    So, even though you're solving an optimization problem optimally for one objective versus a second objective,
  • 00:21:12
    It can actually tell you to help entirely disjoint sets of people, right?
  • 00:21:16
    So, that's another implication of this.
  • 00:21:19
    And the third, is the intervention that we looked at.
  • 00:21:22
    We were giving out income subsidies
  • 00:21:23
    but you could instead imagine giving out as sort of a one-time upfront wealth subsidy that changes your
  • 00:21:29
    kind of y-intercept there and that's it.
  • 00:21:31
    That's an entirely different type of intervention.
  • 00:21:34
    And for that, we look at another special case.
  • 00:21:36
    The case where, you know, your shocks are drawn from an exponential distribution
  • 00:21:39
    and we find that you can solve it optimally.
  • 00:21:41
    It has its natural indexing and, you see where I'm going with this, again,
  • 00:21:45
    you have people that are ordered in the exact reverse orderings under one setting versus another.
  • 00:21:53
    So why does this matter?
  • 00:21:54
    This matters because, it has kind of takeaways that are broader than this particular question.
  • 00:21:59
    In this particular question,
  • 00:22:01
    We're seeing that what information you're taking into account about families,
  • 00:22:05
    can significantly change who you help.
  • 00:22:07
    It tells us that, how you're setting this objective functions can really change how you allocate things.
  • 00:22:12
    And, I'll highlight here that a lot of times when we set objective functions in public sector settings,
  • 00:22:17
    we put not as much thought into it as we should.
  • 00:22:21
    And yet, here's a very simple optimization problem that I can show you where it's doing the exact opposite under one setting versus another.
  • 00:22:27
    And a lot of times when we think about setting objective functions, we say we want to help the most number of families.
  • 00:22:32
    What do you mean by help? What do you mean by the most number of families?
  • 00:22:35
    These are questions that we need to quantify.
  • 00:22:37
    And it also says that the intervention type matters.
  • 00:22:40
    So, there are some families that are very receptive to some types of interventions and not others.
  • 00:22:45
    There's a question back there. Yeah?
  • 00:22:47
    Audience: (inaudible)
  • 00:22:53
    Abebe: Yeah, so, I'm not going to get into it in this paper, because it's a sort of a theory driven paper,
  • 00:22:58
    but we an applied work right now
  • 00:23:01
    that was sure test by by the Columbia population Research Center, where they have a longitudinal study measuring
  • 00:23:07
    different shocks that people are experiencing.
  • 00:23:10
    But actually, this is a very active area of research and economics,
  • 00:23:13
    So, like if I tell you, you know, I got a parking ticket. How much does that cost me?
  • 00:23:18
    I don't drive, so it's like $35? I don't know what how much it cost. Let's say 35 dollars.
  • 00:23:23
    Okay, you'd say 35 dollars.
  • 00:23:24
    Audience: That's a very cheap parking ticket (laughter)
  • 00:23:25
    Abebe: Is that? Okay.
  • 00:23:28
    I don't (drive), I just walk.
  • 00:23:29
    So, but actually what they found is there is this recent work from economics.
  • 00:23:32
    It's like in the past year that showed that a parking ticket,
  • 00:23:35
    for low-income families, is actually more like five hundred dollars, right?
  • 00:23:38
    If you're really taking into account, not just that they got a parking ticket, now, they have to go and pay it,
  • 00:23:43
    they have to take time off, like they're all these things that happen
  • 00:23:45
    And so if you quantify that it's much higher.
  • 00:23:46
    So it's a really good question that you're asking and an active area of research
  • 00:23:50
    where I think we can actually make contributions as well and just measuring things.
  • 00:23:54
    Yeah. Thanks for asking that. Yes?
  • 00:23:56
    Audience: So why wouldn't you just intercede when a family falls below the crisis threshold?
  • 00:24:00
    Abebe: Yeah, so it's expensive, right?
  • 00:24:02
    I think that just to kind of monitor people and say I will intervene and when you've experienced ruin
  • 00:24:07
    There may be less political will, right?
  • 00:24:09
    You know, we talk about things like if we had universal housing vouchers,
  • 00:24:13
    Then people would just not be homeless or you know, that would mitigate that but it's it's harder
  • 00:24:18
    Audience: So a bunch of public interventions have monitored pipelines into homelessness, and Peter Stephenson.
  • 00:24:22
    One of those pipelines is triggered. Yeah, it's job loss or medical emergency or
  • 00:24:28
    you know, exit foster care.
  • 00:24:31
    Abebe: Yeah. Oh, so you're saying like when I experienced a shock? Why don't we intervene there?
  • 00:24:35
    Audience: yeah
  • 00:24:35
    Abebe: Yeah, so I think it's just expensive to do that,
  • 00:24:38
    and then people might also have less kind of
  • 00:24:42
    willingness to do that because they think,
  • 00:24:44
    whatever, we all get sick. I don't know but but I agree with you.
  • 00:24:47
    I think, thinking about the timing of our intervention is...
  • 00:24:50
    Audience: This may be on a...(inaudible)...but my impression of homelessness is that
  • 00:24:53
    preventing it is much less expensive than mitigating it once occurs.
  • 00:24:56
    Abebe: I completely agree. We have a lot of evidence that that is the case.
  • 00:24:57
    Audience: So what the...(inaudible)...families in San Francisco does is, for example,
  • 00:24:59
    is to give your landlord two months of rent
  • 00:25:02
    when you experience a shock.
  • 00:25:04
    Abebe: Yeah.
  • 00:25:05
    So, we're trying to help provide evidence, actually, for that kind of stuff with the applied work that we're doing
  • 00:25:09
    By showing that if you intervene earlier, it's less expensive and then people don't have to be traumatized to be homeless.
  • 00:25:17
    Or by being close to being homeless and kind of, yeah, I completely agree.
  • 00:25:21
    So, I appreciate...I am at UW
  • 00:25:24
    I see, I see what you guys are saying earlier. I appreciate this crowd.
  • 00:25:27
    I really do because, yeah,
  • 00:25:29
    I think we can actually support (and) provide further evidence that
  • 00:25:32
    When you intervene matters. The kind of intervention matters. How you set these objective function matter.
  • 00:25:38
    And I think that is a welcomed contribution brought more broadly
  • 00:25:42
    Which is, I guess, I'll continue to talk and you'll see that this is something I also feel quite strongly about,
  • 00:25:46
    But thank you for asking that.
  • 00:25:49
    So good. All right, so we we saw this simpler example, right?
  • 00:25:52
    But we can step back. We like optimization. We're math people
  • 00:25:55
    So we can look at this more general setting where we drop a lot of the
  • 00:25:58
    assumptions that we've set here.
  • 00:26:00
    So we assume that you can have arbitrary income and wealth.
  • 00:26:03
    We assume that the shocks can be drawn from a general distribution
  • 00:26:06
    We don't even imagine that it has a compact representation
  • 00:26:08
    We'll just say that, it's kind of, you know, you can access it in this (inaudible) fashion
  • 00:26:12
    And we also imagine that you can have negative drift. Meaning that your ruin probability can be one.
  • 00:26:18
    So why is that trickier?
  • 00:26:20
    It's trickier because imagine basically that you're someone who's ruined probabilities once
  • 00:26:24
    So we have negative drift.
  • 00:26:26
    And I give you an income subsidy.
  • 00:26:28
    Your drifts become slightly less negative, but your ruin probabilities stays one.
  • 00:26:31
    So it's only when your drift kind of breaks even, right?
  • 00:26:36
    When it's a zero that you see people's ruined ability responding to this income subsidy that you're giving.
  • 00:26:44
    So this characteristic, basically gives us, it puts us in a situation where
  • 00:26:49
    our objective function is not convex,
  • 00:26:51
    so the optimization problem ends up being NP hard.
  • 00:26:54
    So we can't use the sort of the greedy algorithm that we saw earlier to solve it.
  • 00:26:59
    But in this setting we find that we can still actually give an FPTAS, a fully polynomial time approximation scheme,
  • 00:27:04
    for them in some objective, which is sort of the best that we could hope for in this setting
  • 00:27:09
    without making further assumptions to the problem.
  • 00:27:12
    And in the interest of time, I won't go into the proof,
  • 00:27:15
    But it looks a lot like FPTAS for a knapsack via dynamic programming
  • 00:27:18
    and I encourage you to look at the paper if you're interested in taking more of a look.
  • 00:27:24
    So, this example that I showed you is for...
  • 00:27:27
    It's for improving access to opportunity of minimizing poverty or you know,
  • 00:27:31
    eviction, all these things,
  • 00:27:33
    by using allocation of societal resources.
  • 00:27:36
    But we've talked about how, you know, a lot of this challenge is presented by the fact that
  • 00:27:41
    we have a fixed budget.
  • 00:27:42
    If we didn't have a fixed budget,
  • 00:27:43
    then we can just get people infinite money and then we would be fine .
  • 00:27:45
    And information, in a way, is that setting.
  • 00:27:48
    Information is free. We can just distribute information
  • 00:27:50
    and if we know that it helps people and we know it does in a lot of settings, then you would be fine.
  • 00:27:56
    So think about, let's say, access information and health.
  • 00:27:59
    We know that if you're thinking about health, let's say,
  • 00:28:02
    HIV and AIDS in Africa, which is what I'll talk about.
  • 00:28:04
    If you knew when to get tested, where to get tested,
  • 00:28:08
    how to manage the disease, if you're an HIV infected individual,
  • 00:28:12
    how did kind of care for yourself, things like that.
  • 00:28:15
    Then we would have a lot more control over the burden of the disease
  • 00:28:19
    and it would not be as big of an issue as it is
  • 00:28:22
    across the world and especially across the African continent, right?
  • 00:28:25
    So information is this
  • 00:28:27
    free resource that in a lot of ways is actually very hard to think about
  • 00:28:31
    when you're thinking about information and provision.
  • 00:28:35
    So what creates the sort of information bottleneck?
  • 00:28:38
    Well, there's a lot of work, actually,
  • 00:28:39
    that's come out of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation.
  • 00:28:42
    Here the Global Burden of Disease Study (and) the Global Health Institute here.
  • 00:28:46
    So there's a lot of work, actually, that's come out of UW specifically, but the Seattle area more generally that shows
  • 00:28:52
    that data is very hard to come by. Health data is very hard to come by.
  • 00:28:57
    So forget information needs for a second. If you're thinking about just
  • 00:29:01
    How many people died of AIDS in Africa last year. How many people died of AIDS in Ethiopia, where I'm from, last year?
  • 00:29:05
    That's very difficult information to come by.
  • 00:29:08
    Because a lot of times, the data is collected in a sort of very ad-hoc manner,
  • 00:29:12
    It's not collected exhaustively.
  • 00:29:15
    There's a lot of errors in it. It's not digitized.
  • 00:29:17
    There's all sorts of issues here that make it a challenge.
  • 00:29:20
    And so there's a lot of kind of top-down
  • 00:29:22
    approaches here that try to aggregate as much of the data as possible to try to get a sense of the burden of
  • 00:29:28
    diseases, including HIV and AIDS.
  • 00:29:30
    There's also a lot of like bottom-up approaches that use manual surveys to
  • 00:29:35
    focus on specific populations and try to get at that information.
  • 00:29:39
    But if you're thinking about health information needs, that's very nuanced data,
  • 00:29:43
    And that kind of data is very challenging to come by.
  • 00:29:46
    So, what we did with some colleagues at Microsoft Research,
  • 00:29:49
    where I started this project as an intern, and some folks at Stony Brook University
  • 00:29:54
    was, we looked at the data that we had, which was search data.
  • 00:29:57
    And we thought about how we can help bridge information gaps.
  • 00:30:02
    Try to understand what information people are seeking and how those information needs are being met
  • 00:30:07
    related to HIV and AIDS across the African continent.
  • 00:30:11
    So, just to give you a quick sense of the data, we basically looked at an 18 months period
  • 00:30:17
    and we looked at all 54 nations in Africa.
  • 00:30:21
    We looked at all searches that contain the word HIV or AIDS.
  • 00:30:25
    And what we're really interested in was the content of the searches, right?
  • 00:30:28
    So we really wanted to understand what information people are seeking and how those information needs are being met.
  • 00:30:33
    And so, we used a mix of topic modeling.
  • 00:30:36
    Specifically LDA and sort of information retrieval techniques.
  • 00:30:40
    And in particular, when you run LDA,
  • 00:30:42
    so, you're basically imagining that you're inputting a set of documents in our cases and our
  • 00:30:47
    individual search queries.
  • 00:30:48
    And the output is sort of a cluster of semantically linked words.
  • 00:30:53
    What we were able to find was that, some of the topics that you see here,
  • 00:30:56
    are things that you would expect to see, right?
  • 00:30:58
    So we found a topic related to symptoms.
  • 00:31:00
    It had words like node, lymph node, swollen, sore, symptom sore, things like that.
  • 00:31:05
    There was a topic related to drugs, to breastfeeding.
  • 00:31:09
    We had a hundred topics and so the average
  • 00:31:11
    topic prevalence would be one percent.
  • 00:31:13
    So some topics, like symptoms, were more prevalent than others. Some topics were less prevalent.
  • 00:31:19
    But, this wasn't the only...
  • 00:31:22
    Some of the topics that we saw were kind of things that we expected to see but others were actually very...
  • 00:31:27
    Are topics that we know are very hard to survey.
  • 00:31:30
    So we found a topic related to stigma and discrimination
  • 00:31:34
    It had words like: stigma issues, ethical, legal, workplace, things like that.
  • 00:31:38
    So these are individuals, let's say, asking for things like:
  • 00:31:42
    "I'm HIV positive, can my boss fire me?" and unfortunately, the answer is actually yes
  • 00:31:47
    in some countries, in Africa.
  • 00:31:49
    So these are people asking these very hard to survey things, but they're doing it
  • 00:31:53
    online to try to get information about the disease and protections that they have.
  • 00:31:59
    There were topics related to natural cures and remedies, related to healthy lifestyles.
  • 00:32:03
    So just to see a sample of the natural cures topic,
  • 00:32:07
    we've blanked out personally identifying information,
  • 00:32:09
    so the stars just mean that it's a name that we got rid of,
  • 00:32:13
    but this were things like:
  • 00:32:15
    people asking for a prophet, whomever heals AIDS or HIV, pray a healing prayer for HIV.
  • 00:32:22
    But then also things like honey bee venom cures AIDS,
  • 00:32:24
    lemon baking soda cures AIDS, things like that.
  • 00:32:26
    So why am I showing showing you this?
  • 00:32:29
    The reason is, because when we saw this we thought,
  • 00:32:31
    "Wow. Surely people know about this, people are trying and mitigate it."
  • 00:32:36
    And so we found as many papers and blogs and things on this as we would like.
  • 00:32:41
    And some of these things were known.
  • 00:32:42
    So that there are certain prophets in Nigeria who cure AIDS and HIV like this
  • 00:32:46
    or this is a belief that people have and people know that people have this belief.
  • 00:32:50
    But other things like,
  • 00:32:51
    lemon baking soda cures AIDS is a search that we saw a lot.
  • 00:32:56
    And yet there was no information on it online.
  • 00:32:58
    And so, in a sense, looking at the influx of searches that are coming can show you
  • 00:33:04
    kind of emerging trends that are happening,
  • 00:33:07
    and maybe you can use that as an opportunity to supplement surveys that you already sending out.
  • 00:33:11
    It may be thinking about ways to mitigate that.
  • 00:33:14
    And so, we've already been able to brief several folks across the continent
  • 00:33:18
    including the Ministry of Health in Ethiopia and the Ministry of Health in Ghana
  • 00:33:22
    and also other, actually I've talked to something like 50 health people, for this project.
  • 00:33:27
    So we've been able to kind of share this result with them to see whether that can help supplement survey design
  • 00:33:34
    and health across the continent.
  • 00:33:36
    But we can also zoom back out and we can look at the Natural Cures topic or the Stigma topic and
  • 00:33:41
    see whether it shows relative popularity among certain groups than others.
  • 00:33:46
    So for instance, looking at the Stigma topic,
  • 00:33:49
    we wanted to see whether it was more or less popular in some countries
  • 00:33:53
    and whether that seems to be associated with the HIV prevalence rates.
  • 00:33:56
    And we find that, indeed, there's sort of a huge variance in how popular this topic is.
  • 00:34:02
    Some countries search for
  • 00:34:04
    topics related to stigma more than others
  • 00:34:07
    so the x-axis here has the adult HIV prevalence rate and the y-axis has the
  • 00:34:12
    topic popularity of the Stigma topic
  • 00:34:13
    and we see that there's actually quite a robust, I'm not going to go into the details,
  • 00:34:16
    but there's a robust sort of positive association.
  • 00:34:19
    And this is something that's actually been kind of studied in the public health literature,
  • 00:34:23
    people believe that for diseases that are stigmatized,
  • 00:34:26
    people tend to get tested less, they tend to adhere to drugs less,
  • 00:34:29
    they might kind of engage in more risky behavior that might transmit the disease.
  • 00:34:33
    And it was interesting to just see that in our data set as well and kind of
  • 00:34:37
    provide supporting evidence for this belief that exists
  • 00:34:41
    and these results that exists in the public health literature.
  • 00:34:44
    But we're also really interested in what information people are getting.
  • 00:34:48
    So far we've been looking at what information people are seeking but what information are they getting,
  • 00:34:51
    and are there variants in the quality of content that's shown to users online.
  • 00:34:56
    We don't know what information people are getting offline, but we can look at what people are seeing online.
  • 00:35:00
    So we took a random sample of
  • 00:35:03
    web pages and we had them evaluated by folks who have graduate level training in public health or medicine.
  • 00:35:08
    At least a few former, actually, specifically working in HIV and AIDS
  • 00:35:13
    and they rated the webpages, the content of the web pages, like nothing else.
  • 00:35:17
    But just the content of the web pages for relevance, accuracy, and objectivity.
  • 00:35:23
    And what we found was that there's disparities, huge disparities,
  • 00:35:27
    in the access to quality health content,
  • 00:35:31
    and some of it is not surprising.
  • 00:35:33
    Like the natural cures rates at about 1.5 out of 5,
  • 00:35:36
    meaning that it has serious issues across each of the three metrics that we were looking at.
  • 00:35:42
    Not surprising but...
  • 00:35:43
    But we found that also Symptoms, which is one of the most prevalent topics that we have,
  • 00:35:48
    only rates at about 2.7 out of 5.
  • 00:35:50
    So this is a very prevalent topic that people are searching for and yet,
  • 00:35:55
    more times than not, people are not getting high quality content by eyes measured by health experts.
  • 00:36:03
    So this gives us sort of an opportunity to think about where there might be interventions.
  • 00:36:06
    And actually we can look at, before we even actually jump to these interventions,
  • 00:36:10
    We can look at like a sample. So,
  • 00:36:12
    "Does garlic cure HIV?" was one of the most prevalent searches that we saw.
  • 00:36:16
    And, this has changed since I started giving this talk.
  • 00:36:19
    And I won't claim causality because it's really not sure, but
  • 00:36:22
    what happened is, basically, we searched for this on Bing and on Google
  • 00:36:26
    You search for, "does garlic cure HIV" and the top website that you see here
  • 00:36:30
    is a website called "miracleofgarlic.com."
  • 00:36:34
    And this was a website that I, with zero health training, could tell had some a-scientific information.
  • 00:36:41
    And it's not just the first website. It's highlighted as an answer.
  • 00:36:45
    And this is by no means the last example that you would see here.
  • 00:36:49
    And so we have, you know, people's experiences actually
  • 00:36:53
    it's not just the quality content that you're getting but actually the full experience can look quite different.
  • 00:36:57
    Because instead, if you search for "Antiretroviral Therapy HIV,"
  • 00:37:00
    not only is the first website that you see one that was rated quite highly
  • 00:37:03
    but actually suggests on the right hand side management of HIV.
  • 00:37:07
    It asks you for...
  • 00:37:09
    it like suggests things like "tables of antiretroviral drug interactions,"
  • 00:37:13
    "table of FDA-approved antivirals and regimens " and things like that.
  • 00:37:17
    So, it's not just the top website that you see here, the full experience can be quite different
  • 00:37:22
    And so we have some sort of information retrieval approached here to try to quantify
  • 00:37:26
    user behavior and satisfaction depending on the topic.
  • 00:37:30
    But going back to interventions,
  • 00:37:32
    which is really what we're interested in, we think about what is this ecosystem?
  • 00:37:37
    Where might there be opportunities intervene?
  • 00:37:39
    The first is just the topic that people are searching.
  • 00:37:42
    So, maybe some searches are more susceptible to
  • 00:37:45
    The kind of information that we might not like than others,
  • 00:37:49
    We have less control over that.
  • 00:37:51
    But there are other places in this cycle that we can intervene.
  • 00:37:53
    So one is, when I put in a search,
  • 00:37:55
    The search engine itself actually does a sort of back-end processing before it maps my search to web pages.
  • 00:38:01
    So, let's say if you type "does garlic cure HIV," but you misspell garlic.
  • 00:38:05
    Then, it might automatically check your spelling and change it in the background
  • 00:38:10
    before mapping it.
  • 00:38:11
    And we found that there's actually
  • 00:38:14
    significant disparities in how much back-end processing the search engine was doing.
  • 00:38:18
    We don't know the cause, but we think that this is an opportunity,
  • 00:38:21
    maybe to examine, whether there might be sort of algorithmic bias issues
  • 00:38:25
    that are making some searches,
  • 00:38:27
    ones where you do more back-end processing than others.
  • 00:38:30
    And the other one is that, even if the search engine was doing the best job possible
  • 00:38:35
    however you want to define it. If you restricted yourself,
  • 00:38:38
    let's say if you said, "I want to look this Moringa plant to cure HIV
  • 00:38:42
    but I only want to see webpages from the CDC, the NIH, WHO," higher authority, websites like that.
  • 00:38:48
    There might actually be zero webpages
  • 00:38:49
    And in fact, we tested for this. We checked for, restricting to higher authority websites
  • 00:38:54
    and a lot of times, there were a few, or none, web pages for some searches than others.
  • 00:38:59
    And so there is, four times or five times or seven times as many web pages available for
  • 00:39:05
    searches related to antiretroviral drugs versus or just searches related to natural cures and remedies
  • 00:39:11
    and this is precisely what folks at data and society call data voids.
  • 00:39:15
    When something is not available,
  • 00:39:17
    that's actually an opportunity for sort of misinformation or a different type of information that you don't want
  • 00:39:21
    to fill that in and fill in that void, and maybe that's an opportunity to intervene.
  • 00:39:25
    So, we've checked with folks at the NIH about this
  • 00:39:29
    because we think that the webpages, the mere presence of the webpages itself,
  • 00:39:32
    might be a sort of intervention.
  • 00:39:34
    And in fact, actually,
  • 00:39:36
    I've been able to work with folks at the
  • 00:39:38
    NIH over the calendar year, the 2019 calendar year,
  • 00:39:41
    to think about this interface of health and an artificial intelligence specifically.
  • 00:39:46
    I was really interested in health disparities and we spent the year putting together
  • 00:39:52
    Basically kind of like a comprehensive report and then a set of recommendations that we had.
  • 00:39:57
    One of these was using data sheets for
  • 00:40:01
    data sets which is work that Jamie has done and this report was unanimously approved.
  • 00:40:05
    So to see a bunch of data sheets and the next thing, you know,
  • 00:40:08
    however long it takes for folks to actually start implementing it
  • 00:40:11
    but a bunch of other recommendations.
  • 00:40:13
    So this report is online if you all want to take a look here.
  • 00:40:17
    And, how much time do I have? Oh
  • 00:40:20
    Okay, all right, so ongoing & further directions.
  • 00:40:23
    So one thing that I've been quite interested in these days especially, is the topic of education.
  • 00:40:29
    Because in education, you get to think about a lot of allocation problems
  • 00:40:32
    But also it's primarily an information type problem, right?
  • 00:40:36
    Because that's where students spend the most amount of time, you know, where they get a lot of information
  • 00:40:40
    so in a sense
  • 00:40:41
    This is like both interventions bundled into one.
  • 00:40:44
    And there's a lot of resources that we can think about allocating here.
  • 00:40:47
    One, that is quite common, is matching students to public universities.
  • 00:40:52
    So in Ethiopia, where I'm from, every year something like
  • 00:40:55
    300,000 people
  • 00:40:56
    take the National Exam in 12th grade and many of them want to be assigned
  • 00:41:00
    to one of the 48 public institutions across the country.
  • 00:41:04
    And the country has had a sort of a more ad-hoc system for assigning students to public schools in this setting.
  • 00:41:11
    And so they came to us and they said we want to improve the matching system.
  • 00:41:15
    This is us meaning me and Basiliyos Betru who's a grad student at Jimma University in Ethiopia.
  • 00:41:20
    They said we want to improve the allocation system, can you help us?
  • 00:41:24
    And initially, we thought, "okay, this looks a lot like mechanism design for school choice," right?
  • 00:41:28
    There's been people who've worked on this for quite some time,
  • 00:41:30
    people who have won Nobel Prizes for this work on school choice and it's an active area of research.
  • 00:41:35
    There's a recent work that i presented at SODA with Jason Hartline,
  • 00:41:42
    who's a graduate of UW, and Richard Cole and Vasita Gkatzelis
  • 00:41:45
    that looks at designing, kind of this, one-sided matching
  • 00:41:50
    That looks at solving this one-sided matching problem.
  • 00:41:53
    So there's been quite a bit of work in this space here.
  • 00:41:56
    But, what we found was that
  • 00:41:58
    they had a set of constraints and requirements that make this problem quite different
  • 00:42:01
    so they asked us for, okay constraints are not surprising,
  • 00:42:05
    special accommodations maybe not so surprising,
  • 00:42:07
    but they also had these diversity requirements.
  • 00:42:09
    They said, we want to make sure that we don't have too many people of a given gender, of a given region
  • 00:42:15
    from the same, whether private or public, institution all ending up at the same place.
  • 00:42:19
    So you now have this matching problem where you have these very rich diversity requirements here.
  • 00:42:25
    And it has to get solved in such a way that you have kind of diverse programs and diverse classrooms.
  • 00:42:32
    So this is something that I've been actively working on.
  • 00:42:36
    Another thing that they've asked, that I think is quite interesting, is that they also said
  • 00:42:40
    every year we do this and we get so many complaints.
  • 00:42:44
    There so many appeals because people didn't get matched to their preferred schools.
  • 00:42:47
    And so, when we assign them to schools,
  • 00:42:50
    we want them to also know why they didn't get a higher ranked item for themselves, right?
  • 00:42:53
    And so, this has got me thinking about
  • 00:42:56
    mechanism design and explainability of mechanism design here.
  • 00:42:59
    Can we also provide an explanation to say,
  • 00:43:02
    "Hey, you didn't get into your first or second choice because
  • 00:43:04
    you didn't score highly enough for people that went to public schools in your region"
  • 00:43:09
    or something like this that's providing partial or maybe a complete explanation here,
  • 00:43:12
    which I think is quite interesting.
  • 00:43:14
    I've also been thinking about the allocation problems from the income subsidy project
  • 00:43:20
    that we were discussing a little bit earlier. Thinking about dynamic subsidies.
  • 00:43:25
    There's also work that we're doing on saving circles which are sort of
  • 00:43:29
    social insurance programs that are very common developing world contexts.
  • 00:43:32
    And this is work that I'm doing with Sam Taggart at Oberlin and
  • 00:43:35
    Chris Ikeokwu, who's an undergraduate at Oberlin University, who's doing really wonderful work here.
  • 00:43:40
    So there's a lot of really interesting theoretical and also
  • 00:43:43
    more applied projects that we can think about.
  • 00:43:46
    I had mentioned earlier also the work that we're doing using the poverty tracker dataset
  • 00:43:51
    that I had mentioned and we're looking at how different types of shocks might be
  • 00:43:57
    helpful in understanding or predicting poverty
  • 00:44:00
    and whether some types of shocks seem to matter more for different groups than others.
  • 00:44:04
    So we find things like,
  • 00:44:05
    that financial shocks, like an income decrease or a major expense or a benefit decrease,
  • 00:44:10
    seems to impact women a lot more
  • 00:44:13
    whereas, crime and police stop related type shocks
  • 00:44:16
    tend to impact men a lot more right?
  • 00:44:18
    So this is work that we're doing that's on the more applied vein.
  • 00:44:24
    And more broadly, I'm working on a bunch of projects related to this theme that we saw earlier on
  • 00:44:31
    designing and analyzing and deploying algorithmic and computational techniques.
  • 00:44:35
    But in thinking about this,
  • 00:44:37
    It's also important to step back and think about whether computing is actually the solution here.
  • 00:44:41
    Whether maybe actually we're causing more problems than we are solving
  • 00:44:44
    and is there a way for us to make contributions that is actually working towards fundamental social change
  • 00:44:51
    rather than maybe undoing some other work that were that has already been done or
  • 00:44:54
    maybe it's just not actually contributing anything.
  • 00:44:57
    And so, what we did was we basically,
  • 00:45:00
    this problem was bothering us
  • 00:45:02
    so with some colleagues at Cornell we turned what was a,
  • 00:45:06
    spirited conversation,
  • 00:45:07
    let's say. (laughs)
  • 00:45:09
    A spirited conversation into this paper that I'm quite proud of, where we
  • 00:45:13
    Thought through all their computing examples that we've seen, that we've thought, from our community
  • 00:45:18
    We're proud that our community has been able to contribute this. Why are we proud of it?
  • 00:45:22
    Is there a way for us to kind of think about the framework of where computing can play a role.
  • 00:45:27
    And we came up with four specific rules that it can play:
  • 00:45:30
    One, is that as a diagnostic, computing can help us measure,
  • 00:45:33
    precisely measure,
  • 00:45:35
    Social problems and especially those that might have a technical dimension.
  • 00:45:38
    We're actually kind of uniquely positioned to say,
  • 00:45:40
    Look people are getting really bad information online and here's an opportunity for us to try to address it.
  • 00:45:45
    But I mean, this is one example that you all have seen,
  • 00:45:48
    but there's many many others and I encourage you to read the paper to
  • 00:45:51
    see how the different projects actually have been able to serve as a diagnostic.
  • 00:45:56
    Another one, is that computing requires that you're very explicit about your input and your goals right?
  • 00:46:01
    And so in that sense, it actually
  • 00:46:03
    formalizes how we're going to understand the social problem
  • 00:46:06
    and what solutions might be feasible or that we should be striving for right?
  • 00:46:11
    And so maybe it's an opportunity, actually, to say look you can think about this optimization problem
  • 00:46:15
    in all these different ways, but maybe, actually,
  • 00:46:17
    what you should be thinking about is whether you have enough resources available to begin with.
  • 00:46:20
    And so we can be part of that conversation.
  • 00:46:23
    We have two other roles, I won't get into them, but
  • 00:46:24
    Computing as a rebuttal and Computing as a synecdoche
  • 00:46:27
    are two roles that we also thought about.
  • 00:46:30
    So I highly encourage you to take a look at this paper
  • 00:46:32
    It's an evolving idea. Right? So if you have ideas here, please reach out.
  • 00:46:36
    I'm always happy to chatter (and) hear what you have to say.
  • 00:46:40
    And I'll close here by giving a shout out to
  • 00:46:43
    The Mechanism Design for Social Good community that has been, I think,
  • 00:46:46
    doing more responsible work in this space.
  • 00:46:49
    This is a group that we started as a as a reading group.
  • 00:46:53
    So this was an online reading group. You'll see here,
  • 00:46:55
    Do you see Anna at the back?
  • 00:46:59
    And this was a reading group. Actually two people here don't belong to the reading group,
  • 00:47:03
    they're Mile's parents.
  • 00:47:03
    But, everyone else was in the reading group and we were we met online for about a year
  • 00:47:08
    We were able to start a workshop series
  • 00:47:10
    So we were all co-present physically at the same place and this picture was taken on that day.
  • 00:47:15
    But the group has grown, you know,
  • 00:47:16
    I started with Kira Goldner, whom you all know here,
  • 00:47:19
    doing really phenomenal work now at Columbia with Tim Roughgarden.
  • 00:47:22
    And I've been running it with Irene Lo at Stanford and Ana-Andreea Stoica,
  • 00:47:27
    and the group has grown quite significantly.
  • 00:47:29
    We now have an online colloquium series,
  • 00:47:32
    where we've been able to highlight really wonderful work that we that we really like,
  • 00:47:35
    we've had a technical workshop series at EC,
  • 00:47:37
    we've had tutorials at WINE and COMPASS.
  • 00:47:40
    We have, you know, research folks and practitioners from over 100 institutions in 20 countries.
  • 00:47:47
    We're really trying to take a global perspective on a lot of these problems.
  • 00:47:50
    We've been funded by the generous folks that you see at the bottom here,
  • 00:47:54
    and one I'll highlight especially is that,
  • 00:47:57
    We've had an online working group that is doing really domain specific work,
  • 00:48:02
    we've had eight of them.
  • 00:48:03
    A couple of them are paused and a couple of them just came online this past semester,
  • 00:48:06
    but really trying to do engaged work where we have people, not just in computer science,
  • 00:48:11
    but in economics, sociology, public policy, but then also people
  • 00:48:14
    working at like, the City of Austin and City of Knoxville,
  • 00:48:18
    like all sorts of places really engaged in this space and
  • 00:48:23
    the three sort of themes that have
  • 00:48:25
    kind of emerged out of these working groups have been really driving a lot of the work that I do here including,
  • 00:48:30
    analyzing different forms of disadvantage,
  • 00:48:33
    being able to explain different outcomes, and
  • 00:48:36
    understanding the effects of objective functions, and
  • 00:48:37
    the role of information in improving access to opportunity.
  • 00:48:41
    So, I'll just, I'll stop here.
  • 00:48:43
    I'll encourage you to take a look at MD4SG if any of this strikes your fancy and
  • 00:48:48
    feel free to reach out and thank you so much.
  • 00:48:50
    (clapping)
  • 00:48:57
    Questions?
  • 00:49:01
    Audience: You presented the slide where you had this
  • 00:49:03
    "cure for AIDS was garlic" which was one of the preliminary searches on these websites
  • 00:49:07
    and we said that when making filters for these authentic websites,
  • 00:49:12
    they don't have any information on that
  • 00:49:14
    And that's a place for filling in this information which is like "garlic is a cure for HIV"
  • 00:49:21
    Which I believe is not true. (laughter)
  • 00:49:23
    Abebe: Okay (laughs) one on one intervention. I can have a conversation with you. Yeah? Good.
  • 00:49:29
    Audience: So what do you think of the solution of that? Should these,
  • 00:49:32
    high-quality websites track the kind of misinformation that is flowing in their societies
  • 00:49:38
    and address them on their website or something?
  • 00:49:42
    Abebe: Yes, yeah, so it's very specific to the problem that you're looking at,
  • 00:49:46
    So I'll give you an example that's a little bit of a disheartening example
  • 00:49:49
    So when there was the Ebola outbreak in 2014, or whenever that was,
  • 00:49:54
    the government, pretty sure this was Liberia.
  • 00:49:58
    So the government of Liberia was telling people, you know:
  • 00:50:01
    wash your hands, don't touch the dead, like all these things that we know
  • 00:50:04
    could help mitigate the transmission of Ebola.
  • 00:50:07
    And what happened was, because the government was giving out this information,
  • 00:50:12
    there were ethnic groups that felt that,
  • 00:50:15
    that had already kind of felt alienated just in the country anyway,
  • 00:50:18
    but the government was telling them to do something that they felt was against their beliefs or religion.
  • 00:50:21
    And so they actually kind of resisted against that in a much more explicit way, right?
  • 00:50:26
    And so they were not as susceptible to it.
  • 00:50:29
    So I highlight that as a maybe an extreme example
  • 00:50:31
    But I think it is an example that says that, you have to think about what the disease is,
  • 00:50:35
    who's trying to do the intervention, why they're trying to do it,
  • 00:50:38
    have you tested it to see that people actually respond well to it, right?
  • 00:50:41
    And I will say that you know, I'm not in information retrieval,
  • 00:50:45
    but because of this project I've had to think a lot about information retrieval in the African context,
  • 00:50:50
    and there's very little work there.
  • 00:50:52
    So we know very little about how African individuals engage with online information
  • 00:50:56
    So I think that's an opportunity to do a lot of work.
  • 00:50:59
    But thank you for asking that.
  • 00:51:02
    Audience: You mentioned one of the correlations here, that the higher the stigma, the more...
  • 00:51:09
    Rediet Abebe: The HIV prevalence right?
  • 00:51:10
    Audience: Right, I'm curious if you know anything about the correlation between
  • 00:51:16
    the popularity of these natural (cures) or cures without any scientific evidence, as far as I know.
  • 00:51:22
    And how strongly that correlates, perhaps, with like the cost of treatment in different countries?
  • 00:51:29
    Rediet Abebe: Oh cost of treatment? Interesting.
  • 00:51:30
    Audience: I'm curious about a number of different things that might be correlated with it.
  • 00:51:34
    Cost of treatment is one,
  • 00:51:35
    because I know cost of treatment can be astronomically different in different countries.
  • 00:51:40
    Abebe: Yeah, so I haven't looked at that, that's a really good question.
  • 00:51:42
    We've looked at what groups tend to search for this more than others.
  • 00:51:47
    We found that older groups do. So that's something, right?
  • 00:51:52
    And I think (inaudible) also, worth knowing right?
  • 00:51:56
    Yeah, so we've looked at that,
  • 00:51:58
    but I really appreciate that question actually about why
  • 00:52:00
    people might be searching for it, because it might be more out of like,
  • 00:52:03
    they don't have any other means and so,
  • 00:52:06
    you can believe that nothing will cure it or you can believe that natural cures
  • 00:52:11
    Yeah, it's an important important question. Yeah. Yes?
  • 00:52:14
    Audience: Thank you for your talk.
  • 00:52:15
    I had a specific question on when you were talking about
  • 00:52:19
    giving recommendations for surveys for the Ministry of Health in Ghana and...
  • 00:52:25
    Rediet Abebe: and in Ethiopa, yes that's right. Yes.
  • 00:52:28
    Audience: I was wondering if you...(inaudible)
  • 00:52:33
    Rediet Abebe: Yeah.
  • 00:52:35
    Audience: We had that paper in 2009 on...(inaudible)...nature, completely failed to predict the trends on the flow of...(inaudible)
  • 00:52:42
    Rediet Abebe: That's right it did
  • 00:52:44
    Audience: So I feel like sometimes we are also having these big promises.
  • 00:52:47
    Rediet Abebe: No, so I, I so appreciate that question.
  • 00:52:50
    Yes, yes. It was at the end of your question. Sorry. I got very excited. Yeah so...
  • 00:52:54
    Audience: (inaudible)...and how did you learn from that for this particular project?
  • 00:52:59
    Rediet Abebe: I learned so much from it and I really appreciate that you're asking that question
  • 00:53:02
    because that was, as you know, as computer scientist
  • 00:53:04
    I was like, "oh something to predict, I'm gonna go predict it."
  • 00:53:06
    And, before we did, we went and talked to folks across, you know,
  • 00:53:10
    we talked to, I say across the continent because we talked to so many people.
  • 00:53:14
    And they were just like, "Don't do that. We didn't ask for you to do that.
  • 00:53:18
    First of all, we don't even have a good ground truth data,
  • 00:53:20
    so, what are you exactly predicting? Because we know that HIV prevalence rates are really more of
  • 00:53:25
    rule of thumb than an actual precise number and also,
  • 00:53:28
    even if you were able to predict it very well, what qualitative insights
  • 00:53:31
    could I walk away with that would change how I would allocate whatever intervention that I had?" Right?
  • 00:53:35
    And so, that was a humbling moment when you go in and you're like,
  • 00:53:38
    "I got this fancy badge, let me do my prediction."
  • 00:53:40
    and they were like, "don't do that."
  • 00:53:42
    But they did give us essentially this question, right? Because they said, "Look.
  • 00:53:46
    We targeted education as an important way for us to mitigate the burden of diseases
  • 00:53:51
    but it's really hard for us because we don't know what people
  • 00:53:54
    are seeking and what they don't know. And so if you can help us bridge that gap, that would be very helpful."
  • 00:54:00
    And so the way I think about this paper is basically as a sort of hypothesis generation.
  • 00:54:04
    We're basically kind of giving like an existence proof
  • 00:54:06
    I'm saying there exists 'x' number of people that are searching for "is garlic a cure HIV."
  • 00:54:12
    It's a lower bound. We don't know
  • 00:54:13
    what the actual number is, but you can say whether that number bothers you enough to intervene, right?
  • 00:54:19
    And so, I think taking a step back and doing like a less fancy,
  • 00:54:23
    but potentially more useful thing is something that we need to get better at.
  • 00:54:27
    And I really appreciate that question. Thank you for asking that.
  • 00:54:32
    Audience: So I have a question.
  • 00:54:33
    For the first part of the powerpoint, so you are showing us the (inaudible) model to try to understand how you can really gauge poverty
  • 00:54:43
    and allocate your project. Then you showed us a more complex model.
  • 00:54:46
    But I think that when you actually try to apply it,
  • 00:54:48
    How do you validate if the model we have developed
  • 00:54:50
    is sufficiently accurate to actually model what is happening in the world?
  • 00:54:54
    Rediet Abebe: Yeah, so I mean the model is so general,
  • 00:54:57
    That I think the challenging question is not so much does the model capture,
  • 00:55:00
    Well, I guess that is actually...no I take it back.
  • 00:55:04
    So the model is fairly general
  • 00:55:05
    if you just assume that the four things that I mentioned are the only things that matter
  • 00:55:08
    and we assume that there's independence between
  • 00:55:10
    shocks and things like that, right?
  • 00:55:11
    In reality, we know that shocks are quite dependent actually,
  • 00:55:14
    that if you just experience the medical expense
  • 00:55:17
    You're more likely to experience one soon, or maybe something else will happen in your life.
  • 00:55:20
    So the more data driven work we're doing that
  • 00:55:23
    I mentioned towards the end is trying to kind of get at where
  • 00:55:26
    some of the the failures of the model there might be.
  • 00:55:28
    You could try to also think about fitting a model to a data set that we have here,
  • 00:55:32
    but really the way I think about this project is basically saying,
  • 00:55:36
    can I come up with something that's sophisticated enough that we can draw some sort of qualitative insights
  • 00:55:40
    But simple enough that it's not really about the particulars of the model
  • 00:55:43
    and still be able to make statements like,
  • 00:55:45
    look how you're setting your objective function really matters, even in this very simple setting. Right?
  • 00:55:49
    Certainly that's probably gonna carry over to more complex settings potentially also, right?
  • 00:55:53
    So that's sort of how I think about it.
  • 00:55:55
    I think translating theory to practice is...
  • 00:56:00
    We haven't 100% figured it out, right?
  • 00:56:03
    I think, yeah, I think translating applied research to practice, I think we figured out a lot more
  • 00:56:08
    But yeah, I think there's still a place for theory here. Yeah.
  • 00:56:12
    But we should talk more during dinner because
  • 00:56:14
    I have more thoughts and I want to hear what you think as well. Yes?
  • 00:56:18
    Audience: I'm curious, actually on this slide, with different intervention types,
  • 00:56:23
    have you looked or do you know of any research
  • 00:56:27
    which is actually looking at the combining of different types of interventions or if there's some...
  • 00:56:34
    because it's clearly not linear. Like you can't just optimize one, like you have to combine.
  • 00:56:40
    So if there is any...
  • 00:56:41
    Rediet Abebe: So, mixing say like in Commonwealth subsidies or something or...
  • 00:56:44
    Audience: Yes
  • 00:56:45
    Abebe: Yeah, so actually I didn't present this result, but
  • 00:56:47
    for a lot of the special cases that I mentioned, we can solve that optimally too.
  • 00:56:51
    Like the mixture and doesn't change the math much.
  • 00:56:54
    So I thought actually quite a bit about,
  • 00:56:57
    what an income subsidy would map to, at least in the U.S.
  • 00:57:00
    So like if you thought about food stamps
  • 00:57:01
    That's a sort of income subsidy, because it's making it cheaper for you to buy food
  • 00:57:05
    So you'll have more money left over.
  • 00:57:07
    There's fewer wealth subsidies really.
  • 00:57:10
    Yeah, like sort of fewer upfront, like one-time initial interventions that we give here.
  • 00:57:19
    Yeah, so I haven't really thought about you know, how we can think about these mixes?
  • 00:57:23
    But I have thought about the different types of income subsidies.
  • 00:57:26
    If you're imagining basically, I'll give you an income subsidy
  • 00:57:28
    But you can only use it for specific things enough for others
  • 00:57:31
    Maybe there's interesting modeling questions to ask there. But yeah good question. Very good question
  • 00:57:37
    Karlin: Maybe we should take the rest of the questions outside
  • 00:57:39
    Rediet Abebe: Yeah, okay good.
  • 00:57:40
    Anna Karlin: Thank you so much Redeit
  • 00:57:41
    (clapping)
Etiquetas
  • Rediet Abebe
  • AI
  • social good
  • poverty
  • algorithmic techniques
  • resource allocation
  • information access
  • disadvantaged communities
  • income shocks
  • public policy