Collaborative eLearning Assistant Network: caring agents are conscious agents

Would a research assistant - who can search for ideas related to those you are working on, network with others (but only share the things you have chosen to share), doesn’t need coffee and who might even, one day, appear to be conscious - help you get your work done? Would it help your students learn? There is a body of work showing that digital learning assistants can be a benefit to learners. It has been suggested that adaptive, caring, agents are more beneficial. Would a conscious agent be more caring, more adaptive, and better able to deal with changes in its learning partner’s life? Allow the system to try to dynamically model the user, so that it can make predictions about what is needed next, and how effective a particular intervention will be. Now, given that the system is essentially doing the same things as the user, why don’t we design the system so that it can try to model itself in the same way? This should mimic a primitive self-awareness. People develop their personalities, their identities, through interacting with others. It takes years for a human to develop a full sense of self. Nobody should expect a prototypical conscious computer system to be able to develop any faster than that. How can we provide a computer system with enough social contact to enable it to learn about itself and others? We can make it part of a network. Not just chatting with other computers about computer ‘stuff’, but involved in real human activity. Exposed to ‘raw meaning’ – the developing folksonomies coming out of the learning activities of humans, whether they are traditional students or lifelong learners (a term which should encompass everyone). Humans have complex psyches, comprised of multiple strands of identity which reflect as different roles in the communities of which they are part – so why not design our system the same way? With multiple internal modes of operation, each capable of being reflected onto the outside world in the form of roles – as a mentor, a research assistant, maybe even as a friend. But in order to be able to work with a human for long enough to be able to have a chance of developing the sort of rich behaviours we associate with people, the system needs to be able to function in a practical and helpful role. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to get a free ride from many people (other than its developer!) – so it needs to be able to perform a useful role, and do so securely, respecting the privacy of its partner. Can we create a system which learns to be more human whilst helping people learn?

Cheap dates and the delusion of gratification: are votes sold or traded in the EU Council of Ministers?

Each year, small Member States receive a disproportionate share of the European Union's (EU's) budget. A prominent explanation for this is that Council decision-making involves a healthy dose of vote selling, whereby large Member States offer small states generous fiscal transfers in exchange for influence over policy. But nobody has investigated whether net budget contributors actually get anything for their money. In this paper I identify the vote selling model's observable implications and find virtually no evidence consistent with Council cash-for-votes exchanges. I also show that a compromise model – the leading model of EU decision-making to date – modified to incorporate vote selling does not outperform a standard one that assumes votes are traded rather than sold. Taken together, the results suggest that Council decision-making operates with little or no vote selling, and that regardless of whatever they think they might be buying, net budget contributors get little or nothing in return for their money. These findings call for further investigation into how Member States approach the issue of fiscal transfers, and into the factors other than formal voting weight that affect the power of actors engaged in EU decision-making.

Destructive behaviours and leadership: the source of the shift from a functional to dysfunctional workplace?

Destructive leadership behaviour often results in damage to the organisations that the individual is entrusted to lead. Although accurately pinpointing the type of destructive behaviour is difficult, this article seeks to offer suggestions as to why leaders spiral into such unattractive behaviour. After reviewing the literature, this paper highlights four drivers for destructive ways that people act based on detailed qualitative scenarios that involve how those who experienced such behaviour reacted and felt. The study reveals a noticeable human experience from which nobody can escape, and offers understanding of the study participants’ experiences. Out of respect to the participants, the authors keep their identity anonomous. We drew our subjects from a cross-section of organisations that function internationally within one area of the manufacturing industry. The article presents a model comprising two dimensions: 1) the leader’s attitude to the organisation he or she leads and 2) adequacy of his or her leadership capabilities. The models offer us understanding of the drivers of the destructive actions that the leader exhibits. Understanding allows us to provide managers with tactical methods to protect them against destructive behaviour and help them lessen the worst aspects of destructive behaviour in both their colleagues and themselves.