Part: 1

1. Daily steps and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis of 15 international cohorts

2. The paper tackles the problem of understanding the association between the number
of steps per day and stepping rate with all-cause mortality, as stated by the authors in
the abstract, introduction, and conclusions.

3. Based on my own reading of the paper’s abstract, introduction, discussion, and

conclusions, the paper tackles the problem of determining the optimal number of
steps per day for reducing the risk of all-cause mortality.

4. The nature and size of the data for this work is a meta-analysis of 15 international
cohorts, with a total sample size of 47,471 adults.

5. One key stakeholder is public health organisations.

6. Public health organisations could potentially use the results of this work to develop
guidelines and recommendations for physical activity to reduce the risk of premature
death.

7. I thought it was important that the study found that taking more steps per day is
associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and that the risk of mortality
decreased progressively with increasing number of steps per day until it levelled off
at about 6000-8000 steps per day for adults aged 60 years and older and at about
8000-10,000 steps per day for adults younger than 60 years. This information could
be useful for developing physical activity guidelines for different age groups.
Part 2:

1. Do people living in urban areas have higher step counts than those living in rural
areas? Some important stakeholders involved in this question could include urban planners,
public health organisations, and residents of urban and rural areas. Urban planners may be
interested in understanding the relationship between the built environment and physical
activity to design more walkable cities, while public health organisations may be interested in
promoting physical activity in both urban and rural areas. Residents of urban and rural areas
may be interested in finding ways to increase their physical activity levels based on their
location.

2. Do people who live near parks or green spaces have higher step counts than those
who do not? Some important stakeholders involved in this question could include park
managers, environmental organisations, and residents of neighbourhoods with and without
access to parks or green spaces. Park managers may be interested in understanding the
impact of parks on physical activity to improve park design and programming, while
environmental organisations may be interested in promoting the benefits of green spaces for
physical activity. Residents of neighbourhoods with and without access to parks or green
spaces may be interested in finding ways to increase their physical activity levels based on
their proximity to these amenities.

3. Do people who commute by walking or cycling have higher step counts than those
who commute by car or public transportation? Some important stakeholders involved in
this question could include transportation planners, public health organisations, and
commuters. Transportation planners may be interested in understanding the relationship
between mode of transportation and physical activity to promote active transportation
options, while public health organisations may be interested in promoting the health benefits
of active transportation. Commuters may be interested in finding ways to incorporate more
physical activity into their daily commute.

Part 3:

Question: Which of the following is an example of an unintended and unanticipated

outcome of algorithmic and AI systems?

Correct - best answer: Social media algorithms promoting provocative posts that evoke
strong emotions to maximize engagement.
Feedback: This is the best answer because it is an example of how reinforcement learning
algorithms used by social media companies can lead to unintended consequences. These
algorithms are designed to maximize engagement by promoting posts that get the most
views, but this can result in the promotion of provocative or polarizing content that evokes
strong emotions, leading to increased revenues for the platform but also potentially harmful
effects on society¹.
Distractor 1: AI systems accurately predicting weather patterns.
Feedback: This is not a good answer because accurately predicting weather patterns is an
intended outcome of AI systems designed for this purpose, not an unintended or
unanticipated outcome.

Distractor 2: AI systems improving the speed and accuracy of medical diagnoses.

Feedback: This is not a good answer because improving the speed and accuracy of medical
diagnoses is an intended outcome of AI systems designed for this purpose, not an
unintended or unanticipated outcome.

Distractor 3: AI systems reducing energy consumption in data centers.

Feedback: This is not a good answer because reducing energy consumption in data centers
is an intended outcome of AI systems designed for this purpose, not an unintended or
unanticipated outcome.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 8/15/2023

(1) 5 Rules to Manage AI’s Unintended Consequences - Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2021/05/5-rules-to-manage-ais-unintended-consequences.
(2) The ethics of algorithms: key problems and solutions.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-021-01154-8.
(3) WHO issues first global report on Artificial Intelligence (AI) in ....
https://www.who.int/news/item/28-06-2021-who-issues-first-global-report-on-ai-in-health-and-
six-guiding-principles-for-its-design-and-use.

I acknowledge the use of Bing ai and used the following prompt with no iterations:
“write an mcq with respect to the following topic, Unintended and unanticipated outcomes of
algorithmic and AI systems - case studies - particularly GAI, and make sure to explain the
question and awnswers using the following format:
Question: <text of your question>

Correct - best answer: <text of correct answer>

Feedback: <text of feedback explaining why this is the best answer and brief new
information about this answer>

Distractor 1: <text of distractor>

Feedback: <text of feedback on strengths and weaknesses of Distractor 1 and why it is
weaker than the correct response>
Distractor 2: <as for Distractor 1>
Feedback: <as for Distractor 1>
Distractor 3: <as for Distractor 1>
Feedback: <as for Distractor 1>”