During the 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), held in Jeju, I had the opportunity to meet with one of the keynote speakers, Gillian Hadfield. We spoke about her interdisciplinary research, career trajectory, path into AI alignment, law, and general thoughts on AI systems. Transcript: Note: the transcript has been lightly edited for clarity. This is an interview with Professor Gillian Hadfield who was a keynote speaker at IJCAI 2024. She gave a very insightful talk about normative infrastructures and how they can guide our search for AI alignment. Kumar Kshitij Patel (KKP): Could you talk a bit about your background and career trajectory? I want our readers to understand how much interdisciplinary work you've done over the years. Gillian Hadfield (GH): I did a PhD in economics and a law degree, a JD, at Stanford, originally motivated by wanting to think about the big questions about the world. So I read John Rawls' theory of justice when I was an undergraduate, and those are the big questions: how do we organize the world and just institutions, but I was very interested in using more formal methods and social scientific approaches. That's why I decided to do that joint degree. So, this is in the 1980s, and in the early days of starting to use a lot of game theory. I studied information theory, a student of Canaro and Paul Milgram at the economics department at Stanford. I did work on contract theory, bargaining theory, but I was still very interested in going to law school, not to practice law, but to learn about legal institutions and how those work. I was a member of this emerging area of law and economics early in my career, which of course, was interdisciplinary, using economics to think about law and legal institutions.

Larry Niven is one of the biggest names in the history of science fiction, and it was a privilege to interview him via Zoom at his home in Los Angeles recently. His 1970 novel Ringworld is the latest pick for the New Scientist Book Club, but he has also written a whole space-fleet-load of novels and short stories over the years, including my favourite sci-fi of all time, A World Out of Time. At 87 years of age, he is very much still writing. I spoke to him about Ringworld, his start in sci-fi, his favourite work over the years, his current projects and whether he thinks humankind will ever leave this solar system. This is an edited version of our conversation.

SAVE 18%: As of May 14, you can get the Narwal Freo Z10 Robot Vacuum and Mop for 899.99, down from 1,099.99, at Amazon. It's also the lowest price we've seen for this model yet. Paying over a grand for a robot vacuum is a little ridiculous, if you can get one with all the bells and whistles for less. The Narwal Freo Z10 Robot Vacuum and Mop (one of Narwal's newest releases) is currently on sale for 899.99 (with an on-screen coupon), down from 1,099.99. It's also the lowest price we've ever seen for this model. If you haven't heard of it, Narwal is known for its AI-powered cleaning robots.

AI performance on demanding benchmarks continues to improve. Performance of advanced AI systems on new benchmarks introduced in 2023 has increased sharply. AI systems also made major strides in generating high-quality video. AI is increasingly embedded in everyday life. In 2023, the FDA (in the US) approved 223 AI-enabled medical devices, up from just six in 2015.

On a crisp Saturday in March, beneath a canopy of pixelated cherry blossoms, two avatars stood in front of a digital altar crafted from shimmering quartz blocks and flickering redstone torches. They were surrounded by a sprawling Minecraft village, complete with custom-coded NPCs reciting lore about the couple's decade-long digital courtship. Nearby, pixelated foxes darted between guests--each one logged in from across the world, dressed in custom skins as forest druids and rogue mages. After the vows (typed and read aloud on Discord), guests dispersed for side quests, scavenger hunts, and an enchanted maze culminating in a virtual fireworks show. This wasn't a rehearsal for an in-person wedding--this was the wedding.

On May 9th, Vladimir Putin will oversee a parade in Moscow's Red Square, commemorating the Soviet Union's victory in the Second World War, an annual display of military bravado that, since Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, in 2022, has taken on more explicit political undertones. The country's triumph over Nazism is presented as proof of its righteousness in the current war--and of it's role as a global power. Last year, as intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads rolled across the square, Putin linked the "radiant memory" of those who gave up their lives in the Second World War with "our brothers-in-arms who have fallen in the struggle against neo-Nazism and in the righteous fight for Russia"--that is, Russian soldiers killed in the current war in Ukraine. The Lede Reporting and commentary on what you need to know today. This year, the celebrations in Moscow serve another purpose: a way for Putin to show that he is not geopolitically isolated--China's Xi Jinping and Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva are expected to attend.

As AI enters the workforce and seeps into all facets of our lives at unprecedented speed, we're told by leaders across industries that if you're not using it, you're falling behind. Yet when AI's use in art enters the conversation, some retreat in discomfort, shunning it as an affront to the very essence of art. This ongoing debate continues to create disruptions among artists. AI is fundamentally changing the creative process, and its purpose, significance, and influence are subjective to one's own values--making its trajectory hard to predict, and even harder to confront. Miami-based Panamanian photographer Dahlia Dreszer stands out as an optimist and believer in AI's powers.

What is the future of the like button in the age of artificial intelligence? Max Levchin--the PayPal cofounder and Affirm CEO--sees a new and hugely valuable role for liking data to train AI to arrive at conclusions more in line with those a human decisionmaker would make. It's a well-known quandary in machine learning that a computer presented with a clear reward function will engage in relentless reinforcement learning to improve its performance and maximize that reward--but that this optimization path often leads AI systems to very different outcomes than would result from humans exercising human judgment. To introduce a corrective force, AI developers frequently use what is called reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Essentially they are putting a human thumb on the scale as the computer arrives at its model by training it on data reflecting real people's actual preferences.

Scientist and physicist Geoffrey Hinton believes there could be a one in five chance that humanity will eventually be taken over by artificial intelligence. Hinton, a Nobel laureate in physics who's been dubbed the'godfather of AI', made the startling prediction in an April 1 interview with CBS News that was aired on Saturday morning. 'I'm in the unfortunate position of happening to agree with Elon Musk on this, which is that there's a 10 to 20 percent chance that these things will take over, but that's just a wild guess,' Hinton said. Besides his cost-cutting responsibilities in the federal government, Musk is the chief executive of xAI, the company that made the AI chatbot Grok. Musk has said AI will become smarter than the entire human race by 2029.

Rep. Jasmine Crockett said she would "absolutely" take a head-to-head IQ test against President Donald Trump during an interview with late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, told late-night host Jimmy Kimmel on Tuesday that she would "absolutely" take a head-to-head IQ test against President Donald Trump. "He also called you low IQ, I'm sure you're aware of that. Would you be willing to take an IQ test publicly head-to-head against the President of the United States?" Kimmel played a clip of Trump talking about the Democratic lawmaker, during which he called Crockett the Democrats' "new star," and suggested the party was in trouble if that was the case.