Recently, abstract argumentation-based models of case-based reasoning ($AA{\text -}CBR$ in short) have been proposed, originally inspired by the legal domain, but also applicable as classifiers in different scenarios, including image classification, sentiment analysis of text, and in predicting the passage of bills in the UK Parliament. However, the formal properties of $AA{\text -}CBR$ as a reasoning system remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we focus on analysing the non-monotonicity properties of a regular version of $AA{\text -}CBR$ (that we call $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$). Specifically, we prove that $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$ is not cautiously monotonic, a property frequently considered desirable in the literature of non-monotonic reasoning. We then define a variation of $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$ which is cautiously monotonic, and provide an algorithm for obtaining it. Further, we prove that such variation is equivalent to using $AA{\text -}CBR_{\succeq}$ with a restricted casebase consisting of all "surprising" cases in the original casebase.

As a long-time proponent of AI regulation that is designed to protect public health and safety while also promoting innovation, I believe Congress must not delay in enacting, on a bipartisan basis, Section 102(b) of The Artificial Intelligence Data Protection Act -- my proposed legislation and now a House of Representatives Discussion Draft Bill. Guardrails in the form of Section 102(b)'s ethical AI legislation are necessary to maintain the dignity of the individual. What does Section 102(b) of The AI Data Protection Act provide and why the urgent need for the federal government to enact it now? To answer these questions, it is first necessary to understand how artificial intelligence (AI) is being used during this historic moment when our democratic society is confronting two simultaneous existential threats. Only then can the risks that AI poses to our individual dignity be recognized, and Section 102(b) be understood as one of the most important remedies to protect the liberties that Americans hold dear and that serve as the bedrock of our society.

Amid a global pandemic, economic recession and simmering racial tensions around the world, Israel's threat to formally annex parts of occupied Palestinian territory presents yet another international crisis in the making. This is because, with this outrageous move, the Israeli government threatens to unravel the rules-based system of international relations. Today's international law regime was established in the first half of the 20th century not only to regulate relations between states but also to assist the movements for self-determination across the world and oversee the end of colonialism. The looming Israeli annexation of Palestinian land and the global inaction on it evidence the failure of this regime to help end colonialism and put its very raison d'etre in question. Much of the narrative in international diplomatic circles around the issue of annexation has revolved around deterrence, with the rationale being the threat of tangible consequences to annexation will lead to a reconsideration of the move. Yet this narrative fails to acknowledge that we have reached a point, where Israel will annex yet another chunk of Palestinian territory precisely because deterrence has not worked.

Artificial intelligence has become a fundamental piece of everything from medical diagnostics technology to systems that analyze electoral candidates and provide accurate information to voters. However, you may still find many AI skeptics, and especially people who question the role of AI in the justice system. Many legal leaders and institutions are interested in the efficiency benefits AI brings to the field. But the big question is: can AI make the judicial system fairer? Many claim that the United States' judicial system is among the most robust in the world.

A machine-learned AI system used to assess recidivism risks in Broward County, Fla., often gave higher risk scores to African Americans than to whites, even when the latter had criminal records. The popular sentence-completion facility in Google Mail was caught assuming that an "investor" must be a male. A celebrated natural language generator called GPT, with an uncanny ability to write polished-looking essays for any prompt, produced seemingly racist and sexist completions when given prompts about minorities. Amazon found, to its consternation, that an automated AI-based hiring system it built didn't seem to like female candidates. Commercial gender-recognition systems put out by industrial heavy-weights, including Amazon, IBM and Microsoft, have been shown to suffer from high misrecognition rates for people of color.

The United Nations's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary and arbitrary killings presented a new report to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. Agnes Callamard's investigation focused on the legality of armed drones including one that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani near Baghdad's airport on January 3. It concluded the United States acted unlawfully in carrying out the attack. The US, meanwhile, denounced her findings. Callamard spoke to Al Jazeera about her probe and the future of drone warfare.

Researchers are calling for open and free access to U.S. court records and building an AI tool to analyze them. Why it matters: Court records are publicly available but expensive to access and difficult to navigate. Freeing up that data -- and using machine learning tools to make sense of it -- would help make the justice system more just. While records for Congress and executive agencies are free on the internet, federal courts charge $0.10 per printed page to view any record online. What's new: In one example of the kind of analysis that could be possible with open access, researchers from Northwestern University used an algorithm to scan court records and determine how often judges granted waivers for the $400 fee required to file a federal lawsuit.

Being such an immensely powerful sector, the legal field is definitely not exempt from the power of technology now paving its way steadily across all its areas. The advancement of technology in the law field has definitely led to an evolution in the operations of the legal professionals. As legal operations become increasingly automated, this has propelled legal professionals such as lawyers and paralegals to acquire proficiency in operations such as word processing, telecommunications, presenting data, and so on. Law technology has touched every part of the legal field, be it law firms and corporate practices to courtroom operations and handling of documents. Advancing technologies like artificial intelligence enable modern software to go through legal documents, simplify communications as well as discover suitable casework for law professionals.

The second most powerful executive at French gaming company Ubisoft is among more senior staff to have left the firm as it pursues an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations. Last month the company, one of the world's largest video game publishers with a portfolio including Assassin's Creed and Far Cry, launched a probe after allegations of sexual misconduct were shared online. Serge Hascoet, chief creative officer and the company's second-in-command, has resigned, as has the human resources director, Cecile Cornet, and the managing director of the Canadian branch, Yannis Mallat, Ubisoft said on Sunday. "The recent allegations that have come to light in Canada against multiple employees make it impossible for [Mallat] to continue in this position," it said. Another two top executives left earlier in July after current and former employees used social media to denounce predatory behaviour by managers.

Freeing up that data -- and using machine learning tools to make sense of it -- would help make the justice system more just.