With parents using artificial intelligence to scan prospective babysitters' social media and an endless slew of articles explaining how your résumé can "beat the bots," you might be wondering whether a robot will be offering you your next job. We're not there yet, but recruiters are increasingly using AI to make the first round of cuts and to determine whether a job posting is even advertised to you. Often trained on data collected about previous or similar applicants, these tools can cut down on the effort recruiters need to expend in order to make a hire. Last year, 67 percent of hiring managers and recruiters surveyed by LinkedIn said AI was saving them time. But critics argue that such systems can introduce bias, lack accountability and transparency, and aren't guaranteed to be accurate. Take, for instance, the Utah-based company HireVue, which sells a job interview video platform that can use artificial intelligence to assess candidates and, it claims, predict their likelihood to succeed in a position.

New centre aspires to be an international think-tank that promotes inter-disciplinary research into the interactions between technology and the law. The new Centre for Technology, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & the Law (TRAIL), a research unit under the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law (NUS Law), was launched today by Mr Edwin Tong, Senior Minister of State for Law and Health, at the 8th Asian Privacy Scholars Network (APSN) Conference. Leveraging NUS Law's preeminent position amongst the top law schools in the world, TRAIL aspires to be an international think-tank that enables inter-disciplinary communities to research into legal, ethical, policy, philosophical and regulatory questions associated with the use and development of information technology (IT), artificial intelligence (AI), data analytics and robotics in the practice of law. The Centre plans to conduct research into the interactions between technology and the law in a more integrated and holistic manner. TRAIL also aims to provide a forum for legal and non-legal scholars interested in various aspects of technology law, to collaborate and advance inter-disciplinary research.

Job Description The successful candidate will own all aspects of regulatory compliance processes/practices programs (including driving continuous improvement) within Intel's Internet of Things (IoT) Group. Product Regulatory Engr will support growth through expanded footprint in key verticals such as transportation, industrial/energy, retail, home/buildings etc through development and implementation of product regulatory test plans to ensure that the system development platforms (or products) meet regulatory requirements for countries where the products/platforms will be shipped. Responsibilities include: supporting design teams on product safety, functional safety, connectivity (WiFi-BT, Zigbee, Cellular, RFID, NFC), and EMC related issues.; Minimum QualificationsBS in Electrical Engineering, Physics or related field.• 3 years with regulatory certifications in product safety, EMC and/or RF/wireless• 3 years Rf/ Wireless regulatory certifications – FCC, PTCRB, experience with any of the carriers – ATT, Verizon, Nokia, Siemens, etc• 3 years EMC regulatory certification – FCC, CE, CISPRPreferred qualifications: – MS or PhD in electrical engineering or physics or related field preferred.- Unrestricted right to work in the US without sponsorship- Global product regulatory knowledge; inclusive of wireless safety EMC- Experience with wireless RF test methods and equipment- Experience in the design of wireless/RF systems including antennas is highly desired.-

PANEL IV – ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN LAW: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE v. HUMAN JUDGMENT • Georges-André Silber: Artificial Intelligence Applied to Legal Data: How Does It Work? • Mathieu Coulaud: How Is Artificial Intelligence Transforming Law?

The rise of artificial intelligence is one of the most disruptive developments of this age. Already of rising importance, AI is considered a make-or-break technology for companies across the board, with 75% of C-level executives believing that employing AI will decide if their business will prosper or fail. The legal sector is an industry that is rich in documents but poor in data -- a stark contrast to many other business sectors, where data is at the heart of everything. This means that most AI solutions thus far are not adapted to a law practice's kind of work, which mostly consists of sifting through thousands of documents relevant to a specific case, with specialized teams hired particularly for this purpose. No surprise then, that law firms have been slow to embrace new tech such as AI. However, recent innovations in AI have been tailored exclusively to the needs of the legal sector, which has caused a renewed interest in using artificial intelligence for the benefit of the legal profession.

Bots are a lot like humans: Some are cute. Some are annoying ... and a little racist. Bots serve their creators and society as helpers, spies, educators, servants, lab technicians, and artists. In the 2010s, automation got better, cheaper, and way less avoidable. That means driving directions are more reliable, instant translations are almost good enough, and everyone gets to be an adequate portrait photographer, all powered by artificial intelligence.

When it comes to contracts, every business learns to deal with several important contractual facts of life. One is that contracts need to accurately protect the company's business interests while adhering to acceptable legal practices and regulatory requirements in relevant jurisdictions. Another is that contracts must be faithfully administered in order to serve their basic business functions. Finally, contract management costs a lot. It is the cost of creating and administering contracts inefficiently.

An overwhelming majority of the American public believes that artificial intelligence (AI) should be carefully managed. Nevertheless, as the three case studies in this brief show, the public does not agree on the proper regulation of AI applications. Indeed, population-level support of an AI application may belie opposition by some subpopulations. Many AI applications, such as facial recognition technology, could cause disparate harm to already vulnerable subgroups, particularly ethnic minorities and low-income individuals. In addition, partisan divisions are likely to prevent government regulation of AI applications that could be used to influence electoral politics.

The Decade, Reviewed looks back at the 2010s and how it changed human society forever. From 2010 to 2019, our species experienced seismic shifts in science, technology, entertainment, transportation, and even the very planet we call home. This is how the past ten years have changed us. Bots are a lot like humans: Some are cute. Some are annoying ... and a little racist.

Back in August 2019, the USPTO published a notice requesting public input on the interplay between patent law and artificial intelligence (AI). The PTO has now extended that deadline for comments until January 10, 2020. For example, should it be sufficient if a person (i) designed the AI algorithm or process that created the work; (ii) contributed to the design of the algorithm or process; (iii) chose data used by the algorithm for training or otherwise; (iv) caused the AI algorithm or process to be used to yield the work; or (v) engaged in some specific combination of the foregoing Start Printed Page 58142activities? Should authors be recognized for this type of use of their works? For example: Should a company who trains the artificial intelligence process that creates the work be able to be an owner?