This is the fourth in a series of articles I am writing about Māori ethics with AI, Data sovereignty and Robotics. Article 3: Māori Ethical considerations with Artificial Intelligence Systems; Article 2: Māori ethics associated with AI systems architecture and Article 1: Māori cultural considerations with Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. The next planned articles are"Indigenising the Internet" and "Tikanga and Facial Recognition". At the conclusion of this article, are the English, Māori and a Translation into English of the Māori version of te Treaty of Waitangi. There is an international debate about whether we regulate Artificial Intelligence (AI) or assume that AI systems developments will be the better of the wider community.

Should the use of artificial intelligence be legislated? It's also a question that can and should be debated, especially when looking at it through the lens of human resources. And those are just a few of the big ones. That said, the purpose of this article isn't to argue for or against the use of AI as an HR tool, but to look at the current state of the legal situation around the technology. This year alone the federal government and several state governments have started to take action on issues related to artificial intelligence.

Four years ago, I stood in the darkened operations center in front of a wall of blinking screens, arms crossed and squinting at video footage on one of them. The commander asked me for the second time, signaling toward the figure on the screen. I looked over and reviewed a mental checklist of the individual's pattern of life over more than a decade. I weighed this against his latest movements, reflected on the screen in real time. The commander took a step toward me and started again, "Kara. We are running out of time. I had a decision to make. Using a machine to determine the validity of the target and take action is a nonstarter. But not everyone agrees on the details. Though the machines I dealt with that day were only semi-autonomous, it is not difficult to imagine a world where fully autonomous weapons are programmed to make a lethal decision. Institutions, countries, industry, and society must choose when and how to govern this technology in today's world, where semi-autonomous ...

Counting billable time in six-minute increments is the most annoying part of being a lawyer. It leads law firms to conservatively under-bill. And it leaves lawyers stuck manually filling out timesheets after a long day when they want to go home to their families. Life is already short, as Ping CEO and co-founder Ryan Alshak knows too well. The former lawyer spent years caring for his mother as she battled a brain tumor before her passing.

Inphi Corp., is buying most of eSilicon; while Synopsys will acquire the fabless vendor's embedded memory and interface intellectual property (IP) business. Inphi is to pay $216 million for eSilicon in both cash and assumption of debt, while the price that Synopsys paid for the memory assets was not disclosed. Targeting high-bandwidth networking, high-performance computing, artificial intelligence (AI) and 5G infrastructure markets, its IP includes configurable 7nm 56G/112G SerDes plus networking-optimized 16/14/7nm FinFET IP platforms featuring HBM2 PHY, ternary content-addressable memory (TCAM), specialized memory compilers and I/O libraries. Its neuASIC platform provides AI-specific IP and a modular design methodology to create ASICs. Speaking of the acquisitions, Jack Harding, president and CEO of eSilicon, said, "Our engineering talent, IP and customer relationships in networking, data-center and cloud, telecom 5G infrastructure and AI will help enhance their respective offerings." The Inphi acquisition of eSilicon is expected to close this quarter subject to US and Vietnamese regulatory approval (eSilicon has been in Vietnam since 2010).

Bipartisanship in modern politics can seem kind of like an unbelievable, mythical creature. But in recent months, as Congress considered regulation of one of the most controversial topics it faces -- how, when, or if to use facial recognition -- we've gotten glimpses of a political unicorn. In two House Oversight and Reform committee hearings last summer, some of the most prominent Republicans and Democrats in the United States Congress joined together in calls for legislative reform. Proponents of regulation ranged from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), a frequent Trump supporter on cable news. On Friday, Jordan was also appointed to the House Intelligence Committee to confront witnesses in public presidential impeachment hearings that begin this week.

Artificial Intelligence is increasingly becoming ingrained in all facets of our societies and lives. While it certainly heralds an age of cool futuristic technology and applications--facial recognition and self-driving cars for example!--what about when AI is utilized as an automated decision making tool? Can this pose an issue to an individual's right? What are the possible implications? Are there any legal provisions to ensure fairness?

Now, however, with artificial intelligence (AI) – essentially advanced analytical models – coming onto the market, cybersecurity actually has the edge. At present, vendors are doing far more than hackers with AI. Not that we can expect it to stay that way forever, but right now the good guys have the upper hand – and that gives the industry some time to prepare itself for the eventual rise of AI-enabled cybercriminals. The value of AI in this model is that it lets companies take large volumes of information and find clusters of similarity. This is always the focus of cybersecurity to a degree, but organisations are often unequipped to do so in sufficient depth because of time and resourcing constraints.

Microsoft said in a blog post on Monday that it would honor California's privacy law throughout the United States, expanding the impact of a strict set of rules meant to protect consumers and their data. Microsoft said in the post it was a "strong supporter" of the California Consumer Privacy Act, known as CCPA, which will go into effect on Jan. 1. The California law is widely expected to harm profits over the long term for technology companies, retailers, advertising firms and other businesses dependent on collecting consumer data to track users and increase sales. The law raised fears among companies of a rise in a patchwork of state laws and prompted efforts in Washington to write federal legislation that would pre-empt state efforts. In September, Reuters was first to report that the federal privacy bill is not likely to come before Congress this year as lawmakers disagreed over several issues.

At the Common Good in the Digital Age tech conference recently held in Vatican City, Pope Francis urged Facebook executives, venture capitalists, and government regulators to be wary of the impact of AI and other technologies. "If mankind's so-called technological progress were to become an enemy of the common good, this would lead to an unfortunate regression to a form of barbarism dictated by the law of the strongest," he said. In a related but contextually different conversation, this summer Joy Buolamwini testified before Congress with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) that multiple audits found facial recognition technology generally works best on white men and worst on women of color. What these two events have in common is their relationship to power dynamics in the AI ethics debate. Arguments about AI ethics can wage without mention of the word "power," but it's often there just under the surface. In fact, it's rarely the direct focus, but it needs to be. Power in AI is like gravity, an invisible force that influences every consideration of ethics in artificial intelligence. Power provides the means to influence which use cases are relevant; which problems are priorities; and who the tools, products, and services are made to serve. It underlies debates about how corporations and countries create policy governing use of the technology.