European companies processing personal data may be discouraged from using artificial intelligence technologies after GDPR comes into effect. A recent report by Center of Data Innovation, a US-based group, says GDPR provisions addressing AI in the context of protecting consumer interests may slow down AI research and innovation. AI guidelines in Europe's comprehensive privacy law establish rights of data subjects which are not to be subjected to decisions based on automated processing. "By both indirectly limiting how the personal data of Europeans gets used and raising the legal risks for companies active in AI, the GDPR will negatively impact the development and use of AI by European companies," said the report. Under Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation, companies would need to manually look at decisions made by algorithms which may prove to be a disincentive for deploying AI in the first place.

Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs has partnered with Bank of America to start an initiative to study the societal impacts of artificial intelligence, the Kennedy School announced Tuesday. The effort, called the Council on the Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence, aims to bring together academics with public and private sector professionals to discuss the "legal, moral, and policy implications" of adopting AI technologies. Bank of America will fund the program for its first three years, according to a Kennedy School press release. Geology Professor Daniel P. Schrag, who is the co-director of the Belfer Center's Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program, said the aim of the council will be to "figure out the rules of the road" for AI technologies in the future. Four themes that the Council will cover include "privacy," "rights, justice, and equality," "transparency," as well as "workforce," according to the press release.

The problem: The animation, which looked pretty real, was fake. The teen March for Our Lives activist never put her hands on the Constitution--the animation was a doctored version of her shredding a shooting range target. Welcome to the troubling world of "deep fakes." Earlier this year, Reddit took down a number of forums devoted to creating bogus videos, often pornographic, featuring one person's face swapped in for another. Open source artificial intelligence software makes the process radically simpler and more efficient than traditional video editing tools.

It may seem more like a moral dilemma posed in an episode of Star Trek, but the question of whether robots are people has European lawmakers at loggerheads. The issue first arose in January 2017, thanks to a paragraph of text buried deep in a European Parliament report, that advised creating a'legal status for robots'. Its primary purpose was in order to establish who is liable if the intelligent machines cause any damage. However, experts are now opposing the move, saying that it is'inappropriate' from a legal and ethical perspective and could breach human rights. It may seem more like a moral dilemma posed in an episode of Star Trek, but the question of whether robots are people has European lawmakers at loggerheads.

AI is not only being used to help decide on loans, insurance claims and job applications, it is also increasingly used in public functions, including in the justice system. For example, in the US courts and correction departments are using AI to aid decisions about bail, sentencing and parole. Yet these algorithms are often a "black box", meaning their inner workings are not known to the people using them, as they are proprietary pieces of software developed by someone else. If an algorithm is going to influence whether you get a mortgage, get a job interview, or – if you are in the unfortunate situation of having a brush with the law – whether you get bail or not, you would want to be sure its assessments are fair. This is impossible if the people using it (a bank, employer, court) have no idea how it works.

This week we were treated to a veritable carnival attraction as Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of one of the largest tech companies in the world, testified before Senate committees about privacy issues related to Facebook's handling of user data. Besides highlighting the fact that most United States senators -- and most people, for that matter -- do not understand Facebook's business model or the user agreement they've already consented to while using Facebook, the spectacle made one fact abundantly clear: Zuckerberg intends to use artificial intelligence to manage the censorship of hate speech on his platform. Over the two days of testimony, the plan for using algorithmic AI for potential censorship practices was discussed multiple times under the auspices of containing hate speech, fake news, election interference, discriminatory ads, and terrorist messaging. In fact, AI was mentioned at least 30 times. Zuckerberg claimed Facebook is five to ten years away from a robust AI platform. All four of the other Big 5 tech conglomerates -- Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft -- are also developing AI, many for the shared purposes of content control.

Senator John N. Kennedy of Louisiana criticized Facebook's user agreement during Mark Zuckerberg's Senate hearing. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., listens to testimony during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Dec. 6, 2017 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Drew Angerer, Getty Images) WASHINGTON – Senators introduced a bipartisan bill Thursday that would give Americans greater power to protect their online privacy. The day before, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified to Congress about the misuse of user data on the social media site. "The data breach at Facebook showed the world that the digital promised land is not all milk and honey," said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., who co-sponsored the bill with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. "I don't want to regulate Facebook half to death, but there are things that need to be changed."

Apparently, as Recode reports, with the proliferation of free and cheap AI legal services that help individuals fight government fines and legal penalties for things like parking and traffic violations, government revenue could be seriously impacted. Although the revenue from these sorts of fines and fees are not as substantial in large cities, in smaller ones, losing a significant percent of it could seriously hurt. As the maker of the famous DoNotPay chatbot boasts, the success rates have been astounding. If (or when) these services become available in every jurisdiction, the governments that rely on revenue from court fines may need to get ready to pivot, cut costs, or seek alternative funding sources. As suggested, one way that governments could answer the decrease in revenue related to A.I. legal assistance (besides raising taxes or the costs of services) is through leveraging technology to operate more efficiently.

HelpSelf is a AI-assisted legal app that helps you deal with simple issues. Want to deal with domestic violence? The project is an "automated legal technology company" that automates simple legal procedures. They currently work in the above areas but are moving into housing, family law, certain immigration tasks, and employment law, said Dorna Moini, co-founder of the project. "We self-funded from the start and are completely bootstrapped. We are making a profit through licensing fees for our document automation platform," she said.

Following the corporate corruption scandals of the early 2000s, then-Securities and Exchange Commission chairman William Donaldson said determining the company's moral DNA "should be the foundation on which the Board builds a corporate culture based on a philosophy of high ethical standards and accountability." Today's crisis of confidence in technology companies, especially those controlling deep pools of data and developing and deploying artificial intelligence, not only demands more responsible engineers, entrepreneurs, and executives but more assertive boards who make ethics and the public interest strategic priorities. Board of directors' responsibilities include hiring, firing, and holding the CEO's feet to the fire, as well as approving and overseeing the company's strategy and ensuring the integrity of company financials. Boards must also set a tone at the top of ethics and responsible business practices. Norms and standards are still emerging; laws, regulations, and legal precedent are scarce; and pressure groups are still finding their voice and translating concerns into actionable demands.