Artificial Intelligence is the future of growth. There is sure to be at least one article in the newspaper/internet/blogs daily on the revolutionary advancements made in the field of Artificial Intelligence or its subfield disrupting standard industries like Fintech, Banking, Law, or any other. In banking domain digital banking teams of all modern banks planning to transform the customer experience with their AI based chat-driven intelligent virtual assistant i.e. bots. Amalgamating the latest technology of artificial intelligence, predictive analytics and cognitive messaging to serve millions of customers is now a new winning strategy? AI and regulation are paving the way for Fintech.

Last year, Amazon opened its first convenience store embedded with its "just walk out technology." Located in Seattle, the Amazon Go store, which lets shoppers walk in, load up on the items they want and walk out without having to pay for the items in a checkout line, has been testing its technology with Amazon employees. Now, as Bloomberg reports, the company has worked through some of the hangups with the technology and is making moves towards opening its store and others to the public. In March, the Wall Street Journal reported that while the Amazon Go store did well with a small amount of customers who were shopping fairly slowly, it couldn't keep up when there were more than 20 shoppers in the store at once. The store uses cameras, sensors and deep learning algorithms to track shoppers as they move around, log which items they take and charge them once they leave. Those technical bugs pushed the public opening of the store from an initial projection of early 2017 to an undetermined future date.

When it comes to developing artificial intelligence, the largest technology companies in the world are all-in. Google and Microsoft say they're "AI-first," and businesses like Facebook and Amazon wouldn't be possible without the scalable personalization that AI allows. But if you look for research on how artificial intelligence affects society--like how algorithms used in criminal justice can discriminate against people of color, or whether data used to train AI contains implicit bias against women and minorities--there's almost no academic or corporate research to be found. Kate Crawford, principal researcher at Microsoft Research, and Meredith Whittaker, founder of Open Research at Google, want to change that. They announced today the AI Now Institute, a research organization to explore how AI is affecting society at large.

I think most people would agree that lawyers are in general very intelligent people. But that doesn't mean they are always equipped with the right or the best intelligence – and recent research suggests that they are ignoring changes that could equip them to deliver better results. That is because their access to data is inevitably limited – there are a finite number of precedents or examples that can realistically be accessed. It is also because some key aspects of legal work are based on personal taste and judgment – for example, what clauses to include in a contract or what words to use in its drafting. An element of personal judgment is always valuable in any professional discipline, but the more that this judgment has a sound base of analytical data, the more likely it is that the right outcome will be achieved.

AI software can process extremely large data sets of information so quickly and efficiently that the time taken until one in infinity happens does not seem quite so long. By using large or deep neural networks, AI software can learn faster than any other technology - growing more knowledgeable with exposure to more data. AI is being applied to exceptionally complex issues. For example, AI can find the most optimal solution to issues that have more potential solutions than the number of grains of sand on earth – in a matter of seconds.

Tech companies are eyeing the next frontier: the human face. Should you desire, you can now superimpose any variety of animal snouts onto a video of yourself in real time. If you choose to hemorrhage money on the new iPhone X, you can unlock your smartphone with a glance. At a KFC location in Hangzhou, China, you can even pay for a chicken sandwich by smiling at a camera. And at least one in four police departments in the US have access to facial recognition software to help them identify suspects.

Anthony Levandowski makes an unlikely prophet. Dressed Silicon Valley-casual in jeans and flanked by a PR rep rather than cloaked acolytes, the engineer known for self-driving cars--and triggering a notorious lawsuit--could be unveiling his latest startup instead of laying the foundations for a new religion. But he is doing just that. Artificial intelligence has already inspired billion-dollar companies, far-reaching research programs, and scenarios of both transcendence and doom. Now Levandowski is creating its first church.

Many readers will recognize that line from Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film in which the onboard computer, HAL 9000, perceives an astronaut to be a threat to its "existence" and refuses to open the airlock to allow the crew member back into the ship. Other films like Ex-Machina, i-Robot, Terminator sow similar fears of Artificial Intelligence systems with cognitive capabilities taking control from humans, rendering us defenseless. Of course, there are also films that focus on the positive aspects of AI, such as Bicentennial Man. My view is that AI systems are increasingly necessary to augment what we do in our everyday lives -- whether that means... Partly because there is so much misinformation and hype -- and some people just like to sell fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD). And it's true that there will always be people who seek to exploit technology to do bad things -- the dark side vs. the light side (Star Wars fans).

A year ago, the AI Now Institute released its inaugural report on the near-future social and economic consequences of AI, drawing on input from a diverse expert panel representing a spectrum of disciplines; now they've released a followup, with ten clear recommendations for AI implementations in the public and private sector. The first of these is "Core public agencies, such as those responsible for criminal justice, healthcare, welfare, and education (e.g "high stakes" domains) should no longer use'black box' AI and algorithmic systems." The remaining recommendations deal with operational details, like examining training data for bias and validating the performance of the models to ensure that they aren't misfiring; and areas where work needs to be done, like evaluation of the impact of AI on hiring and HR, setting data-set quality standards; bringing cross-disciplinary expertise to bias evaluation; and the active inclusion of women, minorities and other marginalized populations in systems design and evaluation. This includes the unreviewed or unvalidated use of pre-trained models, AI systems licensed from third party vendors, and algorithmic processes created in-house. The use of such systems by public agencies raises serious due process concerns, and at a minimum such systems should be available for public auditing, testing, and review, and subject to accountability standards.

The case was considered in district court in 2014. The next year, the North Dakota Legislature rejected a bill that would have sided with the historical society and allowed the museum to stay on the fairgrounds. The case returned to district court in 2015, but the original judge recused himself at the end of last year.