A report by Human Rights Watch and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic calls for humans to remain in control over all weapons systems at a time of rapid technological advances. It says that requiring humans to remain in control of critical functions during combat, including the selection of targets, saves lives and ensures that fighters comply with international law. 'Machines have long served as instruments of war, but historically humans have directed how they are used,' said Bonnie Docherty, senior arms division researcher at Human Rights Watch, in a statement. 'Now there is a real threat that humans would relinquish their control and delegate life-and-death decisions to machines.' Some have argued in favor of robots on the battlefield, saying their use could save lives.

Amid the dire - and somewhat overhyped - predictions of occupations that will be decimated by artificial intelligence and automation, there is one crumb of comfort. Yes, lorry drivers, translators and shop assistants are all under threat from the rise of the robots, but at least the lawyers are doomed too. That at least may be your conclusion when you hear about a fascinating contest that took place last month. It pitched over 100 lawyers from many of London's ritziest firms against an artificial intelligence program called Case Cruncher Alpha. Both the humans and the AI were given the basic facts of hundreds of PPI (payment protection insurance) mis-selling cases and asked to predict whether the Financial Ombudsman would allow a claim.

An artificial intelligence lawyer, CaseCruncher Alpha, just beat 100 lawyers in a challenge. The robot and 100 of London's top lawyers were put up against each other and given "the basic facts of hundreds of PPI (payment protection insurance) mis-selling cases and asked to predict whether the Financial Ombudsman would allow a claim." In total, they submitted 775 predictions, and as it turns out, CaseCruncher had an accuracy rate of 86.6 percent, while the students only got 66.3 percent correct. But according to CaseCruncher, machines are only better at humans in predicting outcomes when the question is defined "precisely," meaning: we have a long way to go. CaseCruncher is the project of three Cambridge Law students: Jozef Maruscak, Rebecca Agliolo and Ludwig Bull.

Australians needs to have a diplomatic discussion about the potential impact of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) and the boundaries that need to be established to ensure AI is developed and used for good, according to federal parliamentarians Bridget McKenzie and Ed Husic. Speaking at the Australian Computer Society's (ACS) Reimagination Thought Leaders Summit, Senator McKenzie, chair of Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Trade Legislation Committee, said if bright minds like Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk are warning of "evil AI" destroying humankind if not properly monitored and regulated, then this is something that as a nation needs to be publicly discussed. "I think'man against machine' has been a powerful narrative with our species for a very, very long time," McKenzie said during a panel discussion. "We always end up winning because somehow we always write the script so that we're smarter in the end than the machine." "But I think when the creators of this technology ... have concerns, I think we mere mortals really should pay attention because they're the guys that have actually developed this technology, they understand its potential. "Sometimes I think we can get very excited about the potential development of the next step in your scientific endeavour, and forget that it is part of a wider ... society and a civilisation." McKenzie referenced the view of Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom, that we could end up creating and designing our own demise. "I think we do need to be very, very cognisant of that fact because there's not a lot of research.

Chinese judges and prosecutors are using the latest information technology -- from big data and cloud computing to artificial intelligence -- to improve efficiency and accuracy. Big data services have helped judges search precedents, correct legal documents and analyze cases, said a report submitted by the Supreme People's Court (SPC) to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPC) on Wednesday at the bi-monthly legislative session. China launched a national database of legal documents and academic papers in March 2016, consisting of more than 20 million documents. Computing has also assisted prosecutors to screen evidence, refer to similar cases, research relevant laws, and draft legal documents, said another report submitted by the Supreme People's Procuratorate (SPP) at the same session. Speech recognition technologies have significantly saved trial time by turning recordings into formal transcripts.

Three Dartmouth College professors whose research included studies on sexual attractiveness and desire have been placed on paid leave as a criminal investigation into sexual misconduct takes place. The Hanover, N.H., Ivy League school is the latest string of sexual misconduct allegations taking place in professional settings ranging from Hollywood to Washington D.C. New Hampshire Public Radio reports they've been put on paid leave and their access to campus is currently restricted. New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon J. MacDonald said his office is working with five law enforcement agencies as part of the joint criminal investigation into the alleged "serious misconduct" on campus, the college's student paper, The Dartmouth, first reported. The professors are all male, tenured faculty members. A 2012 research paper from Dr. Heatherton and Dr. Kelley studied how images of food and sex affect the brain.

Replacing bank and insurance workers with machines risks creating a dependency on outside technology companies beyond the reach of regulators, the global Financial Stability Board (FSB) said. The FSB, which coordinates financial regulation across the Group of 20 Economies (G20), said in its first report on artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning that the risks they pose need monitoring. AI and machine learning refer to technology that is replacing traditional methods to assess the creditworthiness of customers, to crunch data, price insurance contracts and spot profitable trades across markets. Replacing bank and insurance workers with machines risks creating a dependency on outside technology companies beyond the reach of regulators, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) said. There are no international regulatory standards for AI and machine learning, but the FSB left open whether new rules are needed.

It's time we start talking about AI regulation. As the technology progresses at a rapid pace, it is a critical time for governments and policymakers to think about how we can safeguard the effects of Artificial Intelligence on a social, economic and political scale. Artificial Intelligence is not inherently good or bad, but the way we use it could well be one or the other. Unfortunately, there has been little attention paid by such governing bodies as yet in regard to the impact of this technology. We're going to see huge changes to employment, privacy, and arms to name a few, that if managed incorrectly or not at all, could spell disaster.

My previous post on the House and Senate automated driving bills (HB 3388 and SB 1885) concluded by noting that, in addition to the federal government, states and the municipalities within them also play an important role in regulating road safety.These numerous functions involve, among others, designing and maintaining roads, setting and enforcing traffic laws, licensing and punishing drivers, registering and inspecting vehicles, requiring and regulating automotive insurance, and enabling victims to recover from the drivers or manufacturers responsible for their injuries. The House bill contains modest preemption language and a savings clause that admirably tries to clarify the line between federal and state roles. The Senate bill, in contrast, currently contains a breathtakingly broad preemption provision that was proposed in committee markup by, curiously, a Democratic senator. First, a single text of the bill is not available online; only the original text plus the marked-up texts for the Senate Commerce Committee's amendments to that original have been posted. Second, whereas HB 3388 has passed the full House, SB 1885 is still making its way through the Senate.)

Mobile phones are beginning to group together your photos by category. Using smart data recognition technology, Apple and Android devices can see exactly what's in your images. But now, some users have been shocked to learn that these group extend to more intimate categories, such as'brassiere'. Sources say'corset' and'girdle' are also on the searchable list. This data stores pictures under categories one of which is'brassiere' and sources say'corset' and'girdle' are also on the searchable list (stock image) Both iPhone and Android devices are grouping your photos using smart data image recognition technology.