For AI programmer Anthony Levandowski, the idea that a future superintelligent machine would be god-like is neither a metaphor nor a science fiction trope. Levandowski founded a self-driving truck company that was bought by Google in 2016 (and is now the focus of an intellectual property lawsuit between Uber and Google robocar successor Waymo), so he knows a thing or two about artificial intelligence. His non-profit religious organisation, the Way of the Future, reportedly seeks to "develop and promote the realization of a Godhead based on artificial intelligence

One: Did former Google engineer and self–driving car whiz Anthony Levandowski swipe documents containing valuable Google intellectual property and bring them to his own startup, which would be acquired by Uber just months later for a reported $680 million? And two: Did Uber executives, including now-ousted CEO Travis Kalanick, conspire with Levandowski to do it, then use that IP to advance their own technology? Now, a hotly contested due diligence report, commissioned by Uber, makes it clear that the ride-hailing company knew Levandowski had ill-gotten Google files before it bought his startup and put him in charge of its own self-driving efforts. Question one seems to have its answer, and question two just got a lot more interesting. The firm Stroz Friedberg prepared the report, which Uber used to prepare for its 2016 acquisition of Otto, Levandowski's company focused on self–driving truck technology. Waymo's attorneys filed the report as an exhibit in the case Monday night, making it public.

Max Schrems, front right, faces the media after leaving the High Court in Dublin, Ireland, Tuesday Oct. 3, 2017, as the legal case about social media transfer of personal data between international jurisdictions has been referred to Europe's highest court. Austrian lawyer and campaigner Max Schrems claims his privacy rights as an EU citizen have been breached through the transfer of his data by Facebook Ireland to US parent company Facebook Inc. (Brian Lawless/PA via AP) The Associated Press

Estonia is known for its'firsts'. We were the first country to declare internet access as a human right, the first country to hold a nationwide election online, the first country in Europe to both legalise ride sharing and delivery bots, and -- of course -- the first country to offer e-Residency. Countries around the world now face the challenge of understanding the rise of Artifical Intelligence, which is increasingly affecting the daily lives of their populations, so which country willl be the first in developing a comprehensive legal framework that ensures the technology can be developed in an ethical and sustainable way? We think the answer once again should be Estonia. This work to understand AI in Estonia started with our self-driving vehicles task force.

Welcome to California Inc., the weekly newsletter of the L.A. Times Business Section. Data breaches remain a dark cloud over the business world. On Friday, Whole Foods became the latest company to report getting hacked. Days earlier, the burger chain Sonic said it too had been hit. And Equifax continues making news with its mega-breach involving 143 million consumers.

Scrolling through dating websites a year ago, Indonesian app developer Lindu Pranayama realised there were a lot of married men looking for another wife - but few online services to meet their needs. "When they go to regular dating sites, they don't see options for polygamy. They don't see options for finding second, third or fourth wives," he said. Enter "AyoPoligami" - a new smartphone app developed by Pranayama, which aims to "bring together male users with women who are willing to make'big families'." Loosely translated as "Let's do polygamy", the Tinder-style dating app has already stirred up controversy since its April launch in Indonesia, where over 80 percent of the 250 million population are Muslim and polygamy is legal.

Humans are used to being outdone by computers when it comes to recalling facts, but they still have the upper hand in an argument. It has long been the case that machines can beat us in games of strategy like chess. And we have come to accept that artificial intelligence is best at analysing huge amounts of data - sifting through the supermarket receipts of millions of shoppers to work out who might be tempted by some vouchers for washing powder. But what if AI were able to handle the most human of tasks - navigating the minefield of subtle nuance, rhetoric and even emotions to take us on in an argument? It is a possibility that could help humans make better decisions and one which growing numbers of researchers are working on.

We summarize the potential impact that the European Union’s new General Data Protection Regulation will have on the routine use of machine learning algorithms. Slated to take effect as law across the EU in 2018, it will restrict automated individual decision-making (that is, algorithms that make decisions based on user-level predictors) which “significantly affect” users. The law will also effectively create a “right to explanation,” whereby a user can ask for an explanation of an algorithmic decision that was made about them. We argue that while this law will pose large challenges for industry, it highlights opportunities for computer scientists to take the lead in designing algorithms and evaluation frameworks which avoid discrimination and enable explanation.

The field of computational models of argument is emerging as an important aspect of artificial intelligence research. The reason for this is based on the recognition that if we are to develop robust intelligent systems, then it is imperative that they can handle incomplete and inconsistent information in a way that somehow emulates the way humans tackle such a complex task. And one of the key ways that humans do this is to use argumentation either internally, by evaluating arguments and counterarguments‚ or externally, by for instance entering into a discussion or debate where arguments are exchanged. As we report in this review, recent developments in the field are leading to technology for artificial argumentation, in the legal, medical, and e-government domains, and interesting tools for argument mining, for debating technologies, and for argumentation solvers are emerging.

Lauren Peace talks with attorney Sharon Stiller and Michelle Cammarata of Restore Sexual Assault services about how to identify instances of sexual harassment and what to do about it. Since the allegations surfaced publicly in early September against psycholinguistics professor T. Florian Jaeger, 41, the number of alleged victims has grown to 14, according to managing partner Jef McAllister of McAllister Olivarius law firm, the complainants' legal team. Psycholinguistics is the study of the psychological and neuroscientific processes that allow people to use and understand language, and Jaeger was at the forefront of that research. Sept. 14: What you need to know about university's sexual harassment case Sept. 13: Student criticism on handling of sex harassment allegations mounts Sept. 11: Clearing of prof accused of sex harassment focus of faculty complaint The private university itself is accused of protecting Jaeger, even going so far as to retaliate against those who complained about his behavior before relief was sought from the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The two who wrote a letter to the university Board of Trustees have been past department chairpersons who have worked a total of 57 years for the University of Rochester.