Bill Gates thinks robots should get taxed just like humans, he said in a recent interview with Quartz. "Right now if a human worker does you know, $50,000 worth of work in a factory, that income is taxed," the billionaire said. "If a robot comes in to do the same thing, you'd think we would tax the robot at a similar level." Gates said robots can be good thing by doing certain types of labor done by humans so that people can focus in other fields where there is a shortage of workers. "If you can take the labor that used to do the thing automation replaces, and financially and training-wise and fulfillment-wise have that person go off and do these other things, then you're net ahead," Gates explained, "But you can't just give up that income tax, because that's part of how you've been funding that level of human workers."

A talking doll that could allow hackers to listen and talk to children should be destroyed, an official watchdog in Germany has said. The "My Friend Cayla" doll uses a Bluetooth device to access the internet and answer users' questions as well as ask for their personal information. But researchers have warned since the start of 2015 that the Bluetooth device is insecure, allowing hackers to access it. Now the Federal Network Agency (Bundesnetzagentur), which oversees communications in Germany, has said the doll should be destroyed because it is in effect a "concealed transmitting device," which is illegal in Germany. The country's Telecommunications Act rules that manufacture, distribution and possession of what equates to espionage equipment is prohibited.

The police body camera industry is the latest to jump on the artificial intelligence bandwagon, bringing new powers and privacy concerns to a controversial technology bolstered by the need to hold police accountable after numerous high-profile killings of unarmed black citizens. Now, that tech is about to get smarter. Last week, Taser, the stun gun company that has recently become an industry leader in body-mounted cameras, announced the creation of its own in-house artificial intelligence division. The new unit will utilize the company's acquisition of two AI-focused firms: Dextro, a New York-based computer vision startup, and Misfit, another computer vision company previously owned by the watch manufacturer Fossil. Taser says the newly formed division will develop AI-powered tech specifically aimed at law enforcement, using automation and machine learning algorithms to let cops search for people and objects in video footage captured by on-body camera systems.

First you could book a flight online. Then came online travel agents. And now you might check in for your hotel via mobile, a computer could set the price, while a chatbot answers your queries. Some travel experts expect the first autonomous cargo flights to start within several years, while big data analysis is on the rise at internet-based firms like Expedia, Lastminute.com and Skyscanner. "We have to reinvent the place of the man in the system," says Fabrice Otaño, chief data officer at AccorHotels group.

In recent years, one of the hottest issues that has permeated in the legal profession is the expected impact of Artificial Intelligence, a technological advancement that allows computers to look for patters in data, carry out evaluation tests and find results – essentially simulating human intelligence and decision-making. Undoubtedly, the legal profession has been slow to partake with technological changes, often still clinging on to their traditional ways, but the recent years has seen some openness to technology. Artificial Intelligence, however, has sparked a new debate, particularly since it can mean the end of the legal profession or the replacement of many within the industry. After all, with the integration of AI systems, many feel that it would simply fall on to them to accomplish various tasks such as research or determining the type of legal counsel clients need. However, there are those that believe in the potential and capacity of Artificial Intelligence not as the replacement of human lawyers, prosecutors and judges, but as complements for those in the profession.

EU-wide rules are needed for the fast-evolving field of robotics, e.g. to enforce ethical standards or establish liability for accidents involving driverless cars, say MEPs in a resolution voted on Thursday. MEPs ask the EU Commission to propose rules on robotics and artificial intelligence, in order to fully exploit their economic potential and to guarantee a standard level of safety and security. They note that regulatory standards for robots are being planned in several countries, and point out that the EU needs to take the lead on setting these standards, so as not to be forced to follow those set by third countries. Rapporteur Mady Delvaux (S&D, LU) said "Although I am pleased that the plenary adopted my report on robotics, I am also disappointed that the right-wing coalition of ALDE, EPP and ECR refused to take account of possible negative consequences on the job market. They rejected an open-minded and forward-looking debate and thus disregarded the concerns of our citizens."

With the robotics industry rapidly growing, MEPs have warned that rules are needed to'guarantee a standard level of safety and security.' In a resolution voted today, MEPs are asking the EU Commission to enforce regulatory standards for robotics, and have stressed that the key issue lies with self-driving cars. They have suggested that a European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence should be set up, to supply public authorities with technical, ethical and regulatory expertise. They also asked for specific legal status for robots as'electronic persons' in the long run, in order to establish who is liable if they cause damage. MEPs have warned that robots need to be fitted with'kill switches' to prevent a Terminator-style uprising against humans If a robot unlawfully kills someone in the heat of battle, who is liable for the death?

The European Parliament today called for EU-wide liability laws to cover robotics and artificial intelligence. MEPs also want researchers to adopt ethical standards that "respect human dignity". In a resolution today MEPs noted that several countries are planning robotics regulations and that "the EU needs to take the lead on setting these standards, so as not to be forced to follow those set by third countries". According to a European Parliamentary press release, MEPs said draft legislation was "urgently needed" to clarify liability in accidents involving self-driving cars. Although manufacturers including Volvo, Google, and Mercedes say they will accept full liability if their autonomous vehicles cause a collision, this is not currently a legal requirement.

When it comes to robot-human relations, the conversation typically centers on the welfare of the sentient. Science fiction paints us as petrified by our own creations; fears of a bot planet have influenced everything from Asimov's "Laws of Robotics" to HAL 9000's homicidal impulses to Skynet's global genocide. These human-centric anxieties are understandable. However, as our assorted bots and bits gain skills and personalities, should they be afforded some form of protection from us? It's a question people are starting to seriously ponder. Last month, the European Parliament's legal affairs committee issued a report on the use and creation of robots and artificial intelligence (AI).

We humans have a love-hate relationship with our technology. We love each new advance and we hate how fast our world is changing. Throughout recent history robots have replaced humans, eliminating the drudgery of repetitive jobs and achieving new efficiency. It began in factories with menial manufacturing tasks, and today we're seeing it in many white collar jobs. If you think about it, robots build our cars and clean our houses, but today we also enjoy these: AI applications automate financial, travel, and legal processes; e-discovery software, used in law firms, has replaced the document analysis and scanning formerly performed by paralegals; robo-advisers, such as Wealthfront and Betterment, take over for expensive financial advisers and make financial advice accessible to everyone.