Coming home may seem natural and fair to the millions whose homes the Quantum Law Ministry confiscated during The Crisis. But will Jerry Simmons be able to advocate their claims against a system whose hard logic says otherwise? Jerry Simmons graduated from law school at the top of his class. But his world had little use for him. After a major retrofit to the judicial system, the Quantum Law Ministry has ushered an age of true equal justice of all–not only equal, but logical, predictable, accurate, and efficient.

Brad Grossman (@bradgro) is founder and CEO of Zeitguide, a cultural think tank. As artificial intelligence gets embedded into day-to-day activities -- predicting what we need from virtual assistants, teachers, even doctors -- is the technology neutrally scrubbing out gender biases, or encoding them permanently on our future? The companies developing AI, like most of Silicon Valley, have a predominantly male workforce of engineers and developers. As Melinda Gates noted during this year's Code Conference, "When I graduated 34% of undergraduates in computer science were women… we're now down to 17%." There is real risk that such gender imbalance is invisibly shaping machine learning algorithms and artificial intelligence applications.

Research into Artificial Intelligence will evolve into many more applications than asking Amazon's Echo how many teaspoons are in a tablespoon. As the technology expands in its capabilities and applications, we'll be confronted with massive social change. How will Apple, for example, both serve us and meet competitive challenges? "Siri and Apple's Machine Learning Are About to Get a Lot Better." Author Levy was given an inside look at what Apple is doing with machine learning and the transformation of Siri.

It should probably come as no surprise that artificial intelligence was absent from the first presidential debate. AI hasn't made much of a splash in this election cycle, and the subject matter is notoriously confusing. Even so, given some of the headline-grabbing developments in autonomous vehicle technology, one might expect a greater focus on this issue -- especially as ongoing advancements herald significant changes to American life. Uber is now deploying autonomous vehicles on the roads of Pittsburgh. Tesla's Autopilot is being implicated in a recent spat of roadway deaths.

Question: I own a single-family home in a common-interest development. One of the reasons we purchased this house was because we knew it had covenants, conditions and restrictions, and felt that we won't have to worry about policing our neighbors. That's what the board is supposed to do. But after only a year, I'm very frustrated. There are a few condominiums here, so parts of our complex have a higher density.

A study by Deloitte has suggested that technology is already leading to job losses in the UK legal sector, and some 114,000 jobs could be automated within 20 years. Professor Richard Susskind, a technology consultant and co-author of The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, predicts unprecedented upheaval in a profession where the working practices of some lawyers and judges have changed little since the time of Charles Dickens. "One question lurking in all this is whether someone can come in and do to law what Amazon did to bookselling," he says. "We won't see anything as dramatic, but we will see incremental transformations in areas like the way documents are reviewed and the way legal risk is assessed." Big law firms are pouring money into AI as a way of automating tasks traditionally undertaken by junior lawyers.

With Uber recently launching a trial of self-driving cars in Pittsburgh, it's the question everyone, not just attorneys, is now asking, "In the case of an accident, who's the legally responsible'driver' in a driver-less car?" Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT) are beginning to learn on their own and make independent decisions based on that learning, triggering new questions of responsibility and accountability. Among AI and IoT's many challenges in becoming mainstream technologies, the most important ones may be around building a legal framework for when the responsible party is no longer an easily identifiable person or company. To start this discussion on the legal questions to be answered in a world increasingly populated by autonomous drones, robots, and vehicles, we reached out to three leaders in the AI space – Stanford's Sudha Jamthe, CityMD's Ramu Kannan, and Kimera Systems' Mounir Shita (we've included their bios and contact information at the end of this article). Here's what we asked them, and their striking responses: AI means different things to different people. There are people who think of AI as a sensationalized topic that will build robots who will take over the world.

NEW YORK A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a 120 million jury award for Apple Inc (AAPL.O) against Samsung (005930.KS), marking the latest twist in the fierce patent war between the world's top smartphone manufacturers. The court said that there was substantial evidence for the jury verdict related to Samsung's infringement of Apple patents on its slide-to-unlock and autocorrect features, as well as quick links, which automatically turn information like addresses and phone numbers into links. Friday's decision was made by the full slate of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. In an 8-3 ruling, the judges said that a previous panel of the same court should not have overturned the verdict last February. The three-judge panel did not follow U.S. Supreme Court limits on the scope of its review, because it examined evidence outside the record of the case, the decision said.

Artificial intelligence's (AI) entrance into any profession often features an odd mixture of ominous predictions from affected workers and executives extolling the virtues of'innovation,' 'change,' and whatever other flashy, vague adjectives apply to the situation. Yet between the hype and horror lies a more moderate, less sexy truth that proceeds on a slower trajectory than vocal pro-and-opponents would have you believe. The future has a way of creeping up on us, and the same can be said (unsurprisingly) for its movement into the legal industry. For while many were debating how much AI could really help legal tasks, let alone just what exactly AI actually is, technologists, vendors and lawyers with foresight were eagerly moving forward. And before we knew it, the adoption of AI-infused legal technology began its transition from the exception to the norm.

Juries are seldom allowed to visit crime scenes. There are exceptions, usually in difficult, high-profile murder cases such as the O.J Simpson trial in 1995 in the US and the Jill Dando murder trial in 2001 in the UK. But asking jurors to become fact finders in this way comes with myriad problems, from possible biases to the logistical and security challenges of taking them to the crime scene. A site visit by the Dando jury needed a convoy of five vehicles to transport the jurors, lawyers, judge and their police escorts to the scene, passing through police barricades surrounded by neighbours, journalists and other spectators. It became a media spectacle.