The Guardian reported that the UK's Ministry of Justice has been developing an algorithm designed to identify people who could become killers. Initially dubbed the "homicide prediction project," this tool used data from UK police forces, possibly including victims and witnesses as well as suspects. Civil liberty watchdog Statewatch discovered the program through Freedom of Information Act requests. Based on the documents acquired by the group, Statewatch claimed that the program developed its prediction tool based on police data about between 100,000 and 500,000 people. Different categories of information shared with the Ministry of Justice appeared to also cover sensitive topics such as mental health, addiction, suicide and disability.

Jessica Melugin, Competitive Enterprise Institute Director of Center for Technology and Innovation, discusses Twitter accusing Meta of stealing trade secrets and a New York City law requiring businesses to audit A.I. hiring tools. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently re-upped his calls for a global body, akin to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to advise member nations on regulating artificial intelligence (AI). Schmidt first made his case for an "International Panel on AI Safety" – an "IPCC for AI," if you will – in an October 2023 op-ed in the Financial Times. He writes of the AI panel's potential to be an, "an independent, expert-led body empowered to objectively inform governments about the current state of AI capabilities and make evidence-based predictions." He claims that AI policy makers, "are looking for impartial, technically reliable and timely assessments about its speed of progress and impact."

While some prominent voices in the tech industry are calling for a temporary pause in ChatGPT's upgrades, the CEO of America's largest crypto exchange Coinbase made it clear he opposes the move. "Count me among the people who think this is a bad idea," Brian Armstrong wrote in a recent tweet. "There are no'experts' to adjudicate this issue, and many disparate actors will never agree. Committees and bureaucracy won't solve anything." Armstrong's comments came shortly after the publication of an open letter calling for a six-month moratorium on developing artificial intelligence (AI) more powerful than GPT-4, the latest iteration of ChatGPT, an AI chatbot created by OpenAI.

Mankind's technological advancements have been developing at such breakneck speeds that we often take for granted how they have made our lives easier. One of the most interesting results of human brainpower is the machine-like replication of itself: artificial intelligence. AI is already present in our daily tasks, from search engines, algorithms, virtual assistant technology, and the like. However, there seems to be budding movements in applying AI technologies to the cultural productions, with some already venturing into anime and art. Should this prove successful both commercially and critically, it is only inevitable that this AI movement would permeate the cultural zeitgeist of other media, and one that is of great interest is the medium of film.

It's year five, or maybe ten, of "drones are going to revolutionize transport" and so far, we've got very little to show for it. Maybe it's time to put these foolish ambitions to rest and focus on where this technology could actually do some good, rather than pad out a billionaire's bottom line or let the rich skip traffic. The promise of drone deliveries, drone taxis, and personal drone attendants has never sat, or rather floated, right with me. There's so little to be gained, while braving so much liability and danger, and necessitating so much invention and testing. Why is anyone even pursuing this? I suspect it is the Jetsons-esque technotopianism instilled in so many of us from birth: It's only a matter of time and effort before we have the flying cars, subliminal learning pillows, and robot housekeepers we deserve, right?

"Recruiters take 6-seconds on average to read your resume." Though it may not be exactly true, it does manifest the challenge of effective evaluation of candidates. Amazon used a resume ranking system in 2014 to rank top candidates in order to automate the hiring process, until they found out that the engine did not like women. But by 2015, the company realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way. To understand the problem, we'll cover the baseline of how the model works and dive deeper into what can go wrong and why.

When it comes to the use of face recognition by police, 31% of women are not certain whether it is a good or bad idea, compared with 22% of men. Women are more likely to support the inclusion of a wider variety of groups in AI design. Women are also more likely to say it is important that different racial and ethnic groups are included in the same AI design process (71% vs. 63%). Additionally, women are more doubtful than men that it is possible to design AI computer programs that can consistently make fair decisions in complex situations. Only around two-in-ten women (22%) think it is possible to design AI programs that can consistently make fair decisions, while a larger share of men (38%) say the same.

Women in the United States are more skeptical than men about some uses of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the possible widespread use of driverless passenger vehicles, according to a new analysis of Pew Research Center survey data collected in November 2021. The analysis also finds gender differences in views about the overall impact that technology has on society and some safety issues tied to AI applications, as well as the importance of including different groups in the AI design process. Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand gender differences in Americans' views about artificial intelligence and human enhancement technologies. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,260 U.S. adults from Nov. 1-7, 2021. Everyone who took part in the survey is a member of the Center's American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

In a recent Living in the Solutionpodcast with otolaryngologist and broadcaster Elaina George at Liberty Talk radio, Wesley J. Smith, lawyer and host of the Humanize podcast at Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism tackled the question of "Can You be a Christian and Believe in Transhumanism?" (June 4, 2022) Transhumanism or H, as it is sometimes called, is a movement to create immortality through new biotechnology or merger with artificial intelligence (AI). In the first portion of the podcast, which we covered on Sunday, June 12, they talked about the way being a human, a computer, or an animal is viewed by transhumanists as all just a choice now, thanks to new technology. In the second, they looked at the religious elements in transhumanism. In this third and final segment, they discuss the difference in values between Christianity and transhumanism. A partial transcript and notes follow.

Summary: Researchers explore why revenge may feel good in the moment, but often results in mixed emotions later. The UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, is fighting to stay in power after it emerged that he attended several parties during the country's strict lockdowns in 2020 and 2021. His former adviser Dominic Cummings, who was sacked by Johnson in 2020, has been accused of being the mastermind behind a number of carefully orchestrated leaks about the gatherings – amounting to a pretty spectacular case of revenge. Most of us have dreamt about revenge at some point in our lives, and perhaps even achieved it. But is it ultimately a good idea – will it make us wiser and happier in the long term?