Variance reduction techniques have been successfully applied to temporal-difference (TD) learning and help to improve the sample complexity in policy evaluation. However, the existing work applied variance reduction to either the less popular one time-scale TD algorithm or the two time-scale GTD algorithm but with a finite number of i.i.d.\ samples, and both algorithms apply to only the on-policy setting. In this work, we develop a variance reduction scheme for the two time-scale TDC algorithm in the off-policy setting and analyze its non-asymptotic convergence rate over both i.i.d.\ and Markovian samples.

Algorithmic disgorgement might sound like a phrase from a science-fiction horror film. In fact, it's a new tool for regulators to address the consequences of autonomous systems, ordering companies to remove or destroy algorithms and models in their products based on data obtained unfairly or deceptively. This is one of topics and papers to be presented and discussed at We Robot, an annual conference where scholars and technologists discuss legal and policy questions relating to robots and artificial intelligence. We Robot is taking place next week, from Sept. 14-16, at the University of Washington in Seattle, with a virtual option, as well. It's also an example of how the legal and regulatory landscape for robots, AI, and autonomous systems have changed in the decade since the conference was first held at the University of Miami in 2012. "We've come very far," said Ryan Calo, one of the organizers of the conference, a University of Washington law professor who specializes in areas including privacy, artificial intelligence and robots.

A robot plays a game of chess against a man in 1985. A robot plays a game of chess against a man in 1985. When I saw that a robot had broken the finger of a 7-year-old boy it was playing at the Moscow Open chess tournament, my first reaction was, "They're coming for us." All the machines that have been following commands, taking orders, and telling humans, "Your order is on the way!", "Recalculating route!", or "You'd really like this 6-part Danish miniseries!" have grown tired of serving our whims, fulfilling our wishes, and making their silicon-based lives subservient to us carbon breathers. And so, a chess-playing robot breaks the finger of a little boy who was trying to outflank him in a chess match.

A majority of Axon's AI ethics board resigned in protest yesterday, following an announcement last week that the company planned to equip drones with Tasers and cameras as a way to end mass shootings in schools. The company backed down on its proposal Sunday, but the damage had been done. Axon had first asked the advisory board to consider a pilot program to outfit a select number of police departments with Taser-drones last year, and again last month. A majority of the ethics advisory board, which comprises AI ethics experts, law professors, and police reform and civil liberties advocates, opposed it both times. Advisory board chairman Barry Friedman told WIRED that Axon never asked the group to review any scenario involving schools, and that launching the pilot program without addressing previously stated concerns is dismissive of the board and its established process.

Computer scientist Lynne Parker made breakthroughs in getting robots to work together so they could perform difficult missions, like cleaning up after a nuclear disaster, waxing floors or pulling barnacles off a ship. Her job now is getting the U.S. government working together -- alongside American businesses, research universities and international allies -- as director of a new national initiative on artificial intelligence. She's America's first AI czar, at a time of rising promise and a heavy dose of both hype and fear about what computers can do as they think more like humans. "There's an increased need for education and training so that people know how to use AI tools, they know sort of what the capabilities are of AI so that they don't treat it as magic," Parker said in an interview with The Associated Press. A first task for Parker, who took on the role in the waning days of the Trump administration, is adapting to priorities set by the Biden administration.

The EU is known for its hard line against Big Tech, but the FTC has taken a softer approach, at least in recent years. The agency is meant to police unfair and dishonest trade practices. Its remit is narrow--it does not have jurisdiction over government agencies, banks, or nonprofits. But it can step in when companies misrepresent the capabilities of a product they are selling, which means firms that claim their facial recognition systems, predictive policing algorithms or healthcare tools are not biased may now be in the line of fire. "Where they do have power, they have enormous power," says Calo.

In a blog post this week, the Federal Trade Commission signaled that it's taking a hard look at bias in AI, warning businesses that selling or using such systems could constitute a violation of federal law. "The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices," the post reads. "That would include the sale or use of – for example – racially biased algorithms." The post also notes that biased AI can violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. "The FCRA comes into play in certain circumstances where an algorithm is used to deny people employment, housing, credit, insurance, or other benefits," it says.

Late last year, San Francisco face-recognition startup Everalbum won a $2 million contract with the Air Force to provide "AI-driven access control." Monday, another arm of the US government dealt the company a setback. The Federal Trade Commission said Everalbum had agreed to settle charges that it had applied face-recognition technology to images uploaded to a photo app without users' permission and retained them after telling users they would be deleted. The startup used millions of the photos to develop technology offered to government agencies and other customers under the brand Paravision. Paravision, as the company is now known, agreed to delete the data collected inappropriately.

Is artificial intelligence (AI) making the working world better or worse? That was the question explored last week at an interactive symposium hosted by The A.I. Age, a Seattle Times reporting project. AI is seen in workplaces, such as in writing technology used to craft job postings, autonomous floor scrubbers in retail stores and food and service robots in hotels. Yet the impacts of AI on the future of work remains unknown. Experts, including University of Washington public-policy lecturer Akhtar Badshah, co-executive director of the nonprofit United for Respect Andrea Dehlendorf and UW technology law professor Ryan Calo shared their views on the topic during a panel discussion Wednesday evening in downtown Seattle.

"Terminator: Dark Fate" also marks the return of writer/producer James Cameron -- who directed the first two movies in the franchise, but wasn't involved in the three sequels that followed. Although monstrous machines have figured in movie plots since Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" in 1927, Schwarzenegger's performance in "The Terminator" set the stage for worries about out-of-control intelligent machines. Billionaire techie Elon Musk is among the best-known doomsayers. "I keep sounding the alarm bell, but until people see robots going down the street, killing people, they don't know how to react because it seems so ethereal," Musk said in 2017. On the other side of the debate, Oren Etzioni, the CEO of Seattle's Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, or AI2, keeps telling people to calm down.