In the much-celebrated book Deep Medicine, Eric Topol argues that the development of artificial intelligence for health care will lead to a dramatic shift in the culture and practice of medicine. In the next several decades, he suggests, AI will become sophisticated enough that many of the everyday tasks of physicians could be delegated to it. Topol is perhaps the most articulate advocate of the benefits of AI in medicine, but he is hardly alone in spruiking its potential to allow physicians to dedicate more of their time and attention to providing empathetic care for their patients in the future. Unfortunately, several factors suggest a radically different picture for the future of health care. Far from facilitating a return to a time of closer doctor-patient relationships, the use of medical AI seems likely to further erode therapeutic relationships and threaten professional and patient satisfaction.

The use of technology to improve human life and activity has long been implemented. Nowadays, we see technological innovations beyond what our predecessors could have ever imagined. People use to travel by foot or riding an animal of some sort. Then comes the invention of carriages with (again) animals to pull it. Many years later, we now have cars–which is basically an automated carriage if you think about it–, trains, ships, planes, and all other sorts of vehicle I haven't mentioned. This is only on transportation technology.

Outgoing Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ... [ ] Angel Gurria applauds as new Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Mathias Cormann, of Australia, takes over at the OECD headquarters in Paris, Tuesday, June, 1 2021. A recent study from the Pew Research Center showed that 53% of people in 20 countries feel that artificial intelligence has been a good thing for society. While over half the world's population has a positive view of AI, this means that one in every three people in these countries are concerned about the impacts AI can have on society. How do we ensure that AI is trustworthy and its benefits are shared by all? As the statistics show, while there is incremental improvement, there is still a level of hesitancy and suspicion towards AI among the citizens around the world.

Confidence in the regulatory environment is crucial to enable responsible AI innovation and foster the social acceptance of these powerful new technologies. One notable source of uncertainty is, however, that the existing legal liability system is unable to assign responsibility where a potentially harmful conduct and/or the harm itself are unforeseeable, yet some instantiations of AI and/or the harms they may trigger are not foreseeable in the legal sense. The unpredictability of how courts would handle such cases makes the risks involved in the investment and use of AI difficult to calculate with confidence, creating an environment that is not conducive to innovation and may deprive society of some benefits AI could provide. To tackle this problem, we propose to draw insights from financial regulatory best practices and establish a system of AI guarantee schemes. We envisage the system to form part of the broader market-structuring regulatory frameworks, with the primary function to provide a readily available, clear, and transparent funding mechanism to compensate claims that are either extremely hard or impossible to realize via conventional litigation. We propose it to be at least partially industry-funded. Funding arrangements should depend on whether it would pursue other potential policy goals aimed more broadly at controlling the trajectory of AI innovation to increase economic and social welfare worldwide. Because of the global relevance of the issue, rather than focusing on any particular legal system, we trace relevant developments across multiple jurisdictions and engage in a high-level, comparative conceptual debate around the suitability of the foreseeability concept to limit legal liability. The paper also refrains from confronting the intricacies of the case law of specific jurisdictions for now and—recognizing the importance of this task—leaves this to further research in support of the legal system’s incremental adaptation to the novel challenges of present and future AI technologies. This article appears in the special track on AI and Society.

Arrangements for the OECD's role as host will be finalised in the coming days. The GPAI will bring together experts from industry, government, civil society and academia to conduct research and pilot projects on AI. Its objective, as set out by founding members Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom and the United States, is to bridge the gap between theory and practice on AI policy. An example would be looking at how AI could help societies respond to and recover from the Covid-19 crisis. Basing its Secretariat at the OECD will allow the GPAI to create a strong link between international policy development and technical discourse on AI, taking advantage of the OECD's expertise on AI policy and its leadership in setting out the first international standard for trustworthy AI – the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence.

Mention artificial intelligence to a management executive and you may encounter some skepticism. New technologies need to be proven effective before managers and company leaders are comfortable using them. Bring up AI to workforce personnel and their eyes may either glaze over or betray a level of fear or anger at the idea of robots taking their jobs away. The concerns regarding AI are understandable. The McKinsey Global Institute forecasts that 39 million jobs will be displaced by automation by 2030.[2] The problem is that management, workforce personnel and some media outlets often conflate AI with what they view as job-killing automation. Automation refers to machines that mimic repeatable human actions.

The OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence promote artificial intelligence (AI) that is innovative and trustworthy and that respects human rights and democratic values. They were adopted on 22 May 2019 by OECD member countries when they approved the OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence. The OECD AI Principles are the first such principles signed up to by governments. Beyond OECD members, other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru and Romania have already adhered to the AI Principles, with further adherents welcomed. The OECD AI Principles set standards for AI that are practical and flexible enough to stand the test of time in a rapidly evolving field.

The artificial intelligence (AI) landscape has evolved significantly from 1950 when Alan Turing first posed the question of whether machines can think. Today, AI is transforming societies and economies. It promises to generate productivity gains, improve wellbeing and help address global challenges, such as climate change, resource scarcity and health crises. Yet, as AI applications are adopted around the world, their use can raises questions and challenges related to human values, fairness, human determination, privacy, safety and accountability, among others. This report helps build a shared understanding of AI in the present and near-term by mapping the AI technical, economic, use case and policy landscape and identifying major public policy considerations.

The OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence promote artificial intelligence (AI) that is innovative and trustworthy and that respects human rights and democratic values. They were adopted on 22 May 2019 by OECD member countries when they approved the OECD Council Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence. The OECD AI Principles are the first such principles signed up to by governments. Beyond OECD members, other countries including Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru and Romania have already adhered to the AI Principles, with further adherents welcomed. The OECD AI Principles set standards for AI that are practical and flexible enough to stand the test of time in a rapidly evolving field.

The AI Group of experts at the OECD (AIGO) completed its recommendations in meetings at the World Government Summit in Dubai earlier in February. "The contributions of the AI expert group mark an important milestone in our efforts to ensure that governments and people share the economic and social benefits of AI and understand and minimise the risks," said Andrew Wyckoff, director of the OECD's Science, Technology and Innovation Directorate, which is spearheading the work. The recommendations cover a broad range of public and private policy matters that are being transformed by artificial intelligence systems. They include a common understanding of AI concepts including: what is an AI system? What is the AI system lifecycle?