Forensic mental health care involves the treatment of individuals with severe mental disorders who have committed violent offences. These settings are often characterized by high levels of bureaucracy, risk avoidance, and restricted autonomy. Patients frequently experience a profound loss of control over their lives, leading to heightened psychological stress-sometimes resulting in isolation as a safety measure. In this study, we explore how co-design can be used to collaboratively develop a companion robot that helps monitor and regulate stress while maintaining tracking of the patients' interaction behaviours for long-term intervention. We conducted four co-design workshops in a forensic psychiatric clinic with patients, caregivers, and therapists. Our process began with the presentation of an initial speculative prototype to therapists, enabling reflection on shared concerns, ethical risks, and desirable features. This was followed by a creative ideation session with patients, a third workshop focused on defining desired functions and emotional responses, and we are planning a final prototype demo to gather direct patient feedback. Our findings emphasize the importance of empowering patients in the design process and adapting proposals based on their current emotional state. The goal was to empower the patient in the design process and ensure each patient's voice was heard.

When Lee Sedol, champion of Chinese game'Go' was defeated by DeepMind (powered AI AlphaGo), the most common quote on social media was: "You lost and you cried, the computer won but it did not smile" What can be the holy grail of artificial intelligence (AI)? It is not the memory -- today supercomputers can store more information than an average human brain with 100 billion neurons. It is also not computing power, which has long been exceeded by AI machines with petaflops (a unit of computing speed equal to one thousand million million floating-point operations per second). So far, we believed that computers could never learn, they needed to be hard-wired for certain goals. With neural networks and machine learning that citadel is increasingly getting invaded.

Our reviews generally focus on products that will help enable or inform a secure lifestyle rather than more existential threats, but in the case of Life 3.0: Being human in the age of Artificial Intelligence, we made an exception. The potential implications of artificial intelligence (AI) for our future are simply too big too ignore – including many facets of security – and this book leads the reader through them beautifully. Following a slightly disturbing scene-setting prologue imagining an ultra-intelligent AI growing out of control, the author (Max Tegmark) gets straight down to business by defining what he means by Life 3.0. In short, Tegmark classifies life into three broad categories based on its capabilities. Life 1.0 is biological life that can only update its'hardware' (physical form) and'software' (learned abilities) through evolution.

Amazon's Alexa needs its own robotic body to reach its full potential, creators of the smart assistant say. It may mean future versions of the popular gadget are able to follow their owners around the house and listen to conversations with greater ease. Rohit Prasad, head scientist at Amazon's Alexa division, claims the only way to rid the AI-assistant of its shackles is to'give it eyes and let it explore the world'. He said this would be the only way for the devices to better understand the ambiguity and complexity of human language. Rohit Prasad, head scientists at Amazon's Alexa division, claims the only way to rid the AI-assistant of its shackles is to give it'eyes to explore the world'.

In the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, machine learning, quantum computing, and many other advanced computing developments many critics point to AI as the biggest to human kind, much bigger than climate change. While on the other hand, proponents of AI point that machines can never really replace us humans but only compliment our ability. It is in this context that we know what being human actually means. Basic essence of human beings is morality, which in turn flows from conscience among other things. Morality is the ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

For candidates who interact with Matilda the experience can seem bizarre -- being interviewed by a toy. But remember that Matilda is a prototype. It is a social robot -- an autonomous device that interacts and communicates with humans by following social behaviors and rules attached to its role. There are many like it, including Jibo, ElliQ, and Pepper, though it is the first that is being used in recruiting. There's no compelling reason it has to exist in physical form to interview candidates, other than that it was available and could be adapted for use in screening candidates. Humanoid robots may very well be commonplace in the next 20 years, but they're not needed for recruiting.

Ask Alexa about the weather, and it'll tell you it's sunny and 75 in a pleasant monotone. Prompt it to tell you a joke, and it'll offer a pun in its signature staccato. Suggest that it sing a song, and it'll belt out an auto-tuned country ballad. Amazon's virtual assistant boasts a number of clever, humanlike abilities--but, as its voice betrays, Alexa is still just a robot. To help rid Alexa of its cyborgian lilt, Amazon recently upgraded its speech synthesis markup language tags, which developers use to code more natural verbal patterns into Alexa's skills, or apps.