The 3rd edition of the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's The State of AI Ethics captures the most relevant developments in AI Ethics since October 2020. It aims to help anyone, from machine learning experts to human rights activists and policymakers, quickly digest and understand the field's ever-changing developments. Through research and article summaries, as well as expert commentary, this report distills the research and reporting surrounding various domains related to the ethics of AI, including: algorithmic injustice, discrimination, ethical AI, labor impacts, misinformation, privacy, risk and security, social media, and more. In addition, The State of AI Ethics includes exclusive content written by world-class AI Ethics experts from universities, research institutes, consulting firms, and governments. Unique to this report is "The Abuse and Misogynoir Playbook," written by Dr. Katlyn Tuner (Research Scientist, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT), Dr. Danielle Wood (Assistant Professor, Program in Media Arts and Sciences; Assistant Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics; Lead, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT) and Dr. Catherine D'Ignazio (Assistant Professor, Urban Science and Planning; Director, Data + Feminism Lab, MIT). The piece (and accompanying infographic), is a deep-dive into the historical and systematic silencing, erasure, and revision of Black women's contributions to knowledge and scholarship in the United Stations, and globally. Exposing and countering this Playbook has become increasingly important following the firing of AI Ethics expert Dr. Timnit Gebru (and several of her supporters) at Google. This report should be used not only as a point of reference and insight on the latest thinking in the field of AI Ethics, but should also be used as a tool for introspection as we aim to foster a more nuanced conversation regarding the impacts of AI on the world.

His psychiatric training was at Rockland State Hospital (N.Y.), 1932-4. Until 1941 he held several fellowships at Yale University, Laboratory of Neurophysiology, on activity of the central nervous system, becoming Assistant Professor 1940-1. From 1941 to 1952 he was Professor of Psychiatry and Physiology and Neurophysiologist at the University of Illinois. Since 1952 he has been staff member of the Research Laboratory of Electronics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is the author of numerous articles on functional organization of the brain, and on facilitation, extinction and functional organisation of the cerebral cortex. SUMMARY VENN diagrams, with a jot in every space for all cases in which given logical functions are true, picture their truth tables. These symbols serve as arguments in similar expressions that use similar symbols for functions of functions. When jots appear fortuitously with given probabilities or frequencies, the Venn diagram can be written with l's for fixed jots, O's for fixed absence, and p's for fortuitous jots. Any function is realizable by many synaptic diagrams of formal neurons of specified threshold, and the fortuitous jots of their symbols can be made to signify a perturbation of threshold in an appropriate synaptic diagram. Nets of these neurons with common inputs embody hierarchies of functions, each of which can be reduced to input-output functions pictured in their truth tables.

Biology seems to be a science in its own right, or set of sciences having common aims, and so it should have its own language and explanatory concepts; yet when any specifically biological concept is suggested and used as an explanatory concept it seems to be unsatisfactory and even mystical. There are many biological concepts of this kind: Purpose, Drive, elan vital, Entelechy, Gestalten.* Physicists and engineers seem, on the other hand, to have clearly defined concepts having great power within biology.

We discuss several aspects of legal arguments, primarily arguments about the meaning of statutes. First, we discuss how the requirements of argument guide the specification and selection of supporting cases and how an existing case base influences argument formation.

In this paper, we consider a distinctly bottom-up which generates arguments by performing a heuristic approach.

Human scientists actively seek out information that bears on questions they have decided to pursue. They design experiments, explore the implications of the knowledge they have, refine their questions and test alternative ideas. Although many discoveries are the result of unexpected observations, these surprises take place in the context of an explicit pursuit of knowledge. Viewing scientific discovery as a kind of motivated action raises some basic issues common to goal-directed behavior generally: Where do desires (to know) come from? What are the actions that can be taken (to discover)? What are the resources those actions consume, and how are they allocated? How are decisions about selecting and combining actions made?