We love to Tweet. We love to share. It appears to be a strategy for change but it isn’t. And we have to accept that.
These are strange times. We are able to reach millions with a single Medium post but each day a new post supplants the last. Today’s impassioned jeremiad – like this one – is tomorrow’s digital fish wrapper. A CEO can Tweet something noble today and it is gone a moment later. We can spread the word through Facebook but that site’s pernicious systems keeps it from spreading outside of your immediate zone of friends. In the end all we do on social media is akin to a fart in a crowded room – sure to annoy someone nearby but dissipated by the time it reaches the edges.
So I’m saying delete your account and do something.
If you are a programmer and you haven’t contacted your favorite investigative journalists, the folks at ProPublica , or anyone at your local paper, delete your account and do it. Journalists need your technical expertise to secure their devices, set up secure drops, and understand the data coming out of the countless leaks that are sure to come. You are vitally important.
If you’re running a startup delete your account and look up from your laptop. This can be your first effort at corporate philanthropy. Donate to the ACLU. Volunteer to help immigrants assimilate. Send some cash to Trump. I don’t care. Get political. We had a solid decade of inaction. It’s time to delete your account and do something.
If you’re a VC cut ties from members of your class that actively destroy free speech and rant about the coming dystopia. It makes no sense to invest when the world is coming to an end so perhaps you should protect your investments and prevent it?
If you think about tweeting something witty, don’t. Say that witty thing at a protest march or in a city council meeting or at a school board election. Run for local office. This is the moment for insurgent democracy and if you’re at Apple or Google and truly believe in your Burning-Man-equality-for-all fever dream of Silicon Valley then make it happen locally. If you live in a small city lead the hundreds of amazing entrepreneurs in an effort to enact change. If you’re international reach out. It will be individual citizens who change things since most of our governments are now at odds. This second decade of the 21st century has gone aground. We need to tow it to open waters and keep sailing. Delete your account and do something.
Delete your account and build something if you want to fight back. Delete your account and do something if you want to fight back. Delete your account and run for office if you want to fight back. Facebook posts are meaningless. Twitter is a way for us to feel smug at misspelled rants from the White House. Ignore their false produce and read real news from a real source you trust. Pay for media. Understand that journalists are as baffled as you but, thanks to experience, they have the means to tease out truth. But they can’t do it alone.
No matter what side you’re on, no matter how much glee you get in funny memes and clever retorts, delete your account. The world doesn’t exist on your backlit high-resolution screen. It exists a few degrees up and out, out where people are marching, deals are being made, and the world is changing without you.
Delete your account. The world needs you.
Image via IconFinder

© Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/Afik1gxXmis/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Laws govern the conduct of humans, and sometimes the machines that humans use, such as cars. But what happens when those cars become human-like, as in artificial intelligence that can drive cars? Who is responsible for any laws that are violated by the AI?
This article, written by a technologist and a lawyer, examines that future of AI law.
The field of AI is in a sort of renaissance, with research institutions and R&D giants pushing the boundaries of what AI is capable of. Although most of us are unaware of it, AI systems are everywhere, from bank apps that let us deposit checks with a picture, to everyone’s favorite Snapchat filter, to our handheld mobile assistants.
Currently, one of the next big challenges that AI researchers are tackling is reinforcement learning , which is a training method that allows AI models to learn from its past experiences. Unlike other methods of generating AI models, reinforcement learning lends itself to be more like sci-fi than reality. With reinforcement learning, we create a grading system for our model and the AI must determine the best course of action in order to get a high score.
Research into complex reinforcement learning problems has shown that AI models are capable of finding varying methods to achieve positive results. In the years to come, it might be common to see reinforcement learning AI integrated with more hardware and software solutions, from AI-controlled traffic signals capable of adjusting light timing to optimize the flow of traffic to AI-controlled drones capable of optimizing motor revolutions to stabilize videos.
How will the legal system treat reinforcement learning? What if the AI-controlled traffic signal learns that it’s most efficient to change the light one second earlier than previously done, but that causes more drivers to run the light and causes more accidents?
Traditionally, the legal system’s interactions with software like robotics only finds liability where the developer was negligent or could foresee harm. For example, Jones v. W + M Automation, Inc., a case from New York state in 2007, did not find the defendant liable where a robotic gantry loading system injured a worker, because the court found that the manufacturer had complied with regulations.
But in reinforcement learning, there’s no fault by humans and no foreseeability of such an injury, so traditional tort law would say that the developer is not liable. That certainly will pose Terminator -like dangers if AI keeps proliferating with no responsibility.
The law will need to adapt to this technological change in the near future. It is unlikely that we will enter a dystopian future where AI is held responsible for its own actions, given personhood and hauled into court. That would assume that the legal system, which has been developed for over 500 years in common law and various courts around the world, would be adaptable to the new situation of an AI.
An AI by design is artificial, and thus ideas such as liability or a jury of peers appears meaningless. A criminal courtroom would be incompatible with AI (unless the developer is intending to create harm, which would be its own crime).
But really the question is whether the AI should be liable if something goes wrong and someone gets hurts. Isn’t that the natural order of things? We don’t regulate non-human behavior, like animals or plants or other parts of nature. Bees aren’t liable for stinging you. After considering the ability of the court system, the most likely reality is that the world will need to adopt a standard for AI where the manufacturers and developers agree to abide by general ethical guidelines, such as through a technical standard mandated by treaty or international regulation. And this standard will be applied only when it is foreseeable that the algorithms and data can cause harm.
This likely will mean convening a group of leading AI experts, such as OpenAI , and establishing a standard that includes explicit definitions for neural network architectures (a neural network contains instructions to train an AI model and interpret an AI model), as well as quality standards to which AI must adhere.
Standardizing what the ideal neural network architecture should be is somewhat difficult, as some architectures handle certain tasks better than others. One of the biggest benefits that would arise from such a standard would be the ability to substitute AI models as needed without much hassle for developers.
Currently, switching from an AI designed to recognize faces to one designed to understand human speech would require a complete overhaul of the neural network associated with it. While there are benefits to creating an architecture standard, many researchers will feel limited in what they can accomplish while sticking to the standard, and proprietary network architectures might be common even when the standard is present. But it is likely that some universal ethical code will emerge as conveyed by a technical standard for developers, formally or informally.
The concern for “quality,” including avoidance of harm to humans, will increase as we start seeing AI in control of more and more hardware. Not all AI models are created the same, as two models created for the same task by two different developers will work very differently from each other. Training an AI can be affected by a multitude of things, including random chance. A quality standard ensures that only AI models trained properly and working as expected would make it into the market.
For such a standard to actually have any power, we will most likely need some sort of government interference, which does not seem too far off, considering recent talks in British parliament regarding the future regulation of AI and robotics research and applications. Although no concrete plans have been laid out, parliament seems conscious of the need to create laws and regulations before the field matures. As stated by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, “While it is too soon to set down sector-wide regulations for this nascent field, it is vital that careful scrutiny of the ethical, legal and societal dimensions of artificially intelligent systems begins now.” The document also mentions the need for “accountability” when it comes to deployed AI and the associated consequences.

© Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/0ZeWfdn2kW8/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai has outlined his disapproval of the impact arising from Trump’s dangerous, inhumane and short-sighted sweeping immigration order, which imposes for at least 90 days a block on entry to the U. S. for citizens (including valid visa holders) from seven countries, blocks indefinitely refugee admittance from Syria and also caps the total number of refugees allowed to enter the U. S. in 2017 at 50,000, less than half the number that came into the country in 2016. The measure also suspends admittance of all refugees for a period of 120 days.
Pichai distributed an internal memo, seen by both Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal , which said that Google was “upset about the impact of this order,” specifically as it relates to restrictions placed upon “Googlers and their families,” as well as how it could impose “barriers to bringing great talent to the U. S.” Pichai also noted that it has been “painful to see the personal cost of this executive order on our colleagues” in the memo.
Google apparently recalled all employees potentially impacted who were abroad in an effort to get them back in the U. S. before the order took effect, and Pichai noted in his memo that a minimum of 187 Google employees were directly affected by the ban. Google offered an official statement on the matter to Bloomberg:
Much of the sentiment of the note focused on the impact to Google and its employees, but Pichai did include a more far-reaching comment that “we wouldn’t with this fear and uncertainty on anyone – and especially not our fellow Googlers,” ending with an affirmation that “in times of uncertainty, our values remain the best guide.”
On Friday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckberberg also posted a note to his personal Facebook page about his concern over “the impact of the recent executive orders signed by President Trump,” though his note falls short of strongly condemning the actions and in fact quickly turns to highlighting how “glad” Zuckeberberg is to hear about Trump’s potential continued support of the DREAMers program, which allows special exceptions for undocumented immigrants who entered the U. S. at a young age, and for Trump’s stated support for continuing to bring talent to the U. S. from outside states.
The internal memo from Google is more generally critical than Zuckerberg’s politic statement , but so far none of these tech leaders have come out with an outright condemnation of Trump’s sweeping, harmful orders, which are also worded to prioritize refugee applicants from minority states in nations where the majority of individuals are Muslim, effecting in practice Trump’s campaign promise of a ban on Muslim immigration. It’s likely that these orders will face strong challenges from courts and lawmakers, but in the meantime it’s already impacting would be refugees who were otherwise set to enter the U. S.

© Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/MuTRSkd-nc8/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.