The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: March 31, 2021
It is time to negotiate global treaties on artificial intelligence – Brookings Institution
Posted: March 31, 2021 at 3:40 am
The U.S. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence recently made the news when its members warned that America faces a national security crisis due to insufficient investment in artificial intelligence and emerging technologies. Commission Vice Chair Robert Work argued we dont feel this is the time for incremental budgets This will be expensive and requires significant change in the mindset at the national, and agency, and Cabinet levels. Commission Chair Eric Schmidt extended those worries by saying China is catching the US and competition with China will increase.
This is not the first time the country has worried about the economic and national security ramifications of new technologies. In the aftermath of World War II, the United States, Soviet Union, China, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and others were concerned about the risk of war and the ethical aspects of nuclear weapons, chemical agents, and biological warfare. Despite vastly different worldviews, national interests, and systems of government, their leaders reached a number of agreements and treaties to constrain certain behaviors, and define the rules of war. There were treaties regarding nuclear arms control, conventional weapons, biological and chemical weapons, outer space, landmines, civilian protection, and the humane treatment of POWs.
The goal through these agreements was to provide greater stability and predictability in international affairs, introduce widely-held humanitarian and ethical norms into the conduct of war, and reduce the risks of misunderstandings that might spark unintended conflict or uncontrollable escalation. By talking with adversaries and negotiating agreements, the hope was that the world could avoid the tragedies of large-scale conflagrations, now with unimaginably destructive weapons, that might cost millions of lives and disrupt the entire globe.
With the rise of artificial intelligence, supercomputing, and data analytics, the world today is at a crucial turning point in the national security and the conduct of war. Sometimes known as the AI triad, these characteristics and other weapons systems, such as hypersonics, are accelerating both the speed with which warfare is waged, and the speed with which warfare can escalate. Called hyperwar by Amir Husain and one of us (John R. Allen), this new form of warfare will feature levels of autonomy, including the potential for lethal autonomous weapons without humans being in the loop on decision-making.
It will affect both the nature and character of war and usher in new risks for humanity. As noted in ourrecent AI book Turning Point,this emerging reality could feature swarms of drones that may overwhelm aircraft carriers, cyberattacks on critical infrastructure, AI-guided nuclear weapons, and hypersonic missiles that automatically launch when satellite sensors detect ominous actions by adversaries. It may seem to be a dystopian future, but some of these capabilities are with us now. And to be clear, both of us, and more broadly the worlds liberal democracies, are struggling with the moral and ethical implications of fully autonomous, lethal weapon systems.
In this high-risk era, it is now time to negotiate global agreements governing the conduct of war during the early adoption and adaptation of AI and emerging technologies to the waging of war and to specific systems and weapons. It will be much easier to do this before AI capabilities are fully fielded and embedded in military planning. Similar to earlier treaties on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in the post-war period, these agreements should focus on several key principles:
The good news is there are some international entities that already are working on these issues. For example, the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence is a group of more than a dozen democratic nations that have agreed to support the responsible and human-centric development and use of AI in a manner consistent with human rights, fundamental freedoms, and our shared democratic values. This community of democracies is run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and features high-level convenings, research, and technical assistance.
That said, there are increasingly calls for the technologically advanced democracies to come together to aggregate their capacities, as well as leveraging their accumulated moral strength, to create the norms and ethical behaviors essential to governing the applications of AI and other technologies. Creating a reservoir of humanitarian commitment among the democracies will be vital to negotiating from a position of moral strength with the Chinese, Russians, and other authoritarian states whose views on the future of AI vary dramatically from ours.
In addition, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, European Union, and other regional security alliances are undertaking consultations designed to create agreed-to norms and policies on AI and other new technologies. This includes effort to design ethical principles for AI that govern algorithmic development and deployment and provide guardrails for economic and military actions. For these agreements to be fully implemented though, they will need to have the active participation and support of China and Russia as well as other relevant states. For just as it was during the Cold War, logic should dictate that potential adversaries be at the negotiating table in the fashioning of these agreements. Otherwise, democratic countries will end up in a situation where they are self-constrained but adversaries are not.
It is essential for national leaders to build on international efforts and make sure key principles are incorporated into contemporary agreements. We need to reach treaties with allies and adversaries that provide reliable guidance for the use of technology in warfare, create rules on what is humane and morally acceptable, outline military conduct that is unacceptable, ensure effective compliance, and take steps that protect humanity. We are rapidly reaching the point where failure to take the necessary steps will render our societies unacceptably vulnerable, and subject the world to the Cold War specter of constant risk and the potential for unthinkable destruction. As advocated by the members of the National Security Commission, it is time for serious action regarding the future of AI. The stakes are too high otherwise.
Read this article:
It is time to negotiate global treaties on artificial intelligence - Brookings Institution
Posted in Artificial Intelligence
Comments Off on It is time to negotiate global treaties on artificial intelligence – Brookings Institution
Ambi Robotics Emerges From Stealth with Advanced Simulation-to-Reality Artificial Intelligence – Yahoo Finance
Posted: at 3:40 am
TipRanks
Arguably the most controversial on the Street, penny stocks are a hot-button issue. Usually, there isnt a lot of middle-ground with respect to these tickers priced for less than $5 apiece. Dividing market watchers into two distinct groups, both sides present valid arguments laying out the pros and cons. Sure, there is reason enough to be skeptical. Often, a cheap stock is cheap for a reason, with the low share price potentially reflecting an underlying problem with the business, whether it be poor fundamentals or unbeatable headwinds. That said, a bargain price tag isnt always indicative of a lost cause. For some, better days are on the horizon, and for very little money, investors can control a lot more shares. Therefore, even minor upward movements could result in massive percentage gains, and thus, significant returns. As the nature of these investments makes it difficult to gauge the strength of their long-term growth prospects, one effective stock selecting strategy is to follow the analysts advice. Using TipRanks database, we locked in on two penny stocks that have garnered glowing reviews from the Street, enough to earn a Strong Buy consensus rating. Not to mention each offers massive upside potential. Savara, Inc. (SVRA) Well start with Savara, a biotech company focused on orphan lung diseases. Savaras main focus is on autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (aPAP), a rare condition in which protein material builds up in the lungs and prevents effective breathing. Current treatment involves a patient admission to intensive care, full anesthesia, and a literal washing out of the lungs an invasive and difficult procedure. Savara is researching medical alternatives. The companys lead drug candidate, molgradex, is an inhalant medication designed as a granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; in short, it is targeted on the autoimmune flaw that prevents the bodys natural self-cleansing of the lungs. Molgradex has an Orphan Drug designation from the FDA, and has completed its Phase 3 IMPALA clinical study, with some mixed results. It missed the primary endpoint, but met a key secondary endpoint, and the company in December stated that it planned to meet with regulatory authorities to discuss further studies. Those discussions led to an open-label follow-up period, a study that focused on long-term safety in the use of molgradex for patients with aPAP. The study followed 128 patients over periods between 48 and 72 weeks, and showed improvements on two independent measures of gas exchange in the lungs. Considering these positive results, the company is starting molgradex on the IMPALA 2 study, an additional Phase 3 clinical trial, to begin in 2Q21. Currently going for $1.71 apiece, some members of the Street believe Savara's share price reflects an attractive entry point. Among the bulls is Piper Sandler analyst Yasmeen Rahimi who believes SVRA is an "ideal value pick." We believe that Molgradex has the potential to be a game-changing therapeutic for autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis (aPAP)... With a compelling MOA at its back, we have strong conviction in the clinical POS for Molgradex in a Phase 3 study (IMPALA 2), which we believe can improve upon its existing dataset in the 24-week double-blind Phase 2b/3 IMPALA 1 study in 138 aPAP patients that showed favorable safety... Therefore, we have a strong conviction that SVRA shares have the potential to make a comeback in valuation with Molgradex in IMPALA 2,which is expected to commence in 2Q21," Rahimi opined. "Importantly," the analyst added, "Molgradex has already received Orphan Drug Designation in the U.S. (with eligibility for seven years exclusivity) and EU (potential for 10 years exclusivity) as well as FDA Fast Track Designation and FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation, building up validation for Molgradex in aPAP." To this end, Rahimi rates SVRA an Overweight (i.e. Buy), while setting a $7 price target. This target suggests shares could soar 309% in the next year. (To watch Rahimis track record, click here) Overall, SVRA has 3 recent analyst reviews, and all are Buys, making the analyst consensus rating a Strong Buy. The average price target stands tall at $4.67, which suggests the stock has room for 173% upside in the next 12 months. (See SVRA stock analysis on TipRanks) Aquestive Therapeutics (AQST) Next up, Aquestive Therapeutics, is a diversified biotech firm with a range of products in all stages of the development pipeline, from pre-clinical to fully approved and on the market. Aquestive uses a unique film-based delivery mechanism for its medications. It has adapted the film delivery system for dosing through several locations in the mouth, including inside the cheek, under the tongue, and on the tongue. This companys major news item in the past few months was the FDA rejection of the New Drug Application (NDA) for Libervant buccal film. This medication is a formulation of diazepam, a well-known tranquilizer frequently used to treat seizures. Libervant, dosed through a buccal (inside the cheek) film, was designed to treat seizure clusters. In response to the NDA, the FDA sent Aquestive a Complete Response Letter (CRL) outlining issues with the drug. The CRL specifically cited lower drug exposure levels in patients in certain weight groups. However, there were no other safety or clinical issues cited. After meeting with the FDA, Aquestive revised the weight-based dosing regimen, and is preparing a new NDA for Libervant. The company does not believe that further clinical studies are necessary, and expects to complete the NDA submission in 2Q21. Once the application is sent, the company anticipates a six month process of review. Analyst Jason Butler, in his coverage of this stock for JMP Securities, points out that the key driver here is the resubmission of the Libervant NDA. [The] company recently gained clarity from the FDA on the acceptability of the companys revised proposed weight-based dosing regimen, in combination with new modeling and simulations, in a Type A meeting in October 2020 and the companys subsequent submission of the planned dosing regimen and modeling in December. In the past few weeks, the agency has asked for formatting changes for the safety section of the resubmission and for the company to show the predictive nature of the PK model vs. the observed data from the cross-over study. We view these activities as readily accomplishable..." Butler noted. Butler summed up, "We remain confident in the regulatory path for Libervant and anticipate approval this year, maintaining our 85% probability of approval." Looking forward to a successful resubmission, Butler rates Aquestives shares an Outperform (i.e. Buy), and his $17 price target implies an upside of 315% in the next 12 months. (To watch Butlers track record, click here) Turning now to the rest of the Street, other analysts are on the same page. With 100% Street support, or 5 Buy ratings to be exact, the message is clear: AQST is a Strong Buy. The $15 average price target brings the upside potential to ~266%. (See AQST stock analysis on TipRanks) To find good ideas for penny stocks trading at attractive valuations, visit TipRanks Best Stocks to Buy, a newly launched tool that unites all of TipRanks equity insights. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the featured analysts. The content is intended to be used for informational purposes only. It is very important to do your own analysis before making any investment.
Original post:
Posted in Artificial Intelligence
Comments Off on Ambi Robotics Emerges From Stealth with Advanced Simulation-to-Reality Artificial Intelligence – Yahoo Finance
Study Finds Both Opportunities and Challenges for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Border Management Homeland Security Today – HSToday
Posted: at 3:39 am
Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, commissioned RAND Europe to carry out an Artificial intelligence (AI) research study to provide an overview of the main opportunities, challenges and requirements for the adoption of AI-based capabilities in border management.
AI offers several opportunities to the European Border and Coast Guard, including increased efficiency and improving the ability of border security agencies to adapt to a fast-paced geopolitical and security environment. However, various technological and non-technological barriers might influence how AI materializes in the performance of border security functions.
Some of the analyzed technologies included automated border control, object recognition to detect suspicious vehicles or cargo and the use of geospatial data analytics for operational awareness and threat detection.
The findings from the study have now been made public, and Frontex aims to use the data gleaned to shape the future landscape of AI-based capabilities for Integrated Border Management, including AI-related research and innovation projects.
The study identified a wide range of current and potential future uses of AI in relation to five key border security functions, namely: situation awareness and assessment; information management; communication; detection, identification and authentication; and training and exercise.
According to the report, AI is generally believed to bring at least an incremental improvement to the existing ways in which border security functions are conducted. This includes front-end capabilities that end users directly utilize, such as surveillance systems, as well as back-end capabilities that enable border security functions, like automated machine learning.
Potential barriers to AI adoption include knowledge and skills gaps, organizational and cultural issues, and a current lack of conclusive evidence from actual real-life scenarios.
Read the full report at Frontex
(Visited 114 times, 1 visits today)
See the article here:
Posted in Artificial Intelligence
Comments Off on Study Finds Both Opportunities and Challenges for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Border Management Homeland Security Today – HSToday
Smart Safe Keeping: Blending Artificial Intelligence with Sea Turtle Conservation Steve Taglieri KwF Conservation Research Intern – sUAS News
Posted: at 3:39 am
Author Stephen Taglieri, KwF Conservation Research Intern
More and more, drones are becoming a normal part of our future. When we firstintroduced the integration of computer science with aerospace engineering to create self aware drones it seemed like an alien concept, but over the last couple of years A.I. has advanced exponentially while drone development has expanded to many conservation studies, says Princess Aliyah Pandolfi, Executive Director of Kashmir World Foundation (KwF).
These flying robots aid workers with daily tasks, and innovation keeps pushing technology in a direction to further help. However, drones dont always have to help people, drones can also be used to safeguard wildlife. Conservationists are chronically underfunded and understaffed, so the use of drones can give much-needed assistance. This is especially true with sea turtle conservation.
Kashmir World Foundation (KwF) was able to introduce Pronatura, Mexicos largestenvironmental conservation group, to the perks of using drones to protect turtles.
Pandolfi created the Fly for Conservation workshop to educate researchers and biologists on the value of custom drones embedded with A.I. on the Edge. In 2018, Marista University of Mrida hosted the Fly for Conservation workshop with KwF staff teaching environmentalists on the Yucatan Peninsula how to build, program, and operate drones to survey sea turtles efficiently.
With aerial visuals, the team released 32 sea turtle hatchlings at a beach in Celestun, Mexico and ended the successful evening with a group picture to document their victory. Sea turtle conservation is usually time-consuming and energy-intensive; drones, and the innovative ways to use them, take pressure off experts so they can spend more time-saving species.
Dr. Melania Lpez-Castro is a conservationist at Pronatura working with sea turtle populations along the Yucatan coastlines. Drones have the potential to help their efforts significantly.
Although the organization is large, Pronatura still struggles with finding enough manpower to survey all the sea turtles that nest on beaches under their jurisdiction. There are many threats to turtles in that area, and Lpez-Castro is working to increase her organizations ability to protect them. They are currently fighting against the effects of plastic pollution, beach erosion, and destructive human activities on the beach.
The Pronatura team walks the beach every morning and evening to find any new turtle nests. Throughout the night, researchers and volunteers work to record the success of hatchlings leaving the nest and avoiding predators on their way to the ocean. Animals such as birds, crabs, coyotes, raccoons, and sharks are all predators of sea turtle hatchlings. If the team runs into an adult turtle while looking for tracks on the beach, they will measure the animal and record whether it has been tagged before. The process is very demanding of the researchers, and it can stress the turtle as well.
This is where KwF steps in to create a more effective and minimally intrusive conservation environment for both humans and turtles. Malini Shivaram, Sean Sewell, and Langston Kosoff are all interns working with the artificial intelligence A.I. program at KwF.
They are developing a new artificial intelligent drone that can help sea turtle conservationists.
Shivaram is an Artificial Intelligence Major at Carnegie Mellon, Sewell an Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering Major at Stanford, and Kosoff is a Computer Science Major at the University of Chicago. The sea turtle conservation drone embedded with an AI, is called MiSHELL. It is made specifically for detecting sea turtle tracks and identifying the specific species and providing the GPS location of the nest to the biologists.
KwF has partnered with Pronatura to collect data for their research and test MiSHELLs ability to work outside of lab settings. The Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is trained to process data in real time on a small computer onboard the drone. This type of program is best for image recognition and processing. Once the computer is connected to the flight controller and GPS on the drone, it will be used to fly over beach areas where turtles may have been. Using downward-facing cameras, MiSHELL will be able to process the video data in real time and identify sea turtle tracks as it flies over them.
Conservation teams in the area will then know where the tracks are located and can navigate to them via GPS coordinates. The project will save time finding the animals and give the Pronatura more time to record data and protect the sea turtles.
In an interview, Shivaram said that using AI to identify wildlife in captured images orvideos could be an efficient and fairly accurate way to process data. With MiSHELL, real-time data is sent to on-the-ground conservation teams while the drone captures imagery. The data can be sent to these teams at any time, even if theyre miles down the beach from the drones location. The team will know specifically where to find the tracks, so they wont have to walk meticulously down the beach looking for turtles. MiSHELL can even identify which species of turtle created the tracks on the beach. This is done by analyzing the pattern of these tracks; all seven species of turtle leave different patterned tracks due to the size and shape of their flippers.
Creating a working, reliable AI model takes a great deal of data. KwFs partnership with Pronatura has brought the AI-building process a long way. Researchers in Mexico have recorded videos from the drones flying over turtle tracks and sent them to KwF. These pre-recorded videos are used to train the CNN. The data is fed into the AI so it can learn how to successfully identify the tracks. Shivaram and the rest of the team all work to point out the tracks to the AI initially, and then challenge the program to find the tracks by itself. This process is called training a convolutional neural network, and it allows the AI to identify these patterns in the sand on its own.
This careful process takes a long time. It gives the team time to work out any other bugs, though, before fully putting their trust into the drone. For example, Lpez-Castro observed that the sound of drones spook turtles in the area. While the AI continues to be developed, the drone team at KwF is using research from another project, Eagle Ray, to fix this issue. Eagle Ray is a different kind of drone program which employs silent thrusters, and that technology could cross over to benefit the sea turtle project (Read more about Eagle Ray).
As drone technology gets more advanced, Lpez-Castro and her team cant help but look into the future.
The applications of drone technology in the conservation field are seemingly endless. The Pronatura team believes that the technology could be used for more applications as they get more involved with the drones. One potential use would be to track sea turtle surface movement in clear waters off the coast. Tracking turtles using aerial drones would allow researchers to get close to turtles without noisy boats. This method could also give more information about where sea turtle breeding and feeding grounds are. Drones made for underwater environments could replace metal or satellite tagging programs while being more cost-effective.
This is a huge step in the right direction. When speaking about current tracking methods, Lpez-Castro explains that the most effective way of tagging a turtle in the wild is to clip a metal marker to the animals flipper. Each marker has a unique number that identifies that specific turtle, and researchers can record where and when they see that animal again. The downside is this method does not give any data about the animal between its interactions with researchers, which means that not much is known about turtles when theyre off the beach.
Satellite tags can be used, but they are very expensive and have a high chance of falling off the turtle before enough data is taken. Experts still dont know where sea turtle feeding grounds are, where mating sites are, or the impacts which the disappearance of sea turtles is having on the environment.
Working with what they are given, conservation organizations have been able to make the best of their resources. KwF, and partners, work to give environmentalists the technology and training to grow eco-friendly efforts around the world. The use of artificial intelligence, drones, and other state-of-the-art innovations can change the game when it comes to saving species. Having helped create a MiSHELL, Shivaram affirms that like in many other fields, technology (especially the use of AI) will become prominent in conservation.
Visit our website at http://www.kashmirworldfoundation.org
Go here to see the original:
Posted in Artificial Intelligence
Comments Off on Smart Safe Keeping: Blending Artificial Intelligence with Sea Turtle Conservation Steve Taglieri KwF Conservation Research Intern – sUAS News
Heres why UF is going to use artificial intelligence across its entire curriculum | Column – Tampa Bay Times
Posted: at 3:39 am
Henry Ford did not invent the automobile. That was Karl Benz.
But Ford did perfect the assembly line for auto production. That innovation directly led to cars becoming markedly cheaper, putting them within reach of millions of Americans.
In effect, Ford democratized the automobile, and I see a direct analogy to what the University of Florida is doing for artificial intelligence AI, for short.
In July, the University of Florida announced a $100 million public-private partnership with NVIDIA the maker of graphics processing units used in computers that will catapult UFs research strength to address some of the worlds most formidable challenges, create unprecedented access to AI training and tools for under-represented communities and build momentum for transforming the future of the workforce.
At the heart of this effort is HiPerGator AI the most powerful AI supercomputer in higher education. The supercomputer, as well as related tools, training and other resources, is made possible by a donation from UF alumnus Chris Malachowsky as well as from NVIDIA, the Silicon Valley-based technology company he co-founded and a world leader in AI and accelerated computing. State support also plays a critical role, particularly as UF looks to add 100 AI-focused faculty members to the 500 new faculty recently added across the university many of whom will weave AI into their teaching and research.
UF will likely be the nations first comprehensive research institution to integrate AI across the curriculum and make it a ubiquitous part of its academic enterprise. It will offer certificates and degree programs in AI and data science, with curriculum modules for specific technical and industry-focused domains. The result? Thousands of students per year will graduate with AI skills, growing the AI-trained workforce in Florida and serving as a national model for institutions across the country. Ultimately, UFs effort will help to address the important national problem of how to train the nations 21st-century workforce at scale.
Further, due to the unparalleled capabilities of our new machine, researchers will now have the tools to solve applied problems previously out of reach. Already, researchers are eyeing how to identify at-risk students even if they are learning remotely, how to bend the medical cost curve to a sustainable level, and how to solve the problems facing Floridas coastal communities and fresh water supply.
Additionally, UF recently announced it would make its supercomputer available to the entire State University System for educational and research purposes, further bolstering research and workforce training opportunities and positioning Florida to be a national leader in a field revolutionizing the way we all work and live. Soon, we plan to offer access to the machine even more broadly, boosting the national competitiveness of the United States by partnering with educational institutions and private industry around the country.
Innovation, access, economic impact, world-changing technological advancement UFs AI initiative provides all these things and more.
If Henry Ford were alive today, I believe he would recognize the importance of whats happening at UF. And while he did not graduate from college, I believe he would be proud to see it happening at an American public university.
Joe Glover is provost and senior vice president of academic affairs at the University of Florida.
Go here to see the original:
Posted in Artificial Intelligence
Comments Off on Heres why UF is going to use artificial intelligence across its entire curriculum | Column – Tampa Bay Times
Trueblue Designs the Future of Artificial Intelligence and Analytics for Healthcare With Aidea Integrated With Microsoft Dynamics 365 – Business Wire
Posted: at 3:39 am
VERONA, Italy--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Trueblue, after having announced the integration of its Artificial Intelligence Relationship Management with Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Platform, officially launches on the market:
AiDEA
Smart Customer Engagement
AiDEA is the new AI driven Omnichannel Customer Engagement suite. The foundation of the solution, represented by Artificial Intelligence , integrates and powers the operational and analytical functionalities based on Microsoft Dynamics 365 and Power Platform, for a holistic and integrated experience, with the goal of revolutionizing the working model of Pharma & Life Science markets, simplifying omni-channel engagement through intuitive and conversational interaction.
Two fundamental components guide the change, whose union had not yet materialized in the reference market: the concrete integration of Big Data in the perspective of Multichannel Management and the use of Artificial Intelligence functionalities and algorithms. The latter is an element that can no longer be postponed from an IT point of view, as it is necessary to drive Customer Engagement processes to satisfy company objectives from both a strategic and an operational point of view.
These elements require a structural change in the approach of organizations and tools, as a generic Customer Relationship Management system is no longer sufficient. It is in fact necessary to adopt specific Smart Omnichannel Customer Engagement solutions, fully enabled in terms of Artificial Intelligence, to have, in a quick, simple and intuitive way, precise indications about one's own customers.
As part of this transition in fact, Pharma companies such as Angelini Pharma, Alfasigma and others are taking this direction with strength and determination with the aim of innovating and achieving their business results faster.
"Artificial Intelligence represents a tremendous opportunity to increase our effectiveness and we want to provide this competitive advantage to our employees thanks to AiDEA" said Pierluigi Antonelli, CEO of Angelini Pharma "After a long and thorough analysis, we identified Trueblue and Microsoft as the best partners to advance our Customer Engagement capabilities by delivering an innovative digital CRM solution that transforms strategy into action.
Trueblue, which has always been at the center of technological and digital innovation for the pharmaceutical industry, thanks to the integration with Microsoft introduces with AiDEA a new paradigm in which Artificial Intelligence is the backbone and key factor of the evolutionary process.
"Through this integration, Trueblue will help companies in the industry accelerate their growth and find new ways to drive Digital Innovation through a wide range of solutions that will enable them to simplify the use of AI in their daily activities," said Marco Bonesini CEO of Trueblue
In todays reality of accelerated digital transformation processes, pharma & life science companies rely on proactive solutions such as AIDEA, integrated with Dynamics 365 and Power Platform, to enable effective omnichannel strategies said Elena Bonfiglioli, Managing Director, HealthCare and Life Sciences, EMEA Regional Lead.
Discover more About Trueblue
The rest is here:
Posted in Artificial Intelligence
Comments Off on Trueblue Designs the Future of Artificial Intelligence and Analytics for Healthcare With Aidea Integrated With Microsoft Dynamics 365 – Business Wire
Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI – Techdirt
Posted: at 3:38 am
from the delicious dept
Parler -- the social media cesspool that claimed the only things that mattered to it were the First Amendment and, um FCC standards -- has reopened with new web hosting after Amazon decided it no longer wished to host the sort of content Parler has become infamous for.
Parler has held itself up to be the last bastion of the First Amendment and a protector of those unfairly persecuted by left-wing tech companies. The users who flocked to the service also considered themselves free speech absolutists. But like far too many self-ordained free speech "absolutists," they think the only speech that should be limited is moderation efforts by companies like Twitter and Facebook.
And, like a lot of people who mistakenly believe the First Amendment guarantees them access to an active social media account, a lot of Parler users don't seem to understand the limits of First Amendment protections. Parler, like every other social media service, has had to engage in moderation efforts that removed content undeniably protected by the First Amendment but that it did not want to host on its platform. It has also had to remove illegal content and that's where its most recent troubles began.
Over the weekend, the resurrected Parler crossed over into meta territory, resulting in an unintentionally hilarious announcement to its aggrieved users upset about the platform's decision to forward Capitol riot related posts to law enforcement. It really doesn't get any better than this in terms of schadenfreude and whatever the German word is for an ad hoc group of self-proclaimed First Amendment "experts" having their second favorite right explained to them.
Here's Matt Binder for Mashable:
The reaction to the news that Parler "colluded" with the FBI in order to report violent content was so strong on the right wing platform, the company was compelled to release a statement addressing those outraged users.
In doing so, Parler found itself unironically explaining the First Amendment to its user base filled with members who declare themselves to be "Constitutionalists" and "Free Speech" advocates.
Parler's statement spells it out: the First Amendment does not protect the speech shared with law enforcement by the social media platform.
In reaction to yesterday's news stories, some users have raised questions about the practice of referring violent or inciting content to law enforcement. The First Amendment does not protect violence inciting speech, nor the planning of violent acts. Such content violates Parlers TOS. Any violent content shared with law enforcement was posted publicly and brought to our attention primarily via user reporting. And, as it is posted publicly, it can properly be referred to law enforcement by anyone. Parler remains steadfast in protecting your right to free speech.
That's a very concise and accurate reading of the First Amendment and how it applies to the content Parler forwarded to the FBI. It's not covered. But that hasn't stopped a few vocal complainants from telling Parler to try reading the Constitution again and, apparently, decide it means not only hosting violent content, but refusing to pass these threats on to law enforcement.
The core user base being unable to understand the limits of the right it believes allows it to say anything anywhere is partially a byproduct of Parler's promise to erect a Wild West internet playground for bigots and chauvinists who had nowhere else to go. Once it had some users, Parler realized it too needed to engage in moderation, even if only to rid itself of porn and outsiders who showed up solely to troll its stable of alt-right "influencers."
The January 6th insurrection appears to have forced the platform to grow up a little. Of course, some of that growth was forced on it by the leak of thousands of users' posts, which were examined by journalists and forwarded to law enforcement to assist in identifying Parler users who attended the deadly riot in DC earlier this year. Illegal content is still illegal, and being beholden only to the First Amendment doesn't change that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.
The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, fbi, insurrection, public infoCompanies: parler
See the original post here:
Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI - Techdirt
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Parler Forced To Explain The First Amendment To Its Users After They Complain About Parler Turning Over Info To The FBI – Techdirt
Terrorism and Other Dangerous Online Content: Exporting the First Amendment? – Just Security
Posted: at 3:38 am
The United States has an historic opportunity to work with democracies around the world to address dangerous online content, including white supremacist terrorism. In 2019, a lone wolf live-streamed via Facebook his massacre of 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. In direct response, dozens of the worlds leading democracies joined with major social media companies to issue a call to action. The Trump administration, however, did not join them, vaguely referring to First Amendment concerns to explain its absence.
With the coming anniversary of the Christchurch Call to Action (May 15) and the Summit of Democracy, its high time to reconsider the U.S. posture. Whatever the merits or demerits of any multilateral effort to address dangerous online content, one purported basis for the U.S. failure to join such initiatives cannot withstand scrutiny. Thats the claim that the United States has a policy of refraining from supporting international agreements that would call on other countries to act inconsistently with the First Amendment.
One of us served as the State Departments most senior human rights official and the other has served on the State Departments advisory committee on international law during Democratic and Republican administrations. Based on our experience and assessment of U.S. practices, we question any assertion of such a general or consistent U.S. approach toward international agreements.
Indeed, some of the main cases cited to show such a policy, on further scrutiny, demonstrate the opposite: The United States takes a pragmatic approach often issuing statements that stress that its own commitment to an agreement do not run afoul of the First Amendment (and asserting carve outs for U.S. domestic purposes). At the same time, it supports the adoption of international agreements by other countries who apply these treaties in accord with international human rights standards. In bilateral human rights dialogues with countries like China, Vietnam, Myanmar and Uzbekistan, U.S diplomats have routinely urged ratification of international human rights treaties without referring to its own reservation relating to free speech. In these and other diplomatic exchanges, U.S diplomats constantly rely on this international framework, rather than the U.S. Constitution and laws. It makes good practical sense to do so.
Were it otherwise, the United States efforts to advance human rights around the world would be stymied and seen as simply trying to impose its own constitutional standards on other governments including in political contexts where an absolutist First Amendment approach could wreak havoc or far worse.
Consider how the United States approached the main human rights treatythe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That treaty requires any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. In submitting the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the George Herbert Walker Bush administration acknowledged that this provision directly conflicts with the First Amendment by requiring the prohibition of certain forms of speech and expression. The solution was simple. The United States ratified the agreement but entered a reservation opting out of that provision for itself, that is, to the extent the obligations were inconsistent with the First Amendment. (The reservation read: Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.)
What about the treaty as it applied to other States? That would be up to them to decide. The United States would go on to promote the treaty as a global agreement, including urging other States to ratify the Covenant, and proceed to support the treatys supervisory body. The latter is a committee of 18 independent experts, including a member nominated by the United States from 1995 until 2018 and again in 2020. The Human Rights Committee monitors the application of the Covenant (including Article 20) for States that have committed to comply with it.
The same pattern holds true for other treaties. The Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, for example, requires States to criminalize all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin (Article 4). In proposing ratification of the treaty, the Clinton administration acknowledged to the Senate, The requirements of Article 4 of the Convention are thus inconsistent with the First Amendment. During the drafting of Article 4, the U.S. delegation expressly recognized that it posed First Amendment difficulties. The solution, once again, was to join the agreement but enter a simultaneous reservation to ensure that parts of that provision did not apply to the U.S. governments own actions. As with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United States went on to support the treaty on racial discrimination, including joining multilateral calls for other States to ratify the instrument. The treaty also has a supervisory committee, which long included a U.S. member, and it too monitors all States compliance with their own obligations under the agreement including Article 4.
This sort of pragmatic approach by U.S. delegations toward multilateral efforts dates back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself. Consider the incitement provision of the Universal Declaration. Article 7 states that all people are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. During the drafting process, the head of the U.S. delegation, Eleanor Roosevelt, opposed this text. The diplomatic record states: Speaking as United States representative, she supported deletion of the words against any incitement to discrimination, The United States opposed the provision against incitement to discrimination because it feared that such a provision might be used to justify the enactment of repressive measures, laws that would curtail freedom of speech and the press. However, the United States ultimately acceded to the provision in its final form, and has ever since been a leading backer of the Universal Declaration as a whole.
Finally, we should note the United States has also supported international efforts to counter online support for Islamic terrorism, despite turning away from the Christchurch Call to Action following the terrorist attack on Muslims in 2019. In 2015, the Security Council Counterterrorism Committee, in which the United States serves as a leading member, adopted the Madrid Guiding Principles. In addressing foreign terrorist fighters, Principle 26 states:
Member States should build and strengthen public-private partnerships, in particular with social media service providers, while respecting international obligations and commitments regarding human rights, including freedom of expression, and recalling that any restrictions thereon shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary on the grounds set out in paragraph 3 of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this regard, Member States should encourage the ICT industry to voluntarily develop terms of service that target content aimed at recruitment for terrorism and recruiting or inciting others to commit terrorist acts, while respecting international obligations and commitments regarding human rights.
In 2018, the Security Council Committee adopted an Addendum to the Madrid Guiding Principles for foreign terrorist fighters, in which principle 39 provides:
In undertaking efforts to effectively counter the ways that ISIL, Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities use their narratives to incite and recruit others to commit terrorist acts, Member States should:(g) Consider continuing, building on or fostering new strategic and voluntary partnerships with many different actors, such as private sector actors, in particular social media and other communications service providers, including for the purposes of blocking, filtering or removing terrorist content, and civil society actors who can play an important role in developing and implementing more effective means to counter the use of the Internet for terrorist purposes, to counter terrorist narratives and to develop innovative technological solutions;
(h) Encourage information and communications technology service providers to voluntarily develop and enforce terms of service that target content aimed at recruitment for terrorism and recruiting or inciting others to commit terrorist acts, while respecting international human rights law, and publish regular transparency report.
There are other cases in which the United States has invoked the freedom of speech as a basis for its withdrawal from or non-participation in multilateral meetings (e.g., the 2009 Durban review conference against racism) or to advance a negotiated diplomatic outcome (e.g., 2011 Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on combating religious intolerance). These assertions need to be understood in their political contexts. The Durban Review Conference became embroiled in a larger political debate about Israel, and several other countries also withdrew based on concerns that the review conference would repeat the anti-Semitic attacks that took place at the 2001 Durban Conference. The United Nations Human Rights Council debate about combatting religious intolerance focused an overbroad proposal from Pakistan and others aimed at declaring any negative commentary on Islam examples of religious intolerancesuch as through national blasphemy laws . That said, there are other examples that may support the claim that First Amendment concerns have more directly precluded U.S. participation in an international initiative (e.g., 2020 UN General Assembly Resolution on Combating Glorification of Nazism). Yet thats also consistent with our general point. There is no settled, uniform, or required U.S. approach to these multilateral initiatives. The United States has adopted a pragmatic approach rather than asserted its First Amendment is a necessary model for the world.
When the Biden administration convenes its Summit of Democracy, many of the participating States will be the same ones that supported the Christchurch Call to Action. It is these venues in which the United States can work with fellow democratic countries and tech companies to address the most dangerous online content. Our First Amendment is no cause for completely holding back.
Editors Note: Readers may also be interested in Christchurch Calls and Washington Isnt Answering by Eric Rosand and Why the Christchurch Call to Remove Online Terror Content Triggers Free Speech Concerns by Evelyn Aswad.
Excerpt from:
Terrorism and Other Dangerous Online Content: Exporting the First Amendment? - Just Security
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on Terrorism and Other Dangerous Online Content: Exporting the First Amendment? – Just Security
The First Amendment: Rarely Popular, Always Necessary – The Dispatch
Posted: at 3:38 am
They dont send out the DEA to bust people for eating deadly poisonous toadstools. That behavior is, ahem, self-limiting. But the federal government does forbid the sale of mushrooms that make people feel like theyre at a rainbow jamboree with the Care Bears, because lawmakers know lots of people would gobble them up.
We have little trouble understanding why we have and enforce laws: The forbidden conduct would otherwise be too attractive. We punish people for everything from toxic waste dumping to breaking the speed limit precisely because lawmakers think too many people otherwise would engage in conduct thats harmful to society as a whole.
While we understand why we have prohibitions against certain conduct by citizens, we tend to forget that our system forbids certain conduct by the government for precisely the same reason: The harmful misconduct is too attractive to otherwise resist.
Many Americans claim to revere the First Amendment and its hard line against government limitations on the beliefs of our citizens and the expression of those beliefs. Yet very often the same souls who rhapsodize over free speech are eager to limit it.
Heres a powerful, influential progressive senator who wants to make sure a company cant heckle her in a snotty way. Or how about a new member of the executive branch who wonders whether the First Amendment is obsolete and thinks the federal government should try to engineer a news media marketplace to its liking? Try an esteemed conservative federal judge who wants to make it easier for powerful people to sue reporters and news outlets because he doesnt like the bias he perceives against his viewpoints.
At the state and federal level, were witnessing a full-spectrum attack on free expression (not to mention property rights). Progressives and nationalists arent mounting this assault at risk to their own careers. Indeed, many are finding lots of political advantage in trying to suppress speech they and their constituents do not like.
Though Thomas Jefferson is most assuredly out of favor with the modern progressives who are his heirs, in 1787 he identified the same problem with American politics many in todays Democratic Party now decry. Jefferson blamed what today is called fake news for the Constitutions version of the presidency that he believed was inclined toward monarchy.
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, Jefferson wrote to John Adams son-in-law from Paris. The English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves.
He was calling Adams and the other Federalists a bunch of dupes who created an undemocratic presidency because of the impudent and persevering lying of pro-British journalists. We could say the same thing today about American outlets and politicians who echo Chinese talking points about the prevalence of racism in our country or Russian propaganda about the legitimacy of the 2020 elections.
Unlike many in his party today, though, Jefferson didnt suggest controlling the information Americans could receive. In fact, he said misinformation was an inevitable consequence of life in a free society. The people can not be all, and always, well informed, he wrote. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.
Aint that the truth
Racism is tolerated less now than it has been at any point in American history, but if you misconceive that important fact, you are likely to be quite discontented. The same goes for election fraud. If you are ignorant of the truth that American elections now are far more secure than in even the fairly recent past you might believe Boss Tweed and Big Bill Thompson were still stuffing ballot boxes. You might even storm the Capitol.
Jeffersons remedy, however, would please few Americans today. He brushed off Shays Rebellion, a tax revolt in Western Massachusetts the year before that left nine dead, as no big deal. Let them take arms, he wrote. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The alternative, he said, was worse. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
The anti-police riots of last year and the pro-Trump attack on the Capitol would have been to circa-1787 Jefferson what we now callforgive meteachable moments. The perpetrators were misinformed, but according to their misshapen views of the world, their violent actions were justified. When the river of misinformation overruns its banks, Jeffersons advice was not to build the levees higher but to address its source.
Adams did not agree. As president in 1798, he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts partly to crack down on Bonapartist propaganda from France during a period of high tensions between the former allies. It just so happened that what the federal government deemed false statements against it were very often claims and criticisms from newspapers supportive of his old rival, Jefferson, who was preparing to take on his foe in the election of 1800. Limiting speech, he argued, was necessary for preserving domestic tranquility. Fortunately, the rules were far less popular in practice than in concept and were allowed to expire by 1801.
After defeating Adams, Jefferson learned to love the powers of the presidency he had as a younger man disdainedand the awful failures and excesses of the French revolution had also taught him about the practical considerations of armed revolts and foreign propaganda. That tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants jazz didnt sound as great when he was worried about Aaron Burr cooking up an insurrection with the help of the Spanish.
We dont have a First Amendment to protect free speech because people love the freedom, but because limiting free expression will always be attractive to those in powerand often to their political advantage.
Read the original:
The First Amendment: Rarely Popular, Always Necessary - The Dispatch
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The First Amendment: Rarely Popular, Always Necessary – The Dispatch
The First Amendment: What It Is & What It Isn’t – WSHU
Posted: at 3:38 am
A very timely Join the Conversation event from WSHU
The First Amendment is cited daily in reference to the Capitol insurrection, cancel culture and hate speech posted on social media. But our right to free speech is more nuanced than many people realize. In this fascinating discussion with noted experts, we will examine exactly what the First Amendment covers, what it doesnt cover and how it pertains to some of the timely issues at hand.
Our online Join the Conversation event will be moderated by WSHU Senior Reporter Ebong Udoma, and features these expert panelists:
Event Details:
The First Amendment: What It Is & What It IsntAn online WSHU Join the Conversation eventTuesday, April 13, 2021, at 7 p.m.Event is free register to get the linkDo you have a question for our panelists? Submit it via our WSHU Community page.
Event generously sponsored by Petroske Riezenman & Meyers, PC
Go here to see the original:
The First Amendment: What It Is & What It Isn't - WSHU
Posted in First Amendment
Comments Off on The First Amendment: What It Is & What It Isn’t – WSHU







