We've already wondered about the "help" artificial intelligence gives us. And we've already wondered about legal issues, such as whether to trust forensic results that have been obtained through AI.
Now somebody is wondering if AI will destroy democracy. (Actually, that's just a review of the paper, which can be found here.) If that sounds a bit much, what he really seems to be afraid of is the concentration of AI power in the hands of some tech giants (a reasonable fear), and the seeming tacit acceptance that society and the law can't regulate AI because AI is above the law because we don't understand it. (Although the "Google Spain" case that he cites seems to have been at least partly decided against that latter assertion.)
Personally, I think the paper is a bit wobbly, and hops from idea to idea without sticking to any one long enough to make a good case, but it does have some interesting ideas.
Yes? No? Perhaps?
I noted with some wistfulness that the voice of HAL, Douglas Rain, has slipped the surly bonds of Earth. My "favouritest" AI there ever was.
"I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."
As was is were, James Doohan, William Shatner, and the Canadarm!
As is Justin Bieber
The real issue, is as usual human fear. We do not have true Artificial Intelligence, we just dont have the computing capabilities or the resources to do this right now - AI is in fact Augmented Intelligence via Machine Learning and Cognitive Computing techniques. What we have embarked on internally is identifying the number of different bias a human being introduces via our education, upbringing and intrinsic values.
If we can identify these, and then remove them - then the law firms would find it most usual indeed in terms of providing objective unbiased recommendations to assist a human judges or lawyers decisions.
Yes, we are closer to hacking the human brain or influencing an outcome - but what are the intrinsic benefits - one of the major ones is that people want to live to 100, and have their GP call them rather than the medical practitioner be sought to reduce costs and response time.
We have to weight up the whole picture, and not the hype that surrounds it.
Overcome the fear, seek out the information and make an informed choice.
Meanwhile, in Gaithersburg!
source: SANS NewsBites, Vol. 20 Num. 090
NIST Plans to Move to IBM’s Watson for Vulnerability Scoring
@j_M007 Once again, some misinterpretation, it uses Machine Learning (ML); to look and analyse the traditional CVSS vulnerability rating and augments it by taking a different perspective - it takes a feed from the current point in time threat intelligence and then adds a weighting as to what is really happening rather a static view. It works within the IBM X-Force Vulnerability Management System, augmenting the traditional vulnerability scanning techniques and takes a look at the real world. It actually prioritises, which vulnerabilities need patching by the current state of the threats hitting organisations. Some people call it weaponisation, by prioritising which ones need to be applied immediately etc. In other words, attempting to be proactive or one step of the cyber game, which the majority of us play on a daily basis.
Then look at the Garner report, associated within the link as well.
Once again, Fear, Uncertainty and Destruction (FUD).....