Clearview AI has stoked controversy by scraping the web for photos and applying facial recognition to give police and others an unprecedented ability to peer into our lives. Now the company's CEO wants to use artificial intelligence to make Clearview's surveillance tool even more powerful. From a report: It may make it more dangerous and error-prone as well. Clearview has collected billions of photos from across websites that include Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter and uses AI to identify a particular person in images. Police and government agents have used the company's face database to help identify suspects in photos by tying them to online profiles. The company's cofounder and CEO, Hoan Ton-That, tells WIRED that Clearview has now collected more than 10 billion images from across the web -- more than three times as many as has been previously reported. Ton-That says the larger pool of photos means users, most often law enforcement, are more likely to find a match when searching for someone. He also claims the larger data set makes the company's tool more accurate. Clearview combined web-crawling techniques, advances in machine learning that have improved facial recognition, and a disregard for personal privacy to create a surprisingly powerful tool. Ton-That demonstrated the technology through a smartphone app by taking a photo of the reporter. The app produced dozens of images from numerous US and international websites, each showing the correct person in images captured over more than a decade. The allure of such a tool is obvious, but so is the potential for it to be misused. Clearview's actions sparked public outrage and a broader debate over expectations of privacy in an era of smartphones, social media, and AI. [...] The pushback has not deterred Ton-That. He says he believes most people accept or support the idea of using facial recognition to solve crimes. "The people who are worried about it, they are very vocal, and that's a good thing, because I think over time we can address more and more of their concerns," he says. Some of Clearview's new technologies may spark further debate. Ton-That says it is developing new ways for police to find a person, including "deblur" and "mask removal" tools. The first takes a blurred image and sharpens it using machine learning to envision what a clearer picture would look like; the second tries to envision the covered part of a person's face using machine learning models that fill in missing details of an image using a best guess based on statistical patterns found in other images. These capabilities could make Clearview's technology more attractive but also more problematic. It remains unclear how accurately the new techniques work, but experts say they could increase the risk that a person is wrongly identified and could exacerbate biases inherent to the system.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

China has revealed its first set of ethical guidelines governing artificial intelligence, placing emphasis on protecting user rights and preventing risks in ways that align with Beijing's goals of reining in Big Tech's influence and becoming the global AI leader by 2030. From a report: Humans should have full decision-making power, the guidelines state, and have the right to choose whether to accept AI services, exit an interaction with an AI system or discontinue its operation at any time. The document was published by China's Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) last Sunday. The goal is to "make sure that artificial intelligence is always under the control of humans," the guidelines state. "This is the first specification we see from the [Chinese] government on AI ethics," said Rebecca Arcesati, an analyst at the German think tank Mercator Institute for China Studies (Merics). "We had only seen high-level principles before."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Artificial intelligence can tell whether it is going to rain in the next two hours, research suggests. The BBC reports: Scientists at Google-owned London AI lab DeepMind and the University of Exeter partnered with the Met Office to build the so-called nowcasting system. Traditional methods use complex equations and often forecast for only between six hours and two weeks' time. The AI system can make more accurate short-term predictions, including for critical storms and floods. The system learned how to identify common patterns of rainfall, using UK radar maps from 2016 to 2018, was tested on maps from 2019 and found, by 50 Met Office meteorologists, to be accurate in 89% of cases. The research, published in the journal Nature, found: "Meteorologists significantly preferred the [AI] approach to competing methods."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Ahmed Elgammal, Professor and Director of the Art & AI Lab at Rutgers University, writes via The Conversation: When Ludwig von Beethoven died in 1827, he was three years removed from the completion of his Ninth Symphony, a work heralded by many as his magnum opus. He had started work on his Tenth Symphony but, due to deteriorating health, wasn't able to make much headway: All he left behind were some musical sketches. Ever since then, Beethoven fans and musicologists have puzzled and lamented over what could have been. His notes teased at some magnificent reward, albeit one that seemed forever out of reach. Now, thanks to the work of a team of music historians, musicologists, composers and computer scientists, Beethoven's vision will come to life. I presided over the artificial intelligence side of the project, leading a group of scientists at the creative AI startup Playform AI that taught a machine both Beethoven's entire body of work and his creative process. A full recording of Beethoven's 10th Symphony is set to be released on Oct. 9, 2021, the same day as the world premiere performance scheduled to take place in Bonn, Germany -- the culmination of a two-year-plus effort. [...] The AI side of the project -- my side -- found itself grappling with a range of challenging tasks. First, and most fundamentally, we needed to figure out how to take a short phrase, or even just a motif, and use it to develop a longer, more complicated musical structure, just as Beethoven would have done. For example, the machine had to learn how Beethoven constructed the Fifth Symphony out of a basic four-note motif. Four notes famously serve as the basis for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Next, because the continuation of a phrase also needs to follow a certain musical form, whether it's a scherzo, trio or fugue, the AI needed to learn Beethoven's process for developing these forms. The to-do list grew: We had to teach the AI how to take a melodic line and harmonize it. The AI needed to learn how to bridge two sections of music together. And we realized the AI had to be able to compose a coda, which is a segment that brings a section of a piece of music to its conclusion. Finally, once we had a full composition, the AI was going to have to figure out how to orchestrate it, which involves assigning different instruments for different parts. And it had to pull off these tasks in the way Beethoven might do so. In November 2019, the team met in person again -- this time, in Bonn, at the Beethoven House Museum, where the composer was born and raised. This meeting was the litmus test for determining whether AI could complete this project. We printed musical scores that had been developed by AI and built off the sketches from Beethoven's 10th. A pianist performed in a small concert hall in the museum before a group of journalists, music scholars and Beethoven experts. We challenged the audience to determine where Beethoven's phrases ended and where the AI extrapolation began. They couldn't. The success of these tests told us we were on the right track. But these were just a couple of minutes of music. There was still much more work to do. At every point, Beethoven's genius loomed, challenging us to do better. As the project evolved, the AI did as well. Over the ensuing 18 months, we constructed and orchestrated two entire movements of more than 20 minutes apiece.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Thomas Macaulay writes via The Next Web: Samson and Delilah is among the most famous works by Peter Paul Rubens, one of the most influential artists of the 17th century. The painting depicts an Old Testament story in which the warrior Samson is betrayed by his lover Delilah. When London's National Gallery bought the masterpiece in 1980, it became the third most expensive artwork (PDF) ever purchased at auction. But the buyers may now be searching for their receipt. According to a new AI analysis, their prized possession is almost certainly a fake. The tests were conducted by Art Recognition, a Swiss company that uses algorithms to authenticate artworks. The firm's tool is based on a deep convolutional neuronal network. The system learns to identify an artist's characteristics by training the algorithm on images of their real works. The training dataset is then augmented by splitting the images into smaller patches, which are zoomed into to capture the finer details. Once the training is complete, the algorithm is fed a new image to assess. It then analyzes the picture's features to evaluate the likelihood of it being genuine. After comparing Samson and Delilah with 148 genuine Rubens paintings, the system gave the artwork a 91% probability of being inauthentic. Carina Popovici, the cofounder of Art Recognition, was shocked by the results: "We repeated the experiments to be really sure that we were not making a mistake, and the result was always the same. Every patch, every single square, came out as fake, with more than 90% probability."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Samsung has proposed a way to build brain-like computer chips by "copying and pasting" a brain's neuron wiring map onto 3D neuromorphic chips. Engadget reports: The approach would rely on a nanoelectrode array that enters a large volumes of neurons to record both where the neurons connect and the strength of those connections. You could copy that data and 'paste' it to a 3D network of solid-state memory, whether it's off-the-shelf flash storage or cutting-edge memory like resistive RAM. Each memory unit would have a conductance that reflects the strength of each neuron connection in the map. The result would be an effective return to "reverse engineering the brain" like scientists originally wanted, Samsung said. The move could serve as a 'shortcut' to artificial intelligence systems that behave like real brains, including the flexibility to learn new concepts and adapt to changing conditions. You might even see fully autonomous machines with true cognition, according to the researchers. "Envisioned by the leading engineers and scholars from Samsung and Harvard University, the insight was published as a Perspective paper, titled 'Neuromorphic electronics based on copying and pasting the brain'..." Samsung said in a statement. In short, they're proposing a method that "directly downloads the brain's neuronal connection map onto the memory chip."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

The United Kingdom is the latest country to rule that an artificial intelligence can't be legally credited as an inventor. Engadget reports: Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country's Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn't list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him "by ownership of the creativity machine." The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application. When he didn't do that, the agency decided he had withdrawn from the process. Thaler took the case to the UK's High Court. The body ruled against him, leading to the eventual appeal. "Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot," Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing of the Appeal Court wrote in her judgment. "A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person." In August, an Australian Court ruled that an AI can be recognized as an inventor in a patent submission. However, a U.S. District Judge ruled earlier this month that a computer using AI can't be listed as an inventor on patents because only a human can be an inventor under U.S. law.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Scientists have successfully used artificial intelligence to create a new drug regime for children with a deadly form of brain cancer that has not seen survival rates improve for more than half a century. The Guardian reports: The breakthrough, revealed in the journal Cancer Discovery, is set to usher in an "exciting" new era where AI can be harnessed to invent and develop new treatments for all types of cancer, experts say. Computer scientists and cancer specialists at the ICR and the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust used AI to work out that combining the drug everolimus with another called vandetanib could treat diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG), a rare and fast-growing type of brain tumor in children. Currently, DIPG and other similar types of tumors are incredibly difficult to remove surgically from children because they are diffuse, which means they do not have well-defined borders suitable for operations. But after crunching data on existing drugs, the team found everolimus could enhance vandetanib's capacity to "sneak" through the blood-brain barrier and treat the cancer. The combination has proved effective in mice and has now been tested in children. Experts now hope to test it on a much larger group of children in major clinical trials. The research found that combining the two drugs extended survival in mice by 14% compared with those receiving a standard control treatment. Both the drugs in the research, which was funded by Brain Research UK, the DIPG Collaborative, Children with Cancer UK and the Royal Marsden Cancer Charity, among others, are already approved to treat other types of cancer. "The AI system suggested using a combination of two existing drugs to treat some children with DIPG -- one to target the ACVR1 mutation, and the other to sneak the first past the blood brain barrier," said Chris Jones, professor of paediatric brain tumor biology at the ICR. "The treatment extended survival when we tested it in a mouse model, and we have already started testing it out in a small number of children. We still need a full-scale clinical trial to assess whether the treatment can benefit children, but we've moved to this stage much more quickly than would ever have been possible without the help of AI."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

New submitter iarlakd writes: The U.K. government on Wednesday released its 10-year plan to make the country a global "artificial intelligence superpower," seeking to rival the likes of the U.S. and China. The so-called "National Artificial Intelligence Strategy" is designed to boost the use of AI among the nation's businesses, attract international investment into British AI companies and develop the next generation of homegrown tech talent. "Today we're laying the foundations for the next ten years' growth with a strategy to help us seize the potential of artificial intelligence and play a leading role in shaping the way the world governs it," Chris Philp, a minister of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said in a statement. The National AI Strategy includes a number of programs, reports and initiatives. Among them, a new National AI Research and Innovation program will be launched as part of an effort to improve coordination and collaboration between the country's researchers. Elsewhere, another program will specifically aim to support AI development outside London and Southeast England, where much of the nation's AI efforts are currently concentrated.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

em1ly shares a report from Motherboard: Amazon delivery drivers say surveillance cameras installed in their vans have made them lose income for reasons beyond their control. In February, Amazon announced that it would install cameras made by the AI-tech startup Netradyne in its Amazon-branded delivery vans as an "innovation" to "keep drivers safe." As of this month, Amazon had fitted more than half of its delivery fleet nationwide with this technology, an Amazon spokesperson told Motherboard. Motherboard spoke to six Amazon delivery drivers in California, Texas, Kansas, Alabama, and Oklahoma, and the owner of an Amazon delivery company in Washington who said that rather than encourage safe driving, Netradyne cameras regularly punish drivers for so-called "events" that are beyond their control or don't constitute unsafe driving. The cameras will punish them for looking at a side mirror or fiddling with the radio, stopping ahead of a stop sign at a blind intersection, or getting cut off by another car in dense traffic, they said. The Netradyne camera, which requires Amazon drivers to sign consent forms to release their biometric data, has four lenses that record drivers when they detect "events" such as following another vehicle too closely, stop sign and street light violations, and distracted driving. When the camera detects an "event," it uploads the footage to a Netradyne interface accessible to Amazon and its delivery companies, and in some instances, a robotic voice speaks out to the driver: "distracted driving" or "maintain safe distance." Each time the camera registers an event, footage is uploaded into a system, recorded, and affects a score drivers receive at the end of the week for safe driving. Amazon drivers believe that AI-powered surveillance cameras have served as a cost-saving measure for the company. Amazon delivery drivers and delivery companies, known as "delivery service partners," which contract with Amazon and employ drivers, have reported losing income from erroneous citations registered by Netradyne.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

ellithligraw writes: Last month a Stanford research paper coauthored by dozens of Stanford researchers which terms some artificial intelligence models "foundations" is causing a debate over the future of AI. A new research facility is proposed at Stanford to study these so-called "models." Critics call these "foundations" will "mess up the discourse." The debate centers on what Wired calls "colossal neural networks and oceans of data." Some object to the limited capabilities and sometimes freakish behavior of these models; others warn of focusing too heavily on one way of making machines smarter. "I think the term 'foundation' is horribly wrong," Jitendra Malik, a professor at UC Berkeley who studies AI, told workshop attendees in a video discussion. Malik acknowledged that one type of model identified by the Stanford researchers — large language models that can answer questions or generate text from a prompt — has great practical use. But he said evolutionary biology suggests that language builds on other aspects of intelligence like interaction with the physical world. "These models are really castles in the air; they have no foundation whatsoever," Malik said. "The language we have in these models is not grounded, there is this fakeness, there is no real understanding...." Subbarao Kambhampati, a professor at Arizona State University [says] there is no clear path from these models to more general forms of AI... Emily M. Bender, a professor in the linguistics department at the University of Washington, says she worries that the idea of foundation models reflects a bias toward investing in the data-centric approach to AI favored by industry... "There are all of these other adjacent, really important fields that are just starved for funding," she says. "Before we throw money into the cloud, I would like to see money going into other disciplines."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Researchers have found a new and surprisingly simple method for bypassing facial recognition software using makeup patterns. A new study from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev found that software-generated makeup patterns can be used to consistently bypass state-of-the-art facial recognition software, with digitally and physically-applied makeup fooling some systems with a success rate as high as 98 percent. In their experiment, the researchers defined their 20 participants as blacklisted individuals so their identification would be flagged by the system. They then used a selfie app called YouCam Makeup to digitally apply makeup to the facial images according to the heatmap which targets the most identifiable regions of the face. A makeup artist then emulated the digital makeup onto the participants using natural-looking makeup in order to test the target model's ability to identify them in a realistic situation. The researchers tested the attack method in a simulated real-world scenario in which participants wearing the makeup walked through a hallway to see whether they would be detected by a facial recognition system. The hallway was equipped with two live cameras that streamed to the MTCNN face detector while evaluating the system's ability to identify the participant. The experiment saw 100 percent success in the digital experiments on both the FaceNet model and the LResNet model, according to the paper. In the physical experiments, the participants were detected in 47.6 percent of the frames if they weren't wearing any makeup and 33.7 percent of the frames if they wore randomly applied makeup. Using the researchers' method of applying makeup to the highly identifiable parts of the attacker's face, they were only recognized in 1.2 percent of the frames.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Our streets might not be overflowing with robotaxis as we were promised circa 2017, but here and there, AV companies are beginning commercial deployments. Argo AI, the AV startup heavily backed by Ford, Volkswagen, and others, is one of those companies. On Wednesday, Argo, Ford, and Walmart revealed that they will be working together to roll out last-mile deliveries from the retail giant's stores in Austin, Texas; Miami, Florida; and Washington, DC. "Our focus on the testing and development of self-driving technology that operates in urban areas where customer demand is high really comes to life with this collaboration," said Bryan Salesky, founder and CEO of Argo AI. "Working together with Walmart and Ford across three markets, we're showing the potential for autonomous vehicle delivery services at scale." "Argo and Ford are aggressively preparing for large-scale autonomous vehicle operations across a broad footprint of US cities," said Scott Griffith, the CEO of Ford Autonomous Vehicles and Mobility Businesses. "Pairing Walmart's retail and e-commerce leadership with Argo and Ford's self-driving operations across these multiple cities marks a significant step toward scaling a commercial goods delivery service that will ultimately power first-to-scale business efficiencies and enable a great consumer experience." Argo AI and Ford have been testing their AV systems in Miami and DC since 2018 and began testing in Austin the following year. The trio says that the first autonomous deliveries to Walmart customers will begin later this year. Around the same time, Ford and Argo will start deploying passenger-carrying robotaxis in Austin and Miami.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader shares a report: In 2015, representatives from more than 196 countries met in Le Bourget, France to sign the Paris Agreement. The legally binding treaty limits global warming to a rise of well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels, preferably capping warming at 1.5 degrees. While the Paris Agreement doesn't spell out how the undersigned are expected to achieve this goal, some countries have pledged to cut their net climate emissions to zero by 2050. For these and other steps to be successful, reliable data is key. While the ability to evaluate companies' carbon footprints will be critical for countries seeking to comply with the measures, only a fraction of companies currently disclose their greenhouse gas emissions. But researchers at Bloomberg Quant Research and Amazon Web Services claim to have successfully trained a machine learning model to estimate the emissions of businesses that don't disclose their emissions. The researchers say investors could use this model to align their investments with international regulatory measures and achieve net-zero goals. Some regions, including the European Union, require investors to apply a "precautionary principle" that penalizes non-disclosing companies by overestimating their emissions. "Merely 2.27% of companies filing financial statements are disclosing their [greenhouse gas] emissions according to our environmental, social, and governance (ESG) datasets," the coauthors wrote in a paper. "In order to make a meaningful change, we need to measure who is contributing [greenhouse gases] into the atmosphere and monitor their claims to decarbonize."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Karen Hao, reporting for MIT Technology Review: The website is eye-catching for its simplicity. Against a white backdrop, a giant blue button invites visitors to upload a picture of a face. Below the button, four AI-generated faces allow you to test the service. Above it, the tag line boldly proclaims the purpose: turn anyone into a porn star by using deepfake technology to swap the person's face into an adult video. All it requires is the picture and the push of a button. MIT Technology Review has chosen not to name the service, which we will call Y, or use any direct quotes and screenshots of its contents, to avoid driving traffic to the site. It was discovered and brought to our attention by deepfake researcher Henry Ajder, who has been tracking the evolution and rise of synthetic media online. For now, Y exists in relative obscurity, with a small user base actively giving the creator development feedback in online forums. But researchers have feared that an app like this would emerge, breaching an ethical line no other service has crossed before. From the beginning, deepfakes, or AI-generated synthetic media, have primarily been used to create pornographic representations of women, who often find this psychologically devastating. The original Reddit creator who popularized the technology face-swapped female celebrities' faces into porn videos. To this day, the research company Sensity AI estimates, between 90% and 95% of all online deepfake videos are nonconsensual porn, and around 90% of those feature women.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"A.I. Can Now Write Its Own Computer Code," blares a headline in the New York Times, adding "That's Good News for Humans. (Alternate URL here.) The article begins with this remarkable story about Codex (the OpenAI software underlying GitHub Copilot): As soon as Tom Smith got his hands on Codex — a new artificial intelligence technology that writes its own computer programs — he gave it a job interview. He asked if it could tackle the "coding challenges" that programmers often face when interviewing for big-money jobs at Silicon Valley companies like Google and Facebook. Could it write a program that replaces all the spaces in a sentence with dashes? Even better, could it write one that identifies invalid ZIP codes? It did both instantly, before completing several other tasks. "These are problems that would be tough for a lot of humans to solve, myself included, and it would type out the response in two seconds," said Mr. Smith, a seasoned programmer who oversees an A.I. start-up called Gado Images. "It was spooky to watch." Codex seemed like a technology that would soon replace human workers. As Mr. Smith continued testing the system, he realized that its skills extended well beyond a knack for answering canned interview questions. It could even translate from one programming language to another. Yet after several weeks working with this new technology, Mr. Smith believes it poses no threat to professional coders. In fact, like many other experts, he sees it as a tool that will end up boosting human productivity. It may even help a whole new generation of people learn the art of computers, by showing them how to write simple pieces of code, almost like a personal tutor. "This is a tool that can make a coder's life a lot easier," Mr. Smith said. The article ultimately concludes that Codex "extends what a machine can do, but it is another indication that the technology works best with humans at the controls." And Greg Brockman, chief technology officer of OpenAI, even tells the Times "AI is not playing out like anyone expected. It felt like it was going to do this job and that job, and everyone was trying to figure out which one would go first. Instead, it is replacing no jobs. But it is taking away the drudge work from all of them at once."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Automated resume-scanning software is contributing to a "broken" hiring system in the US, says a new report from Harvard Business School. Such software is used by employers to filter job applicants, but is mistakenly rejecting millions of viable candidates, say the study's authors. It's contributing to the problem of "hidden workers" -- individuals who are able and willing to work, but remain locked out of jobs by structural problems in the labor market. From a report: The study's authors identify a number of factors blocking people from employment, but say automated hiring software is one of the biggest. These programs are used by 75 percent of US employers (rising to 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies), and were adopted in response to a rise in digital job applications from the '90s onwards. Technology has made it easier for people to apply for jobs, but also easier for companies to reject them. The exact mechanics of how automated software mistakenly reject candidates are varied, but generally stem from the use of overly-simplistic criteria to divide "good" and "bad" applicants.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Long-time Slashdot reader Artem S. Tashkinov quotes Quanta magazine: Today, the most powerful artificial intelligence systems employ a type of machine learning called deep learning. Their algorithms learn by processing massive amounts of data through hidden layers of interconnected nodes, referred to as deep neural networks. As their name suggests, deep neural networks were inspired by the real neural networks in the brain, with the nodes modeled after real neurons — or, at least, after what neuroscientists knew about neurons back in the 1950s, when an influential neuron model called the perceptron was born. Since then, our understanding of the computational complexity of single neurons has dramatically expanded, so biological neurons are known to be more complex than artificial ones. But by how much? To find out, David Beniaguev, Idan Segev and Michael London, all at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, trained an artificial deep neural network to mimic the computations of a simulated biological neuron. They showed that a deep neural network requires between five and eight layers of interconnected "neurons" to represent the complexity of one single biological neuron. Even the authors did not anticipate such complexity. "I thought it would be simpler and smaller," said Beniaguev. He expected that three or four layers would be enough to capture the computations performed within the cell. Timothy Lillicrap, who designs decision-making algorithms at the Google-owned AI company DeepMind, said the new result suggests that it might be necessary to rethink the old tradition of loosely comparing a neuron in the brain to a neuron in the context of machine learning. The paper's authors are now calling for changes in state-of-the-art deep network architecture in AI "to make it closer to how the brain works."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A computer using artificial intelligence can't be listed as an inventor on patents because only a human can be an inventor under U.S. law, a federal judge ruled in the first American decision that's part of a global debate over how to handle computer-created innovation. From a report: Federal law requires that an "individual" take an oath that he or she is the inventor on a patent application, and both the dictionary and legal definition of an individual is a natural person, ruled U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia. The Artificial Inventor Project, run by University of Surrey Law Professor Ryan Abbott, has launched a global effort to get a computer listed as an inventor. Abbott's team enlisted Imagination Engines founder Stephen Thaler to build a machine whose main purpose was to invent. Rulings in South Africa and Australia have favored his argument, though the Australian patent office is appealing the decision in that country. "We respectfully disagree with the judgment and plan to appeal it," Abbott said in an email. "We believe listing an AI as an inventor is consistent with both the language and purpose of the Patent Act. Brinkema cited cases in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's top patent court, rejected the idea of a corporation being an inventor.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

"GPT-3, generate a list of ideas for a play". TechRadar describes what resulted — an experimental production called AI performed last week the Young Vic theatre in London last week. TechRadar Pro attended on the second evening, during which director Jennifer Tang sifted through the rubble of the first performance to identify material worth carrying forward. She also enlisted her writers and performers to flesh out the world; by steering AI this way and that, they expanded upon the foundations inherited from the previous night.... [T]he question AI sought to answer was not necessarily "can AI write a play?", Tang explained, but rather "how can writers work alongside it?" When asked to produce ideas for a script, GPT-3 returned a varied selection of answers, but two in particular caught the attention of the team. The first was a repentance narrative about "a reversal of our current course towards chaos", the second an exploration of "the creation of human personality and memories" and how these concepts might manifest themselves in machines. Asked by the performers to devise scenes on these topics, GPT-3 created a cataclysmic event called The Great Collision, after which food became scarce and "beast men and women" roamed the land. One of the main protagonists in this dystopia was an AI that aspired to "break free of its programming and conditioning" and eliminate human beings, who it considered the source of all suffering. Heavy stuff. One of the most striking things about AI was that it exposed the capacity for artificial intelligence models to reflect human preoccupations and neuroses... From its training data, GPT-3 has clearly absorbed an understanding of the murderous AI trope too, demonstrating that our fears about AI could quite easily bleed into AI itself. The reflection of ourselves is imperfect, though, because the tone of GPT-3 scenes switches awkwardly from line to line and the dialogue can feel stunted and repetitious. The sensation is more like peering into a circus mirror. In the end the 30-minute play turned out to be "loosely-connected vignettes created by GPT-3, which constructed new scenes without a memory of its previous inventions. "Although individual scenes were full of color, when strung together they became an incoherent collage that highlighted the limitations of the AI models we have today."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.