Artificial Intelligence

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
The idea of robots taking our jobs is not radically new.
But artificial intelligence (AI) is now completely reorganising the global economy. Some estimates of productivity-driven economic growth conclude that AI will contribute approximately <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/the-global-economy-will-be-14-bigger-in-2030-because-of-ai/" target="_blank">$US16 trillion to the global economy by 2030</a>.
Unfortunately – compared to the European Union, Japan, United States and United Kingdom – Australia has been relatively late in turning to address the challenges of AI, and creating the right policies to deal with its many implications (good and bad).
For our economy to thrive, what we need now is the right mix of governance, regulation, civil society participation, industry support and business compliance – as well as the development and deepening of digital literacy throughout Australian communities.
So how can we make that happen? A <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/artificial-intelligence/" target="_blank">report launched today</a> is designed to help.
<h2>Euphoria versus cataclysm</h2>
New developments in AI are very different from previous forms of automation. Technologies today are mobile, situationally aware, adaptive and in real-time communication with other intelligent machines.
Machine learning has been especially important in speeding up the spread and efficacy of AI. Machine learning encompasses smart algorithms that improve their performance unsupervised, often through sorting and classifying big data sets. Applications include weather prediction, medical diagnostics and personalised marketing (such as ads through Facebook).
Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, said the AI revolution is “<a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/598250/shaping-the-future-of-the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab-founder-and-executive-chairman-world-economic-forum-with-nicholas-davis/9781984822611/" target="_blank">unlike anything humankind has experienced before</a>”.
The consequences of our increasingly automated global world involve a shattering of political orthodoxies. We have to be much more agile and prepared to change fast. Our policies and approaches should allow us to cope with the unexpected, unanticipated shifts coming from the digital revolution.
I have been pondering these massive global changes over the last nine months while working as a member of the Australian Council of Learned Academies Expert Working Group on Artificial Intelligence in Australia. The <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/artificial-intelligence/" target="_blank">ACOLA Report</a>, launched today in Canberra, considers the full spectrum of issues arising from AI.
One big challenge we faced was to distinguish between euphoric and cataclysmic visions of AI. Another big task was to chart the public policy “sea change” arising from AI. Neither challenge was easy to confront.
<h2>Leveraging AI for Australia</h2>
The ACOLA Report lays out how we can improve Australia’s economic, societal and environmental well-being while taking into account the ethical, legal and social issues linked with AI.
It highlights the importance of finding a balance between innovation and risk, and how we can weigh up the promise of unprecedented technological transformation of manufacturing, infrastructure and the economy on the one side, and the growing risks of technological unemployment and autonomous weapons (“<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-its-so-hard-to-reach-an-international-agreement-on-killer-robots-102637" target="_blank">killer robots</a>”) on the other.
The plan outlined in the report focuses on education, business operations, governance and regulation, social implications, research and skills.
In terms of education, for example, increased automation of routine tasks means people will be freed up in the workplace. This means there’s likely to be an increased demand for employees with strong interpersonal skills and critical thinking.
The social sciences, humanities and creative arts have a big role to play in promoting ethical AI. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are vital in advancing the next generation of AI researchers.
AI will demand new skills and capabilities, and adaptability, in our workforce. Micro-credentialing (a form of education in which “mini-degrees” are achieved in specific subject areas) is likely to become useful for certifying basic education and digital literacy in AI.
Schools, the vocational education and training (VET) sector and universities should encourage broad-based training and lifelong learning in AI development.
The ACOLA report also addresses the need for new policy relating to data harvesting and invasions of privacy (for example, involving tech giants Facebook and Google) and geopolitical concerns, especially where the spread of fake news has been powerfully weaponised by Russia and other countries.
Everything to play for
Getting the balance right between opportunity and risk arising from the AI revolution will be essential to the future fabric of Australia. However the ACOLA report is only the start of the process of public engagement – much more needs to be done.
What is now urgently needed, I think, is a national summit on AI – involving politicians, policymakers, business leaders and industry representatives and people from the broader community. This can help us consider how Australia might best fashion a common framework for the ethical development of AI, both in our country and internationally.
Australia has come to this global policy debate somewhat later than some, but in terms of the AI revolution there’s everything still to play for.
The arguments developed in this article are the author’s own views, and not representative of ACOLA or the panel that contributed to the horizon scanning report on AI.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113744/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anthony-elliott-92578" target="_blank">Anthony Elliott</a>, Dean of External Engagement and Executive Director of the Hawke EU Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180" target="_blank">University of South Australia</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-australia-can-make-ai-work-for-our-economy-and-for-our-people-113744" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

How Australia can make AI work for our economy, and for our people

<html><body>
The John Singleton Group has invested in technology start-up Property Realm’s real estate trust accounting software, Concierge.
Concierge, which looks set to shake up the property management sector in Australia, combines artificial intelligence (AI) with voice recognition.
The technology utilises platforms such as Google Assistant, Google Home, Google Mini, SMS, standard email systems and Facebook Messenger to provide tenants with full access to their tenancy details.
Tenants can access all the information they need in a self-service environment at any time 24/7.
Paul Anderson, Executive Chairman of Bonython, the arm of the John Signleton Group investing in the product, described Concierge as “the future of communications between tenant, landlord and property manager, but ultimately it will become the platform for any interaction with customers who want self-service 24/7 when it suits them given the system’s flexibility and adaptability to any situation.”
Mr Anderson added, “We are also proud to support a technology conceived, tested, and delivered from the Central Coast of NSW, and yet again showcases the regions ability to create fantastic business opportunities.” he added.
Property Realm has invested heavily in this new technology that integrates voice recognition through Google with a real estate agent’s trust account, according to Patrick Hill, CEO of Realm Property, the developer of Concierge.
He said, “we have combined this integration with AI so that tenants can communicate directly with a real estate agent’s trust account."
“Through this technology, tenants can ask about when their rent is due, the timing of next inspection, or they can even pay their rent using Google Pay.”
In Australia, the average rent roll is 280-320 properties, with some of the more significant property managers overseeing as many as 11,000 managements. On average across Australia, tenants make 3.4 calls to their property manager per month. Realm estimates that 80-90% of these calls can be answered by Concierge using technology already owned and used by the tenant.
Property Realm is in discussions with a number of residential real estate networks regarding Australia-wide rollouts for Concierge.
They are also partnering with major trust account management software providers such as Rockend, Property Tree, and Property Me.
An existing client of Property Realm, Brett Hunter, Director of Raine &amp; Horne Terrigal, says Concierge enables property managers to secure quality tenants and give them more access to their information.
“Our landlords enjoy Concierge because it not only helps them secure quality, long-term tenants but helps educate tenants about their rights and provides access to their payment information.”
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

John Singleton Group investing in Concierge, AI property management

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Project managers are expected to effectively manage large and complex projects or programmes, but it is widely recognised that these large-scale projects are not always delivered as planned.
In liaison with the client, project managers commit to delivering the defined scope, within a forecast time and to a designated budget.
Despite the unavoidable optimism bias of project managers, in which we hear “not my projects, my projects are different”, the statistics around project delivery tell us majority of projects face budget overruns and delays. Nine out of 10 projects go over budget, with time overruns also being a major issue. It is true that some projects are delivered successfully, although the odds are not in favour of large-scale projects.
How do other industries get it right?
In other industries, such as the medical field, consistent developments and advances are made to its technology, and due to these advancements, medical outcomes are vastly improved as time goes on. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for project delivery. Statistically we are just not getting much better, and that means that what we as projects managers have been doing up until now is not working effectively enough.
When surgeons prepare for a surgery there are fundamentals to be undertaken, such as effective testing, accurate diagnoses, precise anaesthetic, high levels of cleanliness and controlled recovery. The meticulous steps are taken so that innovative medical interventions can be made safely and effectively.
The project management industry needs to raise the bar
Current project management systems lack the big innovative methods that make a stepped difference. It seems project management has become static, and we need to move beyond the focus on more methodologies, more systems, more detail, more reporting and essentially, more work. The world is on the verge of a massive technological and social shift due to advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, increased connectivity, big data and the like. These changes provide project management, and professional service industries in general, with huge opportunity but also major risk.
Those who don’t move with technology will be left behind
Our profession must reposition its thinking and to step away from the heavy investment project management has in the status quo. We are going to have to experiment, and unfortunately we are not afforded the benefits of lab mice the way that medical scientists are. 
Socio-technical change is upon us and our profession must maintain but move beyond the past paradigm of disciplined project planning, management and reporting that has long been the dominant underlying philosophy.
Endeavour Programme is implementing technology advancements
<a href="https://www.endeavourprogramme.com/">Endeavour Programme</a> is applying artificial intelligence, data analytics and related technologies to assist project managers in delivering projects effectively and efficiently.
Alongside senior academics from the University of Oxford, Endeavour Programme has developed Octant AI, which uses machine learning and advanced data analytics to change the way projects respond to emergent risks and opportunities. It is the solution to human limitations and can dynamically predict critical factors and find better ways to avoid problems and manage issues. It delivers insights earlier, faster and more accurately than has ever been possible, so that project managers, owners, deliverers and financiers can make the right decision at the right time.
Endeavour Programme continues to partner with global firms to implement more effective and efficient project management practices.
DAVID PORTER is the founder and managing director of <a href="https://www.endeavourprogramme.com/" target="_blank">Endeavour Programme</a>
</body></html>

Future management of large-scale projects: David Porter

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Globally, road crashes <a href="https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sgsm15005.doc.htm" target="_blank">kill 1.3 million people a year</a> and injure nearly 50 million more. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have been identified as a potential solution to this issue if they can learn to identify and avoid situations leading to crashes.
Unlike human drivers, these vehicles won’t get tired, drive drunk, look at their phone, or speed. What’s more, AVs will reduce congestion and pollution, increase access to public transport, be cheaper, improve mobility for people with disabilities, and make transport fun again. Right?
Well, <a href="https://infrastructure.gov.au/transport/automatedvehicles/files/automated-vehicles-brochure.pdf" target="_blank">that’s what the brochure says</a>.
Rightly or wrongly, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/autonomous-car-tech-investment-skyrockets-on-softbank-deals" target="_blank">billions of dollars</a> are being poured into autonomous vehicle research and development to pursue this autopia. However, barely any resource or thought is being given to the question of how humans will ultimately respond to the AV fleet. In a city full of autonomous cars, how might our behaviour and use of city streets change?
In one scenario, people could act on the knowledge that these vehicles will stop any time someone chooses to step in front of them, bringing traffic to a halt.
Humans (and animals) will adapt
O⁠n⁠e⁠ ⁠o⁠f⁠ ⁠h⁠u⁠m⁠a⁠n⁠s'⁠ ⁠g⁠r⁠e⁠a⁠t⁠ ⁠s⁠t⁠r⁠e⁠n⁠g⁠t⁠h⁠s⁠⁠ is our⁠ ⁠a⁠d⁠a⁠p⁠t⁠a⁠bility⁠. We quickly ⁠⁠l⁠e⁠a⁠r⁠n⁠ ⁠t⁠o⁠ ⁠m⁠a⁠n⁠i⁠p⁠u⁠l⁠a⁠t⁠e⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠d⁠ ⁠e⁠x⁠p⁠l⁠o⁠i⁠t⁠ ⁠o⁠u⁠r⁠ ⁠e⁠n⁠v⁠i⁠r⁠o⁠n⁠m⁠e⁠n⁠t⁠.⁠ A future road environment saturated with autonomous vehicles will be no different.
⁠F⁠o⁠r ⁠e⁠x⁠a⁠m⁠p⁠l⁠e⁠, think about why you don’t walk out in front of traffic or drive through stop signs. Because other cars could injure or hurt you, right?⁠ ⁠
But autonomous vehicles promise something new. They are being designed to “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRIn4-5TmUM" target="_blank">act flawlessly</a>”.
There are two elements to this: the first is not making mistakes, and the second is compensating for the occasional errors and misjudgements that fallible humans make. Autonomous vehicles promise alignment with Asimov’s First Law of Robotics: "A robot may not injure a human."
Now imagine crossing a road or highway in a city saturated by autonomous cars where the threat of being run over disappears. You⁠ ⁠<a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24076-birds-are-aware-of-speed-limits-on-roads/" target="_blank">(⁠o⁠r⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠y⁠ ⁠o⁠t⁠h⁠e⁠r⁠ ⁠mildly i⁠n⁠t⁠e⁠l⁠l⁠i⁠g⁠e⁠n⁠t⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠i⁠m⁠a⁠l⁠)</a>⁠ might quickly learn that ⁠⁠oncoming traffic <a href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=2&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwjWi__RncXhAhXoiVQKHV8DCZIQwqsBMAF6BAgHEAc&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpjQt2lEZIXg&amp;usg=AOvVaw2Sfosz-BND_3X573Ne7IEM" target="_blank">poses no threat at all</a>. Replicated thousands of times across a dense inner city, this could produce gridlock among safety-conscious autonomous vehicles, but virtual freedom of movement for humans – maybe even heralding a return to pedestrian rights of yesteryear.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268560/original/file-20190410-2924-pg0xju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268560/original/file-20190410-2924-pg0xju.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Could an autonomous vehicle future return the streets to humans, as seen here in early 20th-century Melbourne outside Flinders Street Station? University of Melbourne Architecture, Building &amp; Planning Glass Slides Collection
A simple example of how this might happen comes from game theory. Take two scenarios at an intersection where pedestrians and vehicles negotiate priority to cross first. Each receives known “pay-offs” for behaviour in the context of the other’s action. The higher the comparative pay-off for either party, the more likely the action.
In the left-hand scenario below, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium" target="_blank">Nash equilibrium</a> (the optimum combined action of both parties) exists in the lower left quadrant where the pedestrian has a small incentive to “stay” to avoid being injured by the manually driven car, and the driver has a strong incentive to “go”.
However, in the scenario on the right, the autonomous vehicles has a desire to act flawlessly and pose no threat to the pedestrian at all. While this might be great for safety, the pedestrian can now adopt a strategy of “go” at all times, forcing the AV to stay put.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268555/original/file-20190410-2931-gru7no.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268555/original/file-20190410-2931-gru7no.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
A simple ‘normal game’ comparison of pedestrians versus manually operated and autonomous cars negotiating intersections. Author provided
Can this potential problem be overcome?
One solution might be to ⁠p⁠r⁠o⁠g⁠r⁠a⁠m⁠ ⁠⁠a⁠l⁠g⁠o⁠r⁠i⁠t⁠h⁠m⁠s⁠ into vehicles ⁠t⁠h⁠a⁠t⁠ make them ⁠o⁠c⁠c⁠a⁠s⁠i⁠o⁠n⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠,⁠ ⁠p⁠u⁠r⁠p⁠o⁠s⁠e⁠f⁠u⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠,⁠ ⁠r⁠u⁠n into⁠ ⁠people, animals or other <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/22/18511527/elon-musk-tesla-aggressive-autopilot-mode-fender-bender" target="_blank">vehicles</a>⁠⁠. Although this would maintain a level of fear and caution in the population, l⁠e⁠g⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠ ⁠a⁠n⁠d⁠ ⁠m⁠o⁠r⁠a⁠l⁠l⁠y⁠⁠ ⁠it is hard to see how this would be ⁠a⁠c⁠c⁠e⁠p⁠t⁠a⁠b⁠l⁠e⁠.
Another option could be infrastructure separating autonomous vehicles from vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists. But the cost and reduction in amenity this would create would be enormous. Further, this type of solution <a href="https://www.towardszero.vic.gov.au/news/articles/flexible-barriers-how-they-work-and-the-cheese-cutter-myth" target="_blank">could be applied now</a>, negating much of the need for AV software and technology development in the first place.
A final, duplicitous idea is to simply turn off the safety systems that cause so-called “erratic vehicle behaviour” (i.e., slowing down to avoid hitting people). This is reported to have occurred when a <a href="https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HWY18MH010-prelim.pdf" target="_blank">self-driving Uber struck and killed a pedestrian in Arizona last year</a>. However, if this is the solution, you then have to ask, “What is the transport problem autonomous vehicles are actually trying to solve?”
It won’t happen overnight
In the scenarios above most of the fleet are autonomous vehicles, and humans adapt to their consistently safe behaviour. However, the <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/future-of-transportation-self-driving-cars-reality-check/" target="_blank">complete transition</a> to autonomous vehicles <a href="http://www.infrastructurevictoria.com.au/AVadvice" target="_blank">will not occur overnight</a> and might create new crash situations that are, so far, poorly understood.
For example, we are developing simulations of interactions between vulnerable road users and a mixed fleet of autonomous vehicles and human-driven cars. These models show how inconsistencies between the behaviour of manual and autonomous vehicle types could even lead to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/Agent_Jase/status/1116179718967939072" target="_blank">more crashes during the transition</a>.
The future for AVs under threat
As AV technology rolls on, and the marketing hype surrounding them continues to draw attention <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/12/ubers-self-driving-car-unit-was-burning-20-million-a-month/">and burn up investment dollars</a>, it should be remembered that humans and animals are still going to behave how we always have by continually adapting and exploiting weaknesses in our environment.
Part of the promise of autonomous vehicles is their proposed safety through deference to human life. But, if the point of transport systems is to enable efficient movement of people and goods for the benefit of society, this strength of AVs might prove to be their ultimate weakness as a viable mass transport mode.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114504/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Jason Thompson, Senior Research Fellow, Transport, Health and Urban Design (THUD) Research Hub, University of Melbourne
Gemma Read, Senior Research Fellow in Human Factors &amp; Sociotechnical Systems, University of the Sunshine Coast
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/nothing-to-fear-how-humans-and-other-intelligent-animals-might-ruin-the-autonomous-vehicle-utopia-114504" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

How humans (and other intelligent animals) might ruin the autonomous vehicle utopia

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Over the next decade up to 40% of jobs could be replaced by automation. That’s according to a forecast from the <a href="https://www.ceda.com.au/News-and-analysis/Media-releases/More-than-five-million-Aussie-jobs-gone-in-10-to-15-years" target="_blank">Committee for the Economic Development of Australia</a>.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268519/original/file-20190410-2909-q5sxmn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268519/original/file-20190410-2909-q5sxmn.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Risk of job automation by country. In New Zealand, for instance, the median worker has 39% chance of their job being automated. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Paper No. 202
Other estimates are less dire. A report from the <a href="https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/employment/automation-skills-use-and-training_2e2f4eea-en" target="_blank">Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development</a> says only 14% of jobs across its member nations are “highly automatable”, though another 32% are likely to change significantly.
Despite this <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610005/every-study-we-could-find-on-what-automation-will-do-to-jobs-in-one-chart/" target="_blank">uncertainty about the exact number</a> of human jobs that will disappear, it is certain the impacts of automation driven by artificial intelligence (AI) are potentially profound.
If the new jobs that emerge as a result are fewer and less rewarding than those lost, we face a period of social dislocation.
Yet there is little evidence of any strategic planning and forward thinking by Australia’s federal and state governments to minimise the potential downside. The recent federal budget, for example, was silent on this issue.
It is analogous to the lack of a strategic plan on climate change.
Our concern about the policy vacuum is based on an extensive search on government websites, the media and budget speeches, which disturbingly yielded very little.
We think AI should be an election issue, because there is virtually no <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/artificial-intelligence-automation-jobs-of-the-future/8786962" target="_blank">job</a> that won’t be affected by AI-driven automation. Being ready for this technological and social revolution should be at the heart of any government’s economic and educational reform agenda.
Workers that never rest
The activities at which AI is <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08807.pdf" target="_blank">expected to outperform</a> humans by 2030 include translating languages, writing high-school essays and driving trucks. By mid-century it is expected AI could be capable of writing a bestselling books or performing surgery.
<a href="https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf" target="_blank">Researchers believe</a> there is a 50% chance AI will outperform humans in all tasks in 45 years and that almost all current human jobs can be automated in 120 years.
 
The World Economic Forum may argue that AI and automation “<a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-is-about-people-not-just-machines" target="_blank">is about empowering people, not the rise of the machines</a>” but there are good reasons to think some people will lose out.
Machines have many attractions to employers. They do not need rest, holidays or take sick leave. They will never complain about overtime or join a union.
A <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/australias-automation-opportunity-reigniting-productivity-and-inclusive-income-growth" target="_blank">report published last month</a> by management consultancy McKinsey Australia suggests, if proactive measures are not taken, the unemployment rate could increase by 2.5 percentage points, based on up to 46% of jobs being automated by 2030.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268511/original/file-20190410-2924-1qp6zpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268511/original/file-20190410-2924-1qp6zpw.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The industries likely to experience the greatest disruption are retail, administration and government, health and social assistance, construction, manufacturing, and accommodation and food services. Australia Statistics, McKinsey Global Institute (MGI), ONED, BLS, Oxford Economics
<hr>
Inequality will also increase, the report says. To what extent depends on “how much Australia steps up its efforts to retrain and redeploy its surplus service, administrative and manual workers”. Without large-scale retraining, Australia’s Gini coefficient (the standard measure of income inequality) could increase from 0.32 to 0.41.
Questions for policymakers
The stakes are high. Employment is so much more than just an income. A decent job provides <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137437853_1" target="_blank">purpose and dignity</a>. It enables security, health and well-being. Joblessness hurts the individual, families and the wider community. If fewer people have work, and more people get paid less, the federal government will have to contend with falling income-tax revenue and rising welfare spending.
With intensifying global competition and rapid technological change, all governments need to be strategic. They need long-term policies to help business and workers gain the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to seize the opportunities and mitigate the threats.
There are three key questions for policy makers:
<ul>
<li>
To what extent will AI-driven automation increase unemployment and underemployment?
</li>
<li>
How can governments and employers take advantage of AI and create the jobs of the future?
</li>
<li>
How can government, employers and educators equip employees and graduates with the skills to have jobs alongside robots, instead of competing with them?
</li>
</ul>
The growth in AI and machine learning need not pose a threat to jobs and our standard of living, but without a strategic and shared effort, we will repeat the mistakes of previous technological revolutions, which imposed a terrible price on some in the name of progress.
<hr>
The authors of this article are working towards a book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Implications for Managers in the Asia Pacific, due to be published in September. It will include chapters from colleagues in Taiwan, China, India, Mauritius, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. For the Australian chapter we need more information from leaders and managers in industry about the impact of AI and the preparation and planning that is, or is not, occurring. We invite you to complete a short survey as part of this study. You can do so confidentially <a href="https://rmit.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_2ab546uXrDaSARf" target="_blank">here</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103764/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Alan Montague, Senior Lecturer/Program Director, masters program in human resources management, RMIT University
Alan Nankervis, Adjunct Professor of Management, RMIT University
John Burgess, Professor of Human Resource Management, RMIT University
Nuttawuth Muenjohn, Senior Lecturer, Business, RMIT University
Ros Cameron, Head of Discipline, Human Resources Management, Australian Institute of Business
Timothy Bartram, Professor, Management, RMIT University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-may-take-your-job-so-political-leaders-need-to-start-doing-theirs-103764">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Artificial intelligence may take your job, so political leaders need to start doing theirs

<html><body>
Undeterred by its recent tech startup failures, LJ Hooker has announced the release of a tailored new tech platform that promises to lead the digital transformation of the real estate industry.
LJ Hooker chairman L Janusz Hooker said that, for clients, the propriety-built artificial intelligence platform enables a more transparent buying and selling process, maximising customer satisfaction.
He said that, for agents, the platform offers better efficiency and mobile capability, automating the hundreds of steps involved from appraisal to settlement.
Mr Hooker said that the technology is implemented first in LJ Hooker Avnu, before being expanded across the entire franchise network.
“Advancements in technology have now enabled us to build our platform,” he said.
“In particular, the commoditisation of AI and machine learning, spread of cloud computing and access to open source frameworks, and our ability to recruit top engineers with international experience building the tech infrastructure for the likes of Google, LinkedIn and Twitter.
“The modern-day consumer demands the products and services they consume be delivered in real time.
"It’s the right time for Australia’s largest asset class real estate, valued at $7.5 trillion, to deliver on that level of service,” he told an industry website, REB.
Meanwhile The Australian Financial Review has reported today that "several months of inactivity" had led to questions about the viability of the Avnu model, and its cost impact on LJ Hooker.
Hooker responded saying an Avnu office would only be opened in areas where an LJ Hooker franchise didn't already have a presence.
The first Avnu store in Neutral Bay replaced the terminated LJ Hooker Mosman franchise when its former principals moved to Ray White in 2017.
"It's a big investment to make, but we see a big return coming out of it, " Mr Hooker said.
Traditional agents spend approximately 30 percent of their time listing and selling, 30 percent on lead generation and 40 percent on administration tasks.
It is hoped the technology at LJ Hooker Avnu consolidates administration to just 15 percent.
<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/news/97354-ljh-avnu-ceo-chucks-in-job-to-become-domain-s-chief-customer-officer" target="_blank">Avnu lost its CEO Jason Chuck this week</a> in an unexpected disruption to the business rollout.
LJ Hooker's think-tank LJX-Lab previously developed an online and offline real estate agency model to work in partnership with the LJ Hooker business.
Named Settl, it was led by a start-up team staffed with people from Uber, Atlassian, Freelancer and Airtasker, but failed to succeed despite having been in development for 18 months.
LJX-Lab had been hoped to be in a unique position to develop and launch technology for the real estate industry.
LJ Hooker committed $100 million to establish a real estate startup incubator, with LJX-Lab's first development Real Edge, a digital learning and coaching platform that delivers LJ Hooker's training programs online.
 LJX-Lab had assembled an advisory board of business leaders, including:
<ul>
<li>Freelancer.com CEO, Matt Barrie (Sydney);</li>
<li>MD CSIRO Innovation Fund and &amp; Founder of Black Bird Ventures, Bill Bartee (Sydney);</li>
<li>Co-Founder and Principal of RFR Holding, Michael Fuchs (New York);</li>
<li>Director of Zoopla.com and former CEO of Countrywide Real Estate Group, Grenville Turner (London).</li>
</ul>
</body></html>

LJ Hooker to pioneer artificial intelligence tech platform

<html><body>
National Australia Bank's digital bank UBank will launch Mia (pictured) (short for My Interactive Agent) in what it says is the world's first digital human in the home loan space.
It comes after partnering with a New Zealand tech company to create an artificially intelligent assistant to help in customer applications.
Partnering with FaceMe, a company known for their AI-powered digital humans, home loan borrowers will go face-to-face with Mia and have the ability to interact each step of the way.
UBank aren’t removing their live chat service, simply complementing it with the robot.
Mia will be in action later this month on the UBank website.
FaceMe uses IBM Cloud and Watson, to help create the digital humans who can see, hear, talk with and remember customers.
<div>
<div id="gpt-ad-interscroller-349006" class="gpt-ad" data-gpt-ad-unit-path="/8456/IDG.AU_B2B_CIO.com.au/industries_section" data-gpt-size-mapping="[[[0, 0], [[3, 3]]]]" data-gpt-sizes="[[3, 3]]" data-gpt-targeting='{"node": ["657542"], "idgau_tax": ["news"], "country": ["AU"], "site": ["cio"], "kw": ["service", "mobility", "mobile", "device", "data", "cloud"], "sect": ["industries", "finance_banking_insurance"], "idgau_search_referrer": ["no"], "type": ["article"]}' data-google-query-id="CIu_4ty1suACFcINaAodJ3wBmQ">The platform will be multi-modal and takes input from computer vision, speech and text.</div>
</div>
Using supervised AI training, the digital human is able to combine natural language, understanding with situational awareness, to create an appropriate response.
This is then delivered as synthesised speech and expression by the FaceMe-created UBank digital avatar ‘Mia’.  She can also use fun gifs and animations during her chats.
The assistant was created in partnership with FaceMe, which recently secured US$10 million Series A capital funding after attracting a series of investors from Australia and New Zealand.
The project to create Mia, took about four months.
“Our vision is to enable companies like UBank to create more meaningful and valuable experiences for their customers," FaceMe CEO, Danny Tomsett, said.
"Mia offers an emotionally connected experience for servicing customers making an exciting and important life decision."
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

UBank to trial artificially intelligent home loan assistant, Mia

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
A painting generated by artificial intelligence will go up for <a href="https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx" target="_blank">sale at auction later this month</a> – raising again the question of whether a machine can be creative.
The painting, called <a href="http://obvious-art.com/edmond-de-belamy" target="_blank">Edmond De Belamy</a>, is estimated to be worth between 7,000€ and 10,000€ (A$11,375-A$16,250).
The auction house Christie’s <a href="https://www.christies.com/features/A-collaboration-between-two-artists-one-human-one-a-machine-9332-1.aspx" target="_blank">says the painting</a> is the product of a Generative Adversarial Network, in which one artificial neural network (the so-called Generator) creates an image based on its analysis of a database of 15,000 paintings by real people.
Another network (the Discriminator) then compares the new artwork to human-made paintings. If the Discriminator cannot tell the difference, the computer-generated image has passed the test.
But isn’t art the highest expression of what it means to be human? How could machines possibly emulate truly creative practices, which are often regarded as the pinnacle of human achievement?
What is creativity?
Ultimately, the nature of creativity – and whether machines will ever be genuinely creative – is a deeply philosophical question that rests to a large degree on where we look for creativity.
If we locate creativity in the actual artwork, it is hard to deny that machines are capable of being creative.
<a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/276" target="_blank">Margaret Boden</a> is a pioneer in the field of AI and computational creativity. In her 2016 book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ai-9780198777984" target="_blank">AI: Its nature and future</a> she defines creativity as: "…the ability to produce ideas or artefacts that are new, surprising, and valuable."
She then distinguishes three different types of creativity: combinational, exploratory, and transformational.
Types of creativity
Combinational creativity combines familiar ideas in new ways. A good example is the AI artist <a href="http://www.cloudpainter.com/" target="_blank">Pindar van Arman</a>, who trained his robots to paint portraits, including self-portraits. In <a href="https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/creativity-is-probably-just-a-complex-mix-of-generative-art-algorithms-6d37a0087e86" target="_blank">his view</a>, artistic creativity: "…is little more than a complex mix of competing generative algorithms."
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qrAnJHKjoh0?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Exploratory creativity, argues Boden, exploits some “culturally valued way of thinking” (styles, genres, and so on) and generates new work within these parameters.
For instance, <a href="https://www.nextrembrandt.com/" target="_blank">The Next Rembrandt</a>, a campaign by the Dutch bank ING, used feature-extraction algorithms to identify all the stylistic elements that characterise Rembrandt’s work. It then used this dataset to create a new portrait in the unique style of the famous Dutch painter.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IuygOYZ1Ngo?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Transformational creativity does not just explore a given genre, but goes beyond it. It drops, negates or complements existing styles to such an extent that new artistic conventions might be developed in the process.
This form of creativity can be achieved by so-called evolutionary algorithms that can transform themselves and evaluate their “ideas” based upon criteria provided by the programmer.
The advertising agency M&amp;C Saatchi used these algorithms to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/jul/27/artificial-intelligence-future-advertising-saatchi-clearchannel" target="_blank">create an outdoor poster for a fictional coffee brand</a> that “evolved” based on the level of “engagement” it elicited from consumers.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JfpuqfqC-ts?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
Equipped with facial recognition technology and connected to the internet, the algorithm determined which features of the ad – colours, typography, copy, layout – were successful and worth being replicated in further “generations”.
So it can be said that machines have successfully conquered all of the conceptual domains of creativity.
The artist’s intention
If we locate creativity not in the actual artwork but in the mind of the artist, two key objections are commonly made:
<ul>
<li>
The actual creative act does not reside in the output generated by the machine, but in its initial programming. Therefore, it is still fundamentally human ingenuity that drives the creative process.
</li>
<li>
The art generated by AI is not creative, because it is unintentional.
</li>
</ul>
Given recent advances in the creation of deep neural networks and learning algorithms, the first objection is increasingly hard to defend.
When Google/Deep Mind’s <a href="https://deepmind.com/research/alphago/">AlphaGo</a> <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-15/google-ai-alphago-gets-divine-go-ranking/7249256" target="_blank">beat the highest-ranked human player</a> of the ancient Chinese board game in 2016, some of its moves had never been played before by humans and were described as “<a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/03/googles-ai-wins-pivotal-game-two-match-go-grandmaster/" target="_blank">creative</a>”.
Importantly, AlphaGo does not follow pre-programmed rules. It uses general machine learning techniques to figure out for itself how to succeed at the game. It would therefore only be fair to attribute creativity to both the human programmers and the machine.
The second objection is more difficult to dismiss. We hardly ever appreciate creative artefacts based solely on their immediate appearance and the responses they evoke.
As <a href="https://www2.bc.edu/ellen-winner/publications" target="_blank">Ellen Winner</a>, a professor of psychology at Boston College, argues in her upcoming book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/how-art-works-9780190863357" target="_blank">How Art Works</a>, the notion of an unmediated experience of art is most likely a myth.
The value we ascribe to art is deeply influenced by multiple forces – an important one being what we think the artist’s intentions were when creating the work.
Just look at debate over the value of the Banksy artwork Girl With Balloon that went to auction. Some argue its <a href="https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true-stories/banksys-selfdestructing-art-more-valuable-shredded/news-story/92628b40006a41c3784dc596b8ffb056" target="_blank">value has increased</a> after the artist <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BomXijJhArX/" target="_blank">deliberately part-shredded the artwork</a>.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iiO_1XRnMt4?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
The artwork, now renamed Love Is in the Bin, was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2018/oct/11/woman-who-bought-shredded-banksy-artwork-will-go-through-with-sale" target="_blank">described by Sotheby’s Alex Branczik</a> as: "…the first artwork in history to have been created live during an auction."
Seen from this perspective, we will accept machines as being genuinely creative only when they attain a sense of self and the capability to explain why they did what they did.
Disrupting the creative economy
But machines don’t need to be genuinely creative to have an impact on jobs and industries. According to a <a href="https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/will-ai-exceed-human-performance-evidence-ai-experts/" target="_blank">large survey of machine learning experts</a> in 2015, AI is predicted to be able to write high school essays by 2026, generate a top 40 pop song by 2027, and write a bestselling book by 2049.
These experts also expected AI to beat humans at Go in 2027 – a feat AlphaGo accomplished in 2016. Do we need to worry then? Are machines going take over both the mundane tasks and the creative jobs?
While they will definitely displace humans when it comes to routine creative activities, a <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-organizations-and-work/jobs-lost-jobs-gained-what-the-future-of-work-will-mean-for-jobs-skills-and-wages" target="_blank">study by McKinsey</a> expects that overall jobs in the creative economy will increase.
But job profiles will most certainly change, and established value chains in the creative economy <a href="https://www.weforum.org/whitepapers/creative-disruption-the-impact-of-emerging-technologies-on-the-creative-economy" target="_blank">will be disrupted</a>. For instance, machines already <a href="https://futurism.com/a-new-ai-can-write-music-as-well-as-a-human-composer" target="_blank">compose high-quality music</a> or <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609482/ai-is-dreaming-up-new-kinds-of-video-games/" target="_blank">imagine new video games</a> from scratch.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lROo4norCG0?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" frameborder="0" width="440" height="260"></iframe>
How exactly these advances in machine creativity will affect the creative industries – and what economic, social and ethical consequences this entails – is an issue deserving much more attention than it receives at the moment.
But none of this will matter when the portrait of Edmond De Belamy comes up for auction. What matters then is only how much appetite bidders have for AI-generated art – keeping in mind that there might be much more of it in the future.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103424/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240732/original/file-20181016-165885-ymrpfu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240732/original/file-20181016-165885-ymrpfu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Portrait of Edmond Belamy, 2018, created by GAN (Generative Adversarial Network). Obvious
Sven Brodmerkel, Assistant Professor for Integrated Marketing Communications, Bond University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/under-the-hammer-artwork-by-an-algorithm-is-up-for-auction-so-does-that-mean-ai-is-now-creative-103424" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Artwork by an algorithm is up for auction, so does that mean AI is now creative?

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
What is it about AI that unnerves us? 
Here’s a question: do you consider yourself to be a trusting person? Or let me put it another way: would you put your life in the hands of a total stranger?
You do. Hundreds if not thousands of times, every day. Take me, for example.
This morning I woke up. I switched on the light – trusting that I wouldn’t be electrocuted by a faulty lamp, or cord, or socket. I prepared my breakfast – trusting that I wouldn’t be poisoned by salmonella in my factory-processed muesli.
I walked from my hotel across Elizabeth Street in peak hour. Hundreds of cars bearing down on me. Sydney drivers. And nothing to protect me except a red light and a white line.
All of these decisions make sense to us, because we know that we live in a society where human behaviour is governed by conventions and rules.
That capacity to trust in unknown humans, not because of a belief in our innate goodness, but because of the systems that we humans have made, is the true genius of our species.
We can collaborate, and innovate – because we can trust.
Now let’s replace a fellow human in these day to day interactions with artificial intelligence: AI. What would it take for you to put the same level of trust in AI as you would extend to a human?
To chat with your child? To drive your taxi? To read your brain scan? To scan your face at a concert, at work, or in a supermarket?
What’s different about AI
What is it about AI that unnerves us? I suspect it’s a combination of two things.
First, we lack information. The knowledge seems concentrated in a small community of experts. Perhaps 22,000 worldwide are qualified to the level of a PhD in AI. People with rare skills in high demand come at an eye-watering price. That makes them very hard to keep in universities and public agencies.
It’s not unknown for technology developers to buy up IT faculties. And whether these experts work in industry, or the public sector, or universities, there are often commercial or security reasons to keep quiet about their activities.
Consider Google. In footage beamed around the world last week, Google debuted an AI that makes phone calls on your behalf, in a human voice, and chats with the human who answers.
Now for 68 years the world has been waiting for an AI that could fool us into thinking it was human. We call it the Turing Test, named after the scientist who proposed it in 1950, Alan Turing.
He began with the question “can machines think?” Since we can’t agree on a single test for “thinking”, he replaced it with a thought experiment he called the “imitation game”: can we build a machine that would pass as human, to humans, if we couldn’t see it, and judged it by its words?
Watching Google’s AI book a haircut and a table at a restaurant, some observers say the Turing test was met. And as a result, your world has changed - because every phone call you make or receive now carries a niggling doubt. That could be a machine.
Hand in hand with our lack of knowledge is our lack of foreknowledge. We give up our data today without knowing what others might be able to do with it tomorrow.
When you uploaded your photos to Facebook, did you expect that Facebook would be able to scan them, name all the people, identify your tastes in food and clothing and hobbies, diagnose certain genetic disorders, like Down Syndrome, decide on your personality type, and package all that information for advertisers?
Probably not. But we can’t unpick our choices.
Responses to artificial intelligence
One response to these questions would be to conclude that the only safe way forward is to ban AI. That would be a tragic mistake for Australia.
It wouldn’t halt progress, because I find it difficult to believe that China and France and the United Kingdom and the United States and every other nation that has staked its future on AI would now step back from the race. Why would they, when they see that for all the risks, the future has infinite promise?
Healthcare, available to all, tailored precisely to the individual. Your personal chauffer, a privilege previously only available to the super wealthy. An AI assistant for each of us, to manage our appointments and remind us of the things we would doubtless forget.
We want those benefits in Australia.
A ban would simply discourage research and development in the places where we most want to see it: reputable institutions, like CSIRO’s Data61, and our universities. Of course, the fastest way to end up with a total ban is to allow a free-for-all. A free-for-all that allows unscrupulous and unthinking and just plain incompetent people to do their worst.
No: we want rules that allow us to trust AI, just as they allow us to trust our fellow humans. So my question again: what would it take for you to extend your trust?
Think back to the web of rules that protect us every time we walk across a pedestrian crossing.
We could think of that web of rules as a spectrum. On the extreme left, we have light touch rules: manners and customs. As we move to the right, the rules become more binding.
There are industry codes, standards and regulations. Further along, the criminal law. To the extreme right, international prohibitions against chemical and biological weapons.
Different human behaviours are regulated at different points, depending on their capacity for harm.
The challenge is to develop a similar spectrum for AI, not expecting a single solution, but instead an evolving web.
At the left-hand, light-touch end, consumer expectations for things like digital assistants.
At the other extreme, global governance for weapons of war: military devices that can select and kill their targets without a human in the loop.
I’ll leave that particular discussion on weapons to another occasion.
Instead, I’ve been thinking about the role that Australia could play at the left-hand end of the spectrum, where we interact with technology providers as everyday consumers.
We would expect a government department to vet the provider of a service that, for example, replaced social workers with algorithms that predict the likelihood that a particular child will be violent.
But how many consumers are going to have the knowledge or the time to individually vet every AI they encounter?
When was the last time you read the terms and conditions before clicking “Accept”? What we need is an agreed standard and a clear signal, so we individual consumers don’t need expert knowledge to make ethical choices, and companies that want your business know from the outset how they are expected to behave.
So my proposal is a trustmark. Its working title is “the Turing Certificate”, in honour of Alan Turing.
Companies can apply for Turing certification, and if they meet the standards and comply with the auditing requirements, they can display the Turing Stamp.
Then consumers and governments could use their purchasing power to reward and encourage ethical AI, just as they currently look for the “Fairtrade” logo on coffee.
Why a voluntary certificate would work
The first response to a certification scheme is always “but that costs money”. I understand that response, because I thought that way myself when I was building my company Axon Instruments in San Francisco.
I was making a device that was designed to be surgically inserted into people’s brains. I expected to face a long and tortuous process to meet the exacting international ISO 9000 standards for good manufacturing practice. What I discovered was that the standards were the scaffold I needed to build a competitive company.
They baked in the expectation of quality from the start.
True quality is achieved by design, not by test and reject.
We maintained these exacting design and business practices for our non-medical products, too, because they made us a better company and gave us a commercial edge. Done right, the costs of securing certification should then be covered by increased sales, from customers prepared to pay a premium.
Would the Turing Stamp be granted to organisations, or products? Both.
It is the model that has long been accepted in the manufacturing sector. And when you trade with an AI developer you expect to have an ongoing relationship. If you buy a washing machine, it will still be the same washing machine in five years’ time. If you download an app, it may well be radically different in five weeks.
I think you would want the company that stores your data and develops your upgrades to be ethical through and through.
Of course, in the manufacturing sector, the standards are both mandatory and enforceable: manufacturing is a highly visible process.
For AI, mandatory certification would be cumbersome. The voluntary Turing system would allow responsible companies to opt in.
A voluntary system does not mean self-certification. It means that the companies would voluntarily submit themselves to an external process. Smart companies, trading on quality, would welcome an auditing system that weeded out poor behaviour. And consumers would rightly insist on a stamp with proven integrity.
Is this a global measure that Australia could help to foster?
Surely, we have more to gain than most. Where we compete in the global market, we compete on quality.
A system that verifies quality and prioritises ethics will reward Australia. Last week’s federal budget made what I have described as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-2018-when-scientists-make-their-case-effectively-politicians-listen-96124">“promising first instalment”</a>. A$30 million has been allocated for AI, including an AI roadmap and a national AI ethics framework.
I hope we can use our influence to shape a responsible direction for the world.
This article is an extract of a keynote speech Alan Finkel delivered to a Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) event in Sydney, on artificial intelligence.
Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Office of the Chief Scientist<a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/office-of-the-chief-scientist-1049" target="_blank"></a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/finkel-overcoming-our-mistrust-of-robots-in-our-homes-and-workplaces-96787" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Artificial Intelligence

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Artificial Intelligence

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News