Robots won't render people jobless: Satya Nadella
London, May 28: Even in a "runaway Artificial Intelligence (AI)" scenario, robots will not render people completely jobless, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella told The Sunday Telegraph in an interview.
People will always want a job as it gives them "dignity", Nadella said, adding that the focus should instead be on applying AI technology ethically.
"What I think needs to be done in 2018 is more dialogue around the ethics, the principles that we can use for the engineers and companies that are building AI, so that the choices we make don't cause us to create systems with bias … that's the tangible thing we should be working on," he was quoted as saying.
According to a report in MIT Technology Review on May 25, Microsoft is building a tool to automate the identification of bias in a range of different AI algorithms.
The Microsoft tool has the potential to help businesses make use of AI without inadvertently discriminating against certain groups of people.
Although Microsoft's new tool may not eliminate the problem of bias that may creep into Machine-Learning models altogether, it will help AI researchers catch more instances of unfairness, Rich Caruna, a senior researcher at Microsoft who is working on the bias-detection dashboard, was quoted as saying by MIT Technology Review.
"Of course, we can't expect perfection -- there's always going to be some bias undetected or that can't be eliminated -- the goal is to do as well as we can," he said.
In the interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Nadella also said that as Microsoft's business model was based on customers paying for services, he believed the company was on "the right side of history".
"Our business model is based on our customers being successful, and if they are successful they will pay us. So we are not one of these transaction-driven or ad-driven or marketplace-driven economies," the Microsoft chief was quoted as saying.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to entertain PIL for action against inflammatory speeches
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a PIL that sought urgent intervention against inflammatory speeches by public figures, alleging these statements endanger national unity, security and promote divisive ideologies.
Observing that there was a difference between hate speeches and wrong assertions, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar told the counsel for PIL petitioner ‘Hindu Sena Samiti’ that it was not inclined to issue notice on the petition.
"We are not inclined to entertain the present writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which in fact refers to alleged references. Further, there is a difference between hate speech and wrong assertions…In case the petitioner has any grievance, they may raise the same in accordance with law,” the bench said.
The bench said it was not making observations on the merits of the case.
The PIL had urged the court to direct the formulation of guidelines to prevent provocative rhetoric and to mandate penal action against individuals making statements that could jeopardise public order and the nation’s sovereignty.
Advocates Kunwar Aditya Singh and Swatantra Rai, appearing for the petitioner, said the political leaders’ remarks often veer towards incitement, potentially sparking public unrest.
They cited recent comments by the political figures, including former Madhya Pradesh Minister Sajjan Singh Verma and Bharatiya Kisan Union spokesperson Rakesh Tikait, as instances where rhetoric had allegedly threatened public order.
In his remarks, Verma had allegedly warned of a potential popular uprising, drawing comparisons to the protests in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, while Tikait allegedly referenced the farmers' protests in a manner that suggested the possibility of violent insurrection.
The petition said the government has been inconsistent in enforcing legal restrictions on inflammatory speech.
It said the court, in its directions, had mandated prompt action against speech inciting unrest under some of the provisions of the IPC.
The 'Hindu Sena Samiti' had sought multiple reliefs, including the formulation of guidelines to regulate provocative speeches, penal action against violators and a directive for mandatory training programmes for politicians.
It also emphasised the importance of equal legal treatment, arguing that similar offences by civilians and journalists often see stringent actions from the state, while statements by political figures inciting unrest go largely unchecked.
