This is your excuse to have a summer filled with lazy reading days outside. Shop

Popular streamer Mizkif criticized Twitch's ban regulations after Alinity received a three-day suspension for 'sexually suggestive' content

The Lenovo IdeaPad Flex 5i 14 (starts at $849.99; $899.99 as tested) has long been

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 1, 2023--

ST. LOUIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug 2, 2023--

TL;DR: The Unlimited Lifetime Learning Subscription Bundle is on sale for £152.63, saving you 74%

CAMARILLO, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 31, 2023--

The EU will reveal Wednesday which of the world's tech behemoths face stronger curbs from next year under a law that will shake up how major players like...

The debate around AI-generated art has largely focused on whether these programs will kill jobs

Artificial intelligence poses a major threat to humanity and the world – but also has a range of positive uses, experts have said. Those positive uses include the development of new kinds of life-saving drugs, revolutionary new educational technologies and ways to make media and art more accessible to people. But the potentially liberating and exciting uses of AI risk being overshadowed by the fear and panic over the potential problems of the technology, the experts warned. That was the conclusion of The Independent’s latest premium live event, which saw experts discuss the question: “How much of a threat does AI really pose?” To attempt to answer the question, The Independent’s technology editor, Andrew Griffin, was joined by deputy technology editor Anthony Cuthbertson and two world-recognised experts in their field. Andrew Rogoyski is director of innovation and partnerships at the Surrey Institute for People-Centred AI, and Catherine Breslin is a machine learning scientists and consultant who previously worked on Amazon Alexa and at other companies, and now runs Kingfisher Labs, an artificial intelligence consultancy. All panelists agreed that one of the most pressing issues about artificial intelligence is it being used to fill the internet with “sludge”: “automatically generated noise”, as Rogoyski described it, that could make it difficult to tell humans from artificial intelligence systems. “If you think of how much we depend on information on the internet, the idea that it's filled with rubbish – it's bad enough as it is,” he said. “But the idea that it's automatically generated, I think, is the most real extant threat of the misuse of AI.” Catherine agreed and noted that “sludge” could be made up of not only text but also “images and video and audio as well”, warning that people are not aware of just how easy it is to create convincing audio and video that pretends to be somebody else. “We won't necessarily be able to trust what is real and what is not real and without better ways of validating where images and video and audio come from,” she said. “So I think that this being able to generate media quickly, convincing media quickly, and then being able to send it out on the internet and the speed and scale at which information disseminates there – I think those two things combined will make for interesting times in the future when we have to grapple with the realities of validating our media.” But even amid that fear, the experts said that there were many very exciting possibilities being offered by technology. “Some of the biggest problems humanity faces could potentially be solved by an advanced artificial intelligence,” said Cuthbertson, pointing to its use in medicine and elsewhere. Rogoyski said that many of the benefits of AI are already being “taken for granted”. The technology is already used in science, medicine, to moderate the internet and to improve manufacturing and logistics, he said, and in every day ways such as the organisation of photos on our phones and information in our search engines. Even the fear that people could lose their jobs to artificial intelligence might be misplaced, the experts said, if companies instead use the technology to augment rather than replace their employees. Already, legal professionals are using artificial intelligence to navigate court audio, and doctors are using it to transcribe medical notes – freeing those people up to do helpful work for their clients and patients, Breslin noted. The entire conversation – which included discussions on the military use of artificial intelligence, its effects on the arts, and much more besides – can be viewed above. Read More Google may soon roll out AI ‘personal life coach’ ‘I’m scared’: Snapchat’s AI posts image that terrifies users How much of a threat does AI really pose? Get your ticket for our free event

The Department of Energy announced Friday it is awarding up to $1.2 billion to two projects that promise to remove carbon dioxide from the air in what officials said was the largest investment in “engineered carbon removal” in history

In 2020, philosopher Toby Ord published The Precipice, a book on the risk of human extinction. The chances of "existential catastrophe" for humanity in the next century according to Ord? One in six. It was a shocking number that alarmed many. After years of being flooded with warnings over climate change, rogue AI, nuclear weapons and pandemics, it's hard to disagree that humans face worrying chances. In his book, Ord discusses a number of potential extinction events, some of which can be examined through history. His research involved looking at the number of space rocks that have hit the moon over its history to figure out the likelihood than an extinction-sized asteroid hitting Earth. This was, in fact, looked at in 2022 by French scientists Jean-Marc Salotti, he calculated the odds of an extinction-level hit in the next century to be roughly one in 300 million. By contrast, Ord estimated the risk to be one in a million, although he does point out a considerable degree of uncertainty. Probabilities can be hard to understand in this context. Traditional probability, for example, relies on observations and a collection of repeated events, but human extinction would be a one-off. But there is another way to think if, called Bayesianism, after the English statistician Thomas Bayes. It sees probabilities as a ranking system of sorts. Specific number predictions shouldn't be taken so literally, but rather compared to other probabilities to understand the likelihood of each outcome. Ord's book contains a table of potential causes of extinctions, accompanied by his personal estimates of their probability. From a Bayesian perspective, we can view these as relative ranks. Ord thinks extinction from an asteroid strike (one in a million) is much less likely than extinction from climate change (one in a thousand). However, even using Bayesianism traditionally requires the incorporation of observational evidence. So, what do we make of Ord's "one in six"? Well it's better to take it less literally but to think of it as a warning, to jump start action on issues such as climate change to hopefully reduce the risk of human extinction in the next century. Sign up to our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.