What is the "Partnership on AI", and who are the Partners?

The “Partnership on AI” is a not-for-profit��platform to support best practices in the development of Artificial Intelligence.��, , , and are the founding partners. These companies are industry leaders in the development of artificial intelligence, drones, and enterprise technologies.

������’s Watson AI in recent years for its ability to research and compile relevant information at super-human speeds. Watson has the potential to fundamentally change the nature of industries reliant on intelligent research. DeepMind, Google’s AI development office, when its “learning” AI was able to beat world champions at the ancient logic game��Go. The scale of processing needed to calculate moves in Go is astronomically greater than that in chess, marking a distinct shift in the capabilities of computing since IBM's .

Why should we be concerned about AI?

These computers are examples of how computing is already capable of information processing exceeding that of humans, in some areas. Sam Harris' TED Talk argued “if intelligence is just a matter of information processing, and we continue to improve our machines, we will produce some form of superintelligence.” At the same time, he argued, we have so little understanding of how to constrain such an intelligence and “we have no idea how long it will take us” to determine that.

We should be afraid of this paradigm. Artificial intelligence, if incorrectly implemented, .��The extreme example Harris offered was that “a few trillionaires”, benefitting from the exponentially improved productivity of AI, “could grace the covers of our business magazines while the rest of the world would be free to starve”, as the result of AI eroding jobs and networks of economic exchange. The fear in this example is not that artificial intelligence would become malevolent—as has proposed it may—but, instead, that it would be so much more intelligent and capable than humans, and, by relative measure, ��intellectually, we would be to it what ants are to us.

What does the Partnership propose to do about this?

The and of the Partnership on AI respond to some of Harris’ concerns. The organization states its mission is to ensure the maintenance of, “ethics, fairness, inclusivity, transparency and interoperability, and privacy” in the development of artificial intelligence.

The organization intends to bring together experts from a broad range of fields to respond to the implications of AI in relation to economics, social science, finance, public policy, and law.

The organization’s tenets include: “to ensure that AI technologies benefit and empower as many people as possible”; “maximize the benefits and address the potential challenges of AI technologies”; and, “working to ensure that AI research and engineering communities remain socially responsible, sensitive, and engaged directly with the potential influences of AI technologies on wider society”—these suggest that this organization understands and empathizes with the concerns of Harris and others, related to AI.

What does this mean?

It remains to be seen if this organization and the oversights it vows to provide will prove sufficient to mitigate the potential threats and issues raised by Harris. Concerns are already being raised related to the and Elon Musk (of , , ) from the agreement.

��������’s Siri personal assistant and Tesla Motors’ cars are two of the highest-profile artificial intelligence applications on the market. Both companies stand poised to play a major role in the development of AI. It remains possible that these companies could join the “Partnership”, however, both Apple and Musk are known for their history of independence in the tech market. If these developers choose to remain independent, this could seriously undermine the authority of the "Partnership" and affect the ability for the AI development 'industry' to self-regulate.

It is also worthwhile to consider that the "Partnership" is rooted only in American businesses, which presents problems insofar that it does not adequately account for the emergence of new AI developers��in countries outside of the United States - China, or India, for example. As well, in an extreme case, the centralization of such AI development singularly in the United States could contribute to Cold War-esque tensions, which Harris warned his audience during his talk.

The Manhattan Project for AI?

Harris' Manhattan Project analogy is significant. The Manhattan Project brought together many of the world's greatest scientists and mathematicians to construct the atomic bomb, all with the purpose of ensuring that power did not fall in to the wrong hands - Nazi Germany - during the Second World War. For its intents and purposes, the project succeeded. The bomb was built and it was used to end the war. However, as history proved,��despite the positive intentions of the project, it ultimately contributed to further evils as the impetus for the beginning of the Cold War. Albert Einstein, who , later regretted the creation of the device.

If AI were to go the way of the atomic bomb, that is, result in disastrous consequences despite our best efforts to regulate it, this author believes that fact should be cause for concern. While the functionality of AI remains in question as developers continue to seek greater and greater cognition from their machines, this may be, as Harris argued, a critical point in our history.

Christopher McGoey is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post The Partnership on AI: A Modern Manhattan Project? appeared first on IPOsgoode.

British Telecommunications (BT) alleges that��on-line services offered by Valve infringe on four U.S. patents held by BT. The patents at trial are broadly worded and could implicate many popular video game, social networking, and video streaming services. If [BT v Valve]��were to succeed,��they would be granted legal authority allowing them police many of the services relied upon by the video game industry, as well as many other popular websites.

David versus Goliath

Valve, founded in 1996, owns and operates ��Steam, an industry-leading software distribution and social networking application for computer gaming.��Steam, released in 2003, commands a near-monopoly over the digital rights management (DRM) and computer game distribution. Despite massive support among developers and gamers alike, ���ٱ𲹳�—a�Ի� �ղ�������—h������ .

British Telecommunications (BT) group is the oldest telecommunications company on the planet, tracing its roots to the invention of the first telephone by Alexander Graham Bell. BT is a leading communications provider in the United Kingdom. According to court documents, BT “,”��in network telecommunications.

What the suit claims

BT argued that Valve continued to operate services at great cost to the patent holder, despite multiple communications asking Valve to stop. The following patents are alleged to have been infringed:

• Communications node for providing network based information service:��

• Method for automatic and periodic requests for messages to an e-mail server from the client:��

• Communications network and method having accessible directory of user profile data:��

• Multi-user display system:��

One can��see��how Valve's services are implicated in these patents. Steam��is a digital marketplace that distributes “”; provides chat services “”; stores “”��for its users; and allows these users to “.”

Valve is far from the only company implicated by the broad language of these patents (and certainly not the most financially successful). Messaging, video streaming, and web marketplaces are endemic to the internet and the tech world. As the patent holder, BT has a choice to enforce the patent against whomever they wish. Why go after Valve?

Possible reasons:

1. This is intended as the first of many similar suits

If the court were to rule in favour of BT in this case—however likely that may be—it would open the door for further enforcement of the strict language contained by the patents-in-suit. If the court accepted the language that “BT has been damaged and continues to be damaged by Valve’s infringement,” and applied retributive, pecuniary damages, this would set a precedent allowing BT to challenge industry leaders’ social media and networking IPs.

2. BT is looking to become involved in gaming, DRM, or streaming

Video games are a multibillion dollar industry. Leading publishers and distributors, like Valve, command the industry’s continually expanding value. Social and competitive gaming services, like Valve's��Steam are at the heart of a parallel, expanding market for “e-Sports”. Video game “sport” tournaments have exploded in popularity and now host regular tournaments each year. Cash prizes range in the tens of thousands of dollars. It is not improbable that major telecommunications companies would keep an eye on this growing market. If BT had any interest in permeating the market, the ability to enforce this patent against Valve could pay serious dividends.

3. A suit against Valve will allow BT to test public opinion

Most computer gamers must interact with ���ٱ𲹳�.��As a result,����news related to Steam and Valve receives a great deal of attention. The video game consumer base is very large. An accusation against Valve is sure to gain the attention of a large audience, including many people who would not otherwise follow tech news. This is a known tactic within the video game industry to��lobby public opinion.��Kotaku.com has gone so far as to develop a separate ��news page to cover all of the grievances--material and superficial--raised against Valve/Steam.��Targeting Valve is a��sure way to determine if public opinion will allow BT to go ofter other, higher-profile internet services with patent suits (e.g., Facebook, Amazon).

What does this mean?��

Perhaps this can be dismissed as a "patent troll" case. But, granting patent rights to BT in this case might lead to controversial effects. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) (albeit, with rapidly diminishing support). The TPP would permit greater US-based regulation of the public internet. If this were ratified, a decision like that in BT v Valve would support and legitimize BT and the US government's policing of many of the most popular applications and resources on the internet.

Further news related to the suit will follow in the coming months.

Christopher McGoey is an IPilogue Editor and a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.��

The post Big Telecom versus Video Games: Big Implications appeared first on IPOsgoode.