FILE In this Tuesday, Dec. 13, 2016, file photo, an Uber driverless car waits in traffic during a test drive in San Francisco. In just a few years, well-mannered self-driving robotaxis will share the roads with reckless, law-breaking human drivers. The prospect is causing migraines for the people developing the robocars and is slowing their development. But experts say eventually the cars will coexist with human drivers on real roads. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg, File)

(CN) Is a self-driving vehicle capable of making moral decisions? If it is, which moral values should it use to make such choices?

These questions are among the issues society must consider as artificial intelligence, or AI, systems become more common in various industries, according to Gordon Pipa, co-author of a new study that provides a statistical model of human morality.

The research, published Wednesday in the journal Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, is a breakthrough for efforts to equip AI systems with morality which experts had viewed as context-based and therefore impossible to describe mathematically.

But we found quite the opposite, said lead author Leon Sutfeld, a researcher at the University of Osnabruck in Germany. Human behavior in dilemma situations can be modeled by a rather simple value-of-life-based model that is attributed by the participant to every human, animal, or inanimate object.

In order to examine human behavior in road traffic scenarios, the team asked study participants to drive a car in a simulated, virtual-reality suburban neighborhood where they experienced unexpected, unavoidable dilemmas involving animals, inanimate objects and humans forcing the participants to prioritize which to save.

The authors then used the results to conceptualize statistical models that established rules, along with an associated degree of explanatory power to understand the observed behavior.

The findings come amid growing debate over the behavior of self-driving vehicles and other machines in unavoidable accidents.

Stakeholders and experts have operated under the assumption that human moral behavior could not be modeled, and have focused on outlining critical variables for engineering AIsystems. For example, a new initiative from the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure, or BMVI, has defined 20 ethical principles for self-driving cars.

Now that applying human morality to machines seems to be possible, the team argues that debate should now focus on how such morals are programmed into, and employed by, AI.

Now that we know how to implement human ethical decisions into machines we, as a society, are still left with a double dilemma, said senior author Peter Konig, a professor at the University of Osnabruck. Firstly, we have to decide whether moral values should be included in guidelines for machine behavior and secondly, if they are, should machinesact just like humans.

The team also warns that society is at the beginning of a technological revolution that requires clear rules. Without them, machines could begin making decisions without us.

In conclusion, Papa wonders: Should they imitate moral behavior by imitating human decisions, should they behave along ethical theories and if so, which ones and critically, if things go wrong who or what is at fault?

Like Loading...

Read more:
Driverless Cars Could Learn to Make Moral Choices - Courthouse News Service

Psychopaths, with their superficial charms but lack of empathy, may act the way they do because their brains are wired to overvalue immediate rewards, a new study finds.

Psychopaths' brain wiring may also lead them to avoid thinking about the consequences of their potentially immoral actions, the study found.

Psychopaths are thought to make up about 1 percent of the general population and up to 25 percent of the prison population. Scientists who investigate psychopathy commonly define people with the disorder as having a lack of conscience or remorse, as well as impulsivity or a lack of self-control, shallow experiences of emotions, superficial charm and a grandiose sense of their own worth. [Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors]

More than three-quarters of incarcerated psychopaths are in prison because of a violent offense, according to a 2011 review of studies. Although not all psychopaths are violent, they can prove socially destructive in other ways, by lying, cheating and stealing, that review added.

"Psychopaths commit an astonishing amount of crime, and this crime is both devastating to victims and astronomically costly to society as a whole," Joshua Buckholtz, a neuroscientist and psychologist at Harvard University, said in a statement.

Scientific research into psychopathy "has for many years focused on emotion in particular, this idea that psychopaths are cold-blooded super-predators who lack the ability to experience emotions," Buckholtz told Live Science. In the new study, the researchers wanted to focus more on psychopaths' behaviors.

"Regardless of what they feel, they engage in a lot of behavior marked by a lack of self-control, and we were interested in the neuroscience of that poor decision making," he said.

Buckholtz and his colleagues brought a mobile MRI scanner on a tractor trailer to a pair of medium-security prisons in Wisconsin. They scanned the brains of 49 inmates as the prisoners took part in a delayed gratification test that asked them to choose between two options receiving a smaller amount of money immediately or a larger amount later. The researchers also had the inmates take a test to assess their level of psychopathy.

The researchers found that inmates who scored high for psychopathy showed greater activity in a brain region called the ventral striatum for the more immediate choice than those who scored lower in psychopathy. Previous studies suggested that the ventral striatum is linked with the ability to evaluate the value of different choices.

In addition, the scientists found that in psychopaths, the connection between the ventral striatum and another brain region known as the ventral medial prefrontal cortex were much weaker than normal. Prior work suggested that the ventral medial prefrontal cortex "is important for 'mental time travel' that is, thinking about the future consequences of actions," Buckholtz said. [10 Things You Didn't Know About the Brain]

These findings suggest that psychopaths often behave antisocially because their brains are wired in a way that makes them both overvalue immediate rewards and neglect the future costs of potentially immoral actions. In fact, the more abnormal inmates' brains were in both of these regards, the more crimes the prisoners were convicted of.

"The pattern of decision making we see in psychopathic individuals is not all that different from that in people with other kinds of self-destructive behavior, such as substance abusers, compulsive over-eaters or compulsive gamblers," Buckholtz said. "Whatever else may be going in psychopathy, such as deficits of emotion, our findings put psychopathy in the sphere of things that can be intervened in."

Future research can investigate whether there may be ways to help psychopaths improve their thinking about the future, such as through behavioral therapies or noninvasive brain stimulation, Buckholtz said.

The scientists detailed their findings online today (July 5) in the journal Neuron.

Original article on Live Science.

See original here:
Psychopaths' Brains Reveal Secrets of Their Immoral Behavior - Live Science

July 4, 2017 Genoeconomics looks for genetic ties to life outcomes and economic behavior. Credit: Janice Kun

When Daniel Benjamin was just beginning his PhD program in economics in 2001, he attended a conference with his graduate school advisers. They took in a presentation on neuroeconomics, a nascent field dealing with how the human brain goes about making decisions.

Afterward, as they took a stroll outside, they couldn't stop talking about what they had learned, how novel and intriguing it was. What would be next, they wondered. What would come after neuroeconomics?

"The human genome project had just been completed, and we decided that even more fundamental than the brain would be genes, and that someday this was going to matter a lot for social science," said Benjamin, associate professor (research) of economics at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Science's Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR). Indeed, his excitement that day was the foundation of a visionary academic path.

Fast forward to today. Genoeconomics is now an emerging area of social science that incorporates genetic data into the work that economists do. It's based on the idea that a person's particular combination of genes is related to economic behavior and life outcomes such as educational attainment, fertility, obesity and subjective well-being.

"There's this rich new source of data that has only become available recently," said Benjamin, also co-director of the Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, which brings about cooperation among medical researchers, geneticists and social scientists.

Collecting genetic data and creating the large data sets used by economists and other social scientists have become increasingly affordable, and new analytical methods are getting more and more powerful as these data sets continue to grow. The big challenge, he said, is figuring out how scientists can leverage this new data to address a host of important policy questions.

"We're ultimately interested in understanding how genes and environments interact to produce the kinds of outcomes people have in their lives, and then what kinds of policies can help people do better. That is really what economics is aboutand we're trying to use genetics to do even better economics."

The mission at hand

Only a handful of economists are working with genetics, but this brand of research is perfectly at home at CESR. The center, founded three years ago, was conceived as a place where visionary social science could thrive and where research could be done differently than in the past.

"Being in a place where that's the shared vision is pretty rare," said econometrician Arie Kapteyn, professor (research) of economics and CESR director. "There's no restriction on which way you want to go or what you want to do. It doesn't mean that there are no restrictions on resources, but it's the opportunity to think about your vision of what's really exciting in social science research. Then being able to actually implement it is absolutely fantastic."

The mission of CESR is discovering how people around the world live, think, interact, age and make important decisions. The center's researchers are dedicated to innovation and combining their analysis to deepen the understanding of human behavior in a variety of economic and social contexts.

"What we try to do is mold a disciplinary science in a very broad sense," Kapteyn said. "Because today's problems in society, they're really all multidisciplinary."

Case in point: Benjamin's work combining genetics and economics.

The flagship research effort for Benjamin's CESR research group deals with genes and education. In a 2016 study, the team identified variants in 74 genes that are associated with educational attainment. In other words, people who carry more of these variants, on average, complete more years of formal schooling.

Benjamin hopes to use this data in a holistic way to create a predictive tool.

"Rather than just identifying specific genes," he said, "we're also creating methods for combining the information in a person's entire genome into a single variable that can be used to partially predict how much education a person's going to get."

The young field of genoeconomics is still somewhat controversial, and Benjamin is careful to point out that individual genes don't determine behavior or outcome.

"The effect of any individual gene on behavior is extremely small," Benjamin explained, "but the effects of all the genes combined on almost any behavior we're interested in is much more substantial. It's the combined information of many genes that has predictive power, and that can be most useful for social scientists."

Learning about behavior

While the cohort of researchers actively using the available genome-wide data in this way is still somewhat limited, Benjamin says it is growing quickly.

"I think across the social sciences, researchers are seeing the potential for the data, and people are starting to use it in their work and getting excited about it, but right now it's still a small band of us trying to lay the foundations.

"We're putting together huge data sets of hundreds of thousands of peopleapproaching a million people in our ongoing work on educational attainmentbecause you need those really big sample sizes to accurately detect the genetic influences."

As CESR works to improve social welfare by informing and influencing decision-making in the public and private sectors, big data such as Benjamin's is a growing part of that process, according to Kapteyn.

"What big data reflects is the fact that nowadays there are so many other ways in which we can learn about behavior," he said. "As a result, I think we'll see many more breakthroughs and gain a much better understanding of what's going on in the world and in social science than in the past.

"I think we're really at the beginning of something pretty spectacular. What we are doing is really only scratching the surfacethere's so much more that can be done."

Explore further: Scientists find genes associated with educational attainment

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Read the rest here:
Can genetics play a role in education and well-being? - Medical Xpress

27 June 2017: Member States and stakeholders discussed behavioral insights and their applications for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 on climate change, during a training organized by the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). The workshop aimed to build participants understanding of defaults, social norms and steps necessary for tackling climate change.

Moderator Lori Foster Thompson, North Carolina State University, opened the course, titled Behavioural Insights towards the Implementation of Sustainable Develoment Goal (SDG) 13 (Climate Action), which took place at the UN Headquarters in New York, US, on 27 June 2017. She noted that sustainable consumption and production, which is key to achieving SDG 13, is essentially about human behavior, and thus incentives to promote changes in behavior are needed. Foster Thompson highlighted the value of using behavioral insights for designing evidence-based polices. She added that even though there are pockets focused on behavioral insights that operate in different UN agencies, an overarching structure focused on behavioral insights is yet to be formalized within the system.

Elke U. Weber, Princeton University, challenged the idea of Homo Economicus who makes decisions rationally, by explaining that Homo Sapiens is not primarily a creature of rational deliberation, but rather a creature of habit who learns best from personal experience and uses emotions, associations, rules and habits to guide action. She said humans have always too many goals, often conflicting. Weber added that policy makers and communicators therefore need to find ways to activate those goals that are more forward looking and more environment friendly. She noted that inaction is the current behavioral status-quo, which was formed in a period in which people were not facing climate change issues. Weber stressed that this behavioral status-quo is the current barrier to change.

She cautioned against using fear or guilt-based messaging, explaining that even though this type of messages attract attention, they do not retain peoples attention as they tend to dissociate from unpleasant emotions. She advised that in order to keep peoples attention, messaging should be focused on effective solutions and appeal to the moral sense of people doing the right/good thing. She stressed that policy makers should not allow for behavior preferences to influence policies, but policies need to be evidence-based because people will end up adopting them.

Filippo Cavassini, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), explained that the OECD conducted a world-wide mapping of the use of behavioral insights in public policy. He added that the mapping found that local governments have applied a lot in terms of behavioral insights because they are the interface with the public, and the use of behavioral insights is usually spearheaded by politicians. He gave the example of the UK, which currently has a world-wide known behavioral insights team. Cavassini explained that overall behavioral insights are applied across sectors, especially in the financial sector after the financial crisis because consumers need to be better educated about financial choices.

Cavassini noted that behavioral insights are currently mainly used in the implementation stage, while they could also be used in designing policies that are effective. He announced that the OECD will look at behavioral insights for complex policy issues, such as digital tools and how they can be used, for instance, to promote sustainable energy consumption. He concluded that, even though so far behavioral insights have been applied to individuals, there are opportunities to apply them to institutions.

Irina Feygina, Climate Central, underlined that most people do not care about climate change thus choices need to be framed through needs that are very stringent.

Mary MacLennan, London School of Economics (LSE), spoke about her experience in working with the government of Ontario, Canada. She highlighted that the use of behavioral insights builds skills across government with regards to knowledge and evidence-based policy. She said behavioral insights use in governance needs to be thought in terms of its added value for things such as cost-savings, balancing budgets or innovation. Underlining the importance of having a multidisciplinary approach to behavioral insights that brings together sociology, psychology and anthropology, MacLennan also noted challenges to work across departments and ministries. She recalled significant interest, enthusiasm and buy-in for the use of behavioral insights at the lower and highest levels of governments. She also pointed to problems and resistance with the middle management, stressing that it is much more risk-adverse.

Irina Feygina, Climate Central, underscored the importance of how choices are framed, noting that small changes to the framing of a policy or choice can improve its effectiveness. She explained that decision making is not cost-benefit but driven by needs and desires, and that attitudes and values interfere in the way we process information. She therefore called for putting peoples needs first when messaging (such as health, safety, children, capacity to strive, community safety) rather than speaking about climate change, underlining that most people do not care about climate change thus choices need to be framed through needs that are very stringent.

Feygina said people prefer narratives and stories than facts, because they have a hard time encoding facts. She added that facts are hard to feed the need to belong, which is the most stringent human need after the needs of food, shelter and safety. She stressed the need to give people very simple, attractive and simplified options, and to communicate to them that other people they admire are doing it.

In the ensuing discussion, participants underscored the need to: provide incentives and secure political courage; downgrade the scientific thinking to make it more accessible to the public at large; and look at the structural macro-systems in place, like the capitalist system built on continuous growth. They also discussed ways to design experiments with larger-systems interventions. [IISD Sources] [UNITAR Website]

Read the rest here:
UNITAR Workshop Looks at Behavioral Insights for SDG 13 - IISD Reporting Services

Robert M. Sapolsky is that rara avis whos both eminent scientist and elegant prose stylist. Three decades ago, at the ripe old age of 28, he won a MacArthur genius grant before settling into a storied career as neurobiologist and primatologist at Stanford University, conducting field work among baboons in Kenya and publishing books with such whimsical titles as Why Zebras Dont Get Ulcers and The Trouble With Testosterone.

His new book is his magnum opus, but is also strikingly different from his earlier work, veering sharply toward hard science as it looms myriad strands of his ruminations on human behavior. The familiar, enchanting Sapolsky tropes are here his warm, witty voice, a sleight of hand that unfolds the mysteries of cognition but Behave keeps the bar high.

The book opens with a conceit: Consider a simple, everyday tic chewing gum, say, or bickering with a spouse and then pivot backward in time. In the instant before the action, Sapolsky charts the intricate web of neurons as they fire up, the seemingly infinite synapses that spark across the organs widespread regions. In the hours leading up to the behavior, hormones play a critical role; here Sapolsky offers a tutorial on the waves of hormones that wash over us. Wind the clock back to childhood, and there are environmental factors at work, from affluence to poverty, safe neighborhoods versus violent ones. Wind the clock back to conception, and he plumbs how our DNA, as well as epigenetic components, shape us from day to day, year to year. He dials back even further, probing the dice theory of evolution, lizard brains beneath our mammalian gray matter.

Link:
REVIEW: 'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst,' by Robert M. Sapolsky - Minneapolis Star Tribune

With cyber attacks on the rise, so too is the need for experts to protect companies, government agencies and individuals from those attacks and the damage they can cause.

That need has prompted Ivy Tech Community College student Dave Houchin to pursue a degree in cyber security/information assurance at the colleges Terre Haute campus.

It is an exponentially growing career choice, said the 34-year-old, who will earn his degree later this year. Demand for services, such as securing and maintaining networks, will only increase, as will job opportunities, he said.

Many cyber crimes go unreported, he said, often because businesses are worried news of such crimes could hurt their reputation.

The internet as we know it is still a wide-open frontier filled with lawlessness much as was seen in the early days of pioneers and cattle drives of the wild west, he said, and cyber criminals are taking advantage of the security lapses.

While one of his goals is career advancement, he also believes being educated in cyber security is important to protect our economy from theft, our citizens from harm and our nation from discord, he wrote in an email. His I.T. internship is with ThyssenKrupp Presta, where he has worked production for several years.

Ivy Tech has offered a two-year degree in cyber security/information assurance since 2013 and it offers a number of related certificate programs.

Purdue and Indiana universities have several well-established programs and research initiatives, and now, Indiana State University is working on a cybersecurity program that focuses on the human missteps that can lead to security breaches.

Indiana State faculty member Bill Mackey has a cybersecurity firm that employs ISU interns.

A growing need

According to the National Security Agency, The newest threats we face, and perhaps the fastest growing, are those in cyberspace. Cyber threats to U.S. national and economic security increase each year in frequency, scope and severity of impact. Cyber criminals, hackers and foreign adversaries are becoming more sophisticated and capable every day in their ability to use the internet for nefarious purposes.

The issue came to the forefront with Russias hacking of Democratic National Committee emails, an act intended to influence the U.S. presidential election.

The FBI websites describes the collective impact of cybercrime as staggering. Billions of dollars are lost every year repairing systems hit by such attacks. Some take down vital systems, disrupting and sometimes disabling the work of hospitals, banks, and 9-1-1 services around the country.

Who is behind such attacks? It runs the gamut from computer geeks looking for bragging rightsto businesses trying to gain an upper hand in the marketplace by hacking competitor websites, from rings of criminals wanting to steal your personal information and sell it on black marketsto spies and terrorists looking to rob our nation of vital information or launch cyber strikes, according to fbi.gov.

Earlier this month, the NSA and the Department of Homeland Security designated Ivy Tech as a National Center of Academic Excellence in its cyber defense education program. According to NSA, its goal is to reduce vulnerability in the countrys information infrastructure by promoting higher education and research in cyber defense.

The recognition is kind of a big deal, said Charles Peebles, department chair, School of Computing and Informatics at Ivy Techs Wabash Valley Region.

The two-year program is pretty thorough, he said. It covers all major areas you need to know to prevent a hack.

Students must know networks, software and server administration. They have to know a little of everything to be a good cyber agent, he said.

The program is a popular one, especially with all the breaches weve had that are getting publicized and with all the Ransomware, where people are clicking on links that end up taking control of their network and they have to pay someone money to get access back to their files and information, Peebles said.

Everybody should be concerned, with todays criminals out there, he said. Everybody should have some kind of protection on their computer.

Those who earn the degree, can do just about anything, he said. They work as a network or server administrator, he said. The average mean salary for cyber information analysis in Indiana is about $37.50 per hour, which translates into about $78,000 annually, he said.

On average, there are 629 annual job openings in cyber security in Indiana, according to the 2014-2024 Department of Workforce Development/Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Demand Report.

New offering at ISU

At Indiana State, a new cybersecurity studies program is in the works that focuses on the human missteps that can lead to security breaches; it will be offered through the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

Faculty member Bill Mackey said the new program will be human behavior focused.

We already have a lot of people that know how to work with computers and code and create and analyze viruses and malware, he said. But reports from recent years show us that human exploits are 90 percent plus of the actual cybercrime intrusion.

Rather than trying to infiltrate a companys expensive computer technology systems, hackers find its easier to just get the administrative assistants name and password ... Then they dont need to hack into the system, he said.

Students in the future ISU program will learn to analyze employee behavior, determine who is vulnerable and look at training programs to change the behavior so those employees are not the weak leak that ends up creating a security breach. Were teaching them how to be a human anti-virus, he said.

For example, if some employees are vulnerable to phishing emails, How do we train employees to not click on things? Mackey said.

Four ISU students have interned at his cyber security business, called Alloy Cybersecurity.

Everyone in every workplace needs to be concerned about cyber security because it takes just one person to not care and its all gone, Mackey said. This is not slowing down. This is not going to stop. Its getting worse every year.

The average person should be concerned, but not paranoid, he said. He suggests people can do a lot to protect themselves by taking five seconds before responding to an email if they are not sure who it came from, and taking 10 minutes once a year to learn about new frauds and scams out there.

Madison Meyer, an ISU senior and criminology major, has been working with Mackey for about six months on cybercrime research and with Alloy.

Prior to that, she had no experience with cybersecurity. What shes learned has been eye-opening, she said.

At Alloy, students created phishing emails to assess a businesss employee vulnerabilities. We were more successful than we expected, she said. Students monitored what happened but never actually hacked the system.

The Sellersburg native said her career interests include law enforcement and the FBI.

Sue Loughlin writes for the Tribune-Star in Terre Haute and can be reached at sue.loughlin@tribstar.com Follow Sue on Twitter @TribStarSue.

Follow this link:
Training the cyber Sherlocks - Greensburg Daily News

I know Im referring back to an incident that feels like it happened thousands of controversies ago, but its still worth a revisit. Remember when Mike Pence was crazy and strange for reportedly not wanting to eat dinner with a woman who wasnt his wife? Well, thanks to the New York Times, we now have data about the rest of America, and itturns out that vast numbers of men and women are wary of being alone with the opposite sex.

Heres Claire Cain Miller summing up the polling results:

Many men and women are wary of a range of one-on-one situations, the poll found. Around a quarter think private work meetings with colleagues of the opposite sex are inappropriate. Nearly two-thirds say people should take extra caution around members of the opposite sex at work. A majority of women, and nearly half of men, say its unacceptable to have dinner or drinks alone with someone of the opposite sex other than their spouse.

As one might expect, theres a sliding scale of acceptability, with most people endorsing private work meetings and most rejecting private dinners or drinks. Interestingly,for all the talk that discouraging one-on-onemeetings disadvantages women, they were more likely than men to disapprove of every category of private encounter.

As Millerstates, The results show the extent to which sex is an implicit part of our interactions. Yes indeed they do, but its not just because affairs, harassment, or other inappropriate conduct might occur. The resultsalso demonstratethe extent to which fear of rumors or of even potentially false claims colors human behavior. A single accusation can destroy a reputation and derail a career. Whynot keep your office door open? Why not conduct business more in professional settings than in the intimate confines of dinner or drinks?

In my twenty-plus years of job experience in multiple private-sector and public-sector contexts the influence of private dinners on professional advancement is vastly overstated. At the same time, Ive seen multiple sexual scandals derail the most promising of careers. Given this reality, caution isnt extremist or sexist. Its wise.

Read the original:
It Turns Out That Mike Pence Is Pretty Mainstream - National Review

President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement last month a decision I suspect the United States will quickly come to regret.

The Paris agreement reaffirmed a goal of limiting the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius and committed countries to develop plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and regularly report on their progress. The United States, under former President Barack Obama, was one of 195 countries signing on to the agreement. But President Trumps decision to withdraw will allow countries such as China and India to further shape a global agreement that will dramatically impact the United States regardless of its lack of participation.

The backlash to the presidents decision in much of the business community and at the state and local levels was swift and unmistakable. But there was a critical voice that was missing: the U.S. insurance sector.

Perhaps it is a fear of offending customers who reject either the very idea of climate change or the fact that human behavior is a significant contributor to global warming that has kept domestic insurers, and even the trade associations that normally speak for them on political issues, mostly on the sidelines.

But that silence works against them because they are abdicating an opportunity to play a constructive role in addressing a serious threat to their own profitability, as the natural catastrophes that they are financially responsible for will only get worse without timely intervention.

Their European reinsurance counterparts are not nearly as skittish, with officials from Munich Reinsurance America Inc. and Swiss Re Ltd. denouncing the presidents decision to withdraw. They should be commended for their willingness to publicly oppose an action they know will keep the United States from being a critical player in addressing what their own research tells them is a real threat to human life and property.

Insurers are going to have to deal with the climate issue some way or the other. California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones launched the Climate Risk Carbon Initiative in January 2016 to require insurers with $100 million in annual premiums doing business in California to disclose investments in fossil fuels and asked all insurers operating in the state to divest investments in thermal coal. He recently vowed to continue this initiative despite a threat of legal action by Republican officials in 13 states, predominantly those with major oil, gas and coal interests. As Mr. Jones stated in his response, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real and should not be ignored.

The 2004 disaster movie The Day After Tomorrow depicted the consequences of failing to heed warnings on climate change, including devastating catastrophes in areas of the United States where they are least expected. While the movie significantly exaggerates the time frame of these events for dramatic purposes, two key elements ring true: that human behavior is contributing to a changing climate and that those in power who can act to prevent catastrophic climate change often ignore the scientific warnings until its too late.

President Trump has failed to heed these warnings. Its time for others to step up.

Original post:
View from Washington: Insurers silent on climate - Business Insurance

(TNS) -- We were gratified, if a little perplexed, to learn that local and state transportation planners apparently awoke from a deep sleep to discover congestion on Arapahoe Avenue east of the city and a bottleneck on U.S. 36 could be improved by gasp adding lanes to accommodate the traffic volume.

It is an article of ideological dogma in the governments of Boulder and Boulder County that building new roads or lanes doesn't relieve congestion a concept known as "induced demand." In the minds of some officials, this conviction appears to have morphed into the notion that no infrastructure improvements for auto travel are ever appropriate. But a basic rule of traffic engineering still applies: Capacity must be sufficient for the smooth flow of existing demand (unless, of course, you are trying purposefully to inconvenience motorists for other political purposes).

A review of existing demand on Arapahoe between Lafayette and Boulder reveals too many cars to move efficiently on a two-lane road. With population growth and housing development certain to continue in the east county, basic traffic engineering requires the infrastructure to keep up.

This goes against the ideological position of many local officials, who continue to believe that starving motorists of space will convince them to switch to bikes or buses. Unfortunately, actual human behavior indicates this is not true. Despite all sorts of well-meaning public pressure to do just that, the percentage of commuters that drive into Boulder roughly four out of five - hasn't changed in 25 years.

As we have observed before, this is not because motorists want to confound the ideological objectives of Boulder progressives. This is because cycling is not practical for many commuters and mass transit in these parts still presents enormous first-mile, last-mile problems that extend commute times dramatically.

Having finally acknowledged the problem, some local officials remain determined to steer commuters into the behaviors those officials prefer. Hence the enthusiasm to revamp Arapahoe not to accommodate the cars already there but to create dedicated lanes for a bus rapid transit system that does not yet exist.

Boulder City Councilman Aaron Brockett had the temerity some months ago to ask how often such buses would run. Nobody knows, of course. In part, that's because it would be up to the Regional Transportation District. In part, it's because nobody knows what the market demand might be. But it would not be surprising if ideologically-driven county officials devoted large portions of the roadway to a mode few people use at the expense of the mode most people use in yet another attempt at forced behavior modification.

Officials will respond that they are fighting climate change by trying to reduce auto emissions, a laudable goal. But it is far more likely that goal will be achieved by improvements in transportation technology electrification of the automobile fleet, for example than coercion. Political progressives have every right to try to persuade their constituents to behave differently, but purposefully making them miserable to force them to come around goes against the basic concept of public service.

The ramp from Foothills Parkway onto eastbound U.S. 36 was an even more egregious example, if that's possible. When U.S. 36 was rebuilt to add an express lane in each direction, the eastbound express lane made its initial appearance tantalizingly close to the Foothills ramp, but not close enough. That left two lanes of eastbound U.S. 36 and two lanes of Foothills Parkway to merge into . . . two lanes. Naturally, it became a bottleneck, with two lanes of cars backing up on each roadway and producing more emissions, not less.

The state Department of Transportation patted itself on the back for its innovative solution last week restriping the merge area to make room for three lanes which could have been the original configuration if the express lane had started a little earlier.

"This shows how, by thinking a little differently, we can improve operations despite constrained resources and constrained funding," CDOT Executive Director Shailen Bhatt said. "This relatively low-cost project will save 200 to 700 vehicle hours per day, according to our study."

We don't want to seem ungrateful, but anyone who works in transportation for a living and was surprised that the original configuration produced a daily traffic jam might be better off choosing another line of work.

The suspicion of many commuters whose views don't seem to matter much to Boulder transportation planners is that these apparent signs of incompetence are actually intentional coercive measures intended to change commuter behavior.

But they didn't. Traveling by car remains the fastest way for most commuters to get where they're going, even accounting for increasing congestion and some poor traffic engineering along the way. Until that changes, all the lectures in the world from well-meaning officials won't change the basic calculus for people trying to get to and from work as quickly as they can.

Given that fact of human behavior, it's probably best to go back to basic traffic engineering rules and make the system operate as efficiently as possible. That reduces emissions, too.

2017 the Daily Camera (Boulder, Colo.) Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Read more:
Traffic Engineering Rules Must Be Followed Off the Bat (Opinion) - Government Technology

Artificial Intelligence is a computer program of a higher order and nothing else.

When I saw men fighting off a sinister takeover attempt by machines in Terminator 2- The Judgment Day, 25 years ago, I laughed it off, even though I enjoyed the thrill of the movie.

Man versus machine is probably the second best bogey after God versus Lucifer eternal battle.

Of course, we all want the man to win. We cant imagine ourselves serving some metal bodies, after all. But there may be some among us who are still wondering if the consequences of AI would eventually lead us there.

Recently, a senior manager in analytics in one my client companies, a very large business house indeed, was infatuated with the idea that AI can eventually take over human intelligence. That was surprising because he is not a teenager looking for cheap excitement or someone who does not know what analytics is about.

In fact, he has a pedigree of working for one of the largest analytics companies in the world before he joined my client company. Until now, I thought this idea is for Hollywood filmmakers who are short on creativity. But I think it is better to put this into right perspective as folks are churning enormous hype about AI, confusing everyone as usual.

AI means different things to different people. Some visualise machines working for their own purposes like in Terminator movies. Others imagine something like Watson that is so intelligent that it has solutions to all kinds of problems of mankind. Yet, to some data scientists, it means a piece of python code or a software package which they can run every day to earn a living.

But we can broadly divide AI into two streams: Generalised AI, which we call as Machine Learning (ML) and Applied AI, which focuses on replicating human behavior, such as making robots.

In either of the cases, it is a computer program of a higher order and nothing else!

Let me explain. In programming, we define what a program has to do. We then input data and get an output. We look at the output and if its not satisfactory enough, we go and correct the program. Now, what if, the program itself can look at the output and improve for itself? That is MLor generalised AI. But how does it do that?

Suppose you want to guess the next product a customer is going to buy on Amazon or anywhere else based on her activity until now. If you are a predictive modeler from econometric school, you would want to look at all historical data and find out the factors that determine a customers behavior and use that learning to predict what this customer would do now in the near future.

In reality, these factors can be anything. It can be demographic factors such as her age, marital status, location, education, or occupation. Or it can be the offers of competing products available at that point in time. Or let us say, even the weather influencing her buying behavior, or just that she is frustrated with the results of the American presidential elections. And, lets not forget the influence of her boyfriend on her buying moods?

As we can see, the possibilities are many. And if we consider further possibilities of all the interactions of these different factors among themselves, which means each factor having a partial influence by itself and a combined influence along with some other factors, then the combinations become unmanageable to human attention.

Read the original here:
Artificial Intelligence versus humans, who will win? - YourStory.com