Suchergebnisse

Recently, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a subject of major media interest. For instance, last May the New York Times devoted an article to the prospect of the time at which AI equals and then surpasses human intelligence. The article speculated on the dangers that such an event and its "strong AI" might bring. Then in July, the Times discussed computer-driven warfare. Various experts expressed concern about the growing power of computers, particularly as they become the basis for new weapons, such as the predator drones that the United States now uses to kill terrorists. These articles encapsulate the twin fears about AI that may impel regulation in this area—the existential dread of machines that become uncontrollable by humans and the political anxiety about machines' destructive power on a revolutionized battlefield. Both fears are overblown. The existential fear is based on the mistaken notion that strong artificial intelligence will necessarily reflect human malevolence. The military fear rests on the mistaken notion that computer-driven weaponry will necessarily worsen, rather than temper, human malevolence. In any event, given the centrality of increases in computer power to military technology, it would be impossible to regulate research into AI without empowering the worst nations on earth.

Analyzes the Bush administration's legal strategy regarding the war on terror. Three legal errors are outlined before addressing two legal criticisms from opponents -- that terrorism requires only enhanced law enforcement & that the US is bound by international law even if that law is not incorporated into domestic law. Attention is then given to issues related to detention of suspects, interrogation methods, war crimes tribunals, & surveillance. Concluding that the Bush administration's legal strategy in the war on terror has been deeply flawed, suggestions for future administrations are offered. D. Edelman

McGinnis reviews 'Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money' by David S. Broder.

State and local governments today are, with few exceptions, in deep financial distress. While some governors can offer the recession, the housing crisis, or the loss of an important industry as an excuse for poor finances, many states are simply structurally insolvent not unlike General Motors prior to bankruptcy. Indeed, California's travails began well before the recession, and warnings about the financial health of Illinois and New York predate the present crisis. It is no secret that the primary cause of the states' long-term problems are their bloated public sectors particularly their public pension obligations. Adapted from the source document.