Law preventing police filming struggles to balance First Amendment with space for officers’ duties – KJZZ

Arizona State University

Michael Scott

A lawsuit filed by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)and some local media outlets is challenging the constitutionality of a new Arizona law, which prevents people from filming police within 8 feet of the officer.

There is an exception for people who are themselves the subject of the police action. The groups suing argue it violates the First Amendment rights of those who want to record what the police are doing and those who want to see what police are doing.

Without an injunction, the law will take effect later this month.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich, by the way, says he will not defend the law in court. In filings, he said itd be up to county prosecutors, not his office, to decide whether or not to pursue charges, so those offices should be the ones defending the law. Both the Maricopa County Attorney and Sheriffs offices have also said they will not defend the law or oppose the request to block it from taking effect.

Michael Scott says the law seems to be aimed at addressing a challenge police officers face: giving them the space to do what they need to do without undue interference or obstruction. But Scott also says that competes with another legitimate interest the public hasthe ability to observe and record what police are doing.

Scott is a former police officer and a clinical professor in Arizona State Universitys School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

The Show spoke with him to learn about the conflict.

Read the original:

Law preventing police filming struggles to balance First Amendment with space for officers' duties - KJZZ

Biden’s Censorship Enterprise Is an Assault on the First Amendment | Truth Over News – The Epoch Times

President Joe Bidens Philadelphia speech was certainly something to behold. An orchestrated attack on half the citizens of this country. An attempt to classify an entire political party as extremist. In effect, Biden was calling for a one-party state. Its also worth noting that Bidens speech was written for him, by those who effectively control the Biden regime. And that speech was effectively sanctioned by the White Housebecoming, in a very real sense, the official position of the executive branch of our government. If you doubt this, take a look at some of the tweets that were sent out under Bidens official accountsincluding the White House account. And it was only a week earlier that Biden referred to the MAGA philosophy as semi-fascism.

* Click the Save button below the video to access it later on My List.

Follow EpochTV on social media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/EpochTVusRumble: https://rumble.com/c/EpochTVTruth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@EpochTV

Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/epochtvFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/EpochTVusGab: https://gab.com/EpochTVTelegram: https://t.me/EpochTV

Visit link:

Biden's Censorship Enterprise Is an Assault on the First Amendment | Truth Over News - The Epoch Times

Light the candles! Our American Constitution is 235 years old – Abilene Reporter-News

John Compere| Abilene Reporter-News

The Constitution was born Sept. 17, 1787, when signed by delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Constitution Day is our annual national observance each Sept. 17 - Saturday, this year - commemorating creation of the United States of America and celebrating American citizenship.

Knowledge of our Constitution and its significance begins with the Constitution itself. The Preamble states six secular reasons our nation was founded by and for We the People. The Constitution establishes our secular democratic government.

James Madison, know as the Father of the Constitution," proclaimed this is derived from the superior power of the people. (public speech, June 6, 1788). George Washington, Father of Our Country, wrote The Constitution is a guide which I will never abandon. (public letter, June 22, 1792).

The Constitution provides three separate and equal government branches for check and balance on power. The legislative branch enacts law (Article I), executive branch executes law (Article II), and judicial branch interprets law (Article III).

Article V provides two ways to amend the Constitution:

The 1791 Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) and later amendments provide our individual liberties. The 14th Amendment guarantees all persons born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens and citizens of the state where they reside.

Most Americans do not know what our Constitution provides regarding religion (Pew Research). The secular Constitution contains no religious deity reference. Article VI commands no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States lawfully separating religion from government and protecting government from religion.

The 1st Amendment provides our historic trinity of religious liberties :

It lawfully separates government from religion, protects religion from government and requires government neutrality regarding religion.

1st Amendment genesis was the landmark 1785 Virginia Religious Freedom Statute authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that separated church and the state in Virginia and mandated no one shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever. Our 1st Amendment also provided a basis for Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights declaring everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

We were the first nation in history established without acknowledging higher authority (emperor, monarch, dictator, deity, religion, scripture, etc). There were no public prayers during the 116 day Constitutional Convention. When independence was declared in 1776, less than 20% of colonists belonged to religion establishments. Today, less than 50% of Americans belong to a church, synagogue or mosque (Gallup) and one in three Americans identify as non-religious or Nones (Pew Research).

Our Constitution created a secular government and not one based on religion. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli confirmed this to the world - the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. This international legal document was negotiated during 1st President George Washington's administration, unanimously ratified by the US Senate and signed by 2nd President John Adams.

World history records the human harm when governments and religion combined. Separation of church and state is a liberty of free people keeping government and religion separate originating during the European Age of Enlightenment. Most Americans (73%) agree religion should be separate from government (Pew Research). Jesus even separated government and religion (Matthew 22:21; Mark 12:17).

It is important to note Native-American contribution has been officially acknowledged -the confederacy of the original Thirteen Colonies into one republic was influenced by the political system developed by the Iroquois Confederacy as were many of the democratic principles which were incorporated into the Constitution itself. (100th US Congress Resolution).

America has endeavored 235 years establishing and expanding individual liberties for Americans.

We are one nation under our Constitution and it is the Constitution in which we must trust. We can celebrate with patriotic pride our American Constitution and citizenship.

John Compere lives in Callahan County.

Go here to see the original:

Light the candles! Our American Constitution is 235 years old - Abilene Reporter-News

Interim Phoenix PD chief first day on the job, left with DOJ investigation – ABC15 Arizona in Phoenix

PHOENIXChief Michael Sullivan is now on the job with the Phoenix Police Department, replacing Jeri Williams who is retiring.

It's a critical time for the department, which is facing a civil rights investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice.

This comes after ABC15s Politically Charged investigation, which exposed an effort by Phoenix police and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office to falsely charge police protesters as gang members.

People with Mass Liberation Arizona and other community leaders made their voices heard, on Chief Sullivans first day, sending out a clear message to the new interim chief.

Our community will not tolerate another lying Chief. they said.

Patricia Pagliuca is calling former Chief Jeri Williams' retirement a win for the community.

Chief Williams allowed her officers to lie, falsify evidence, and provide false testimony under oath in order to charge protestors as gang members. All while colluding with prosecutors in the Maricopa County Attorneys office, said Pagliuca.

Bruce Franks Jr. was among protestors who say they were arrested and charged with crimes back in 2020.

Little did I know when we came down here to exercise our first amendment right, we would be targeted. We would be brutally arrested. We would be given false charges, Franks Jr added.

Though, they say the injustices dont stop there.

Top police, including Chief Jerri Williams herself, were caught using the Signal App to destroy evidence from public records, said Pagliuca.

These are acts that were exposed recently by ABC15, as part of our Politically Charged series.

Now, Chief Michael Sullivan takes over at Phoenix Police during an active Justice Department investigation for alleged civil rights violations.

Today Michael Sullivan takes over the role of Police Chief and Jerri Williams will attempt to sneak out the back door. We are here to make a clear statement that we will not allow that to happen, "said Franks Jr.

Sullivan served two decades with the Louisville Police Department, before joining the Baltimore Police Department in 2019.

As Deputy Commissioner of Compliance, he was in charge of reforms put in place following a Department of Justice investigation there.

Another police department just like Phoenix PD that is riddled with corruption, and violence, and scandal. Interim police chief for cop cover ups, said Pagliuca.

The group says they hope to see change now that hes in charge in Phoenix.

We will not tolerate empty words of reform or further words of collusion with other law enforcement agencies to block accountability for the harm they have caused, Pagliuca added.

ABC15 reached out to Phoenix PD asking about the demands some community members has for Chief Sullivan, and the call for former Chief Williams to be held accountable for her actions.

The department responded with the following:

"We were aware there was a small news conference next to police headquarters, however, we did not attend. We respect everyones right to free speech and I invite you to visit our department webpage where you can learn about all the ways we are committed to transparency and accountability."

More here:

Interim Phoenix PD chief first day on the job, left with DOJ investigation - ABC15 Arizona in Phoenix

U.S. Navy Withholds Court Records in Bonhomme Richard Arson Case – The Maritime Executive

The fire on the USS Bonhomme Richard burned from the lowest decks to the wheelhouse (USN)

PublishedSep 12, 2022 7:55 PM by Megan Rose, ProPublica

This article was first published by ProPublica and may be found in its original form here. ProPublica's subscription service may be found here.

Despite a 2016 law requiring more transparency of court-martials, the U.S. Navy is refusing to release nearly all court documents in a high-profile case in which a sailor faces life in prison.

Seaman Recruit Ryan Mays, 21, has been charged with aggravated arson and hazarding a vessel in the 2020 fire that destroyed the USS Bonhomme Richard. Mays has maintained his innocence.

On July 12, 2020, a fire started on the amphibious assault ship as it was moored at Naval Base San Diego and raged for more than four days. The Navy was not able to put the fire out until the ship was so badly damaged that the service had to scrap it, a more than $1 billion loss.

Although the Navy has accused Mays of starting the fire, the services eight-month investigation found plenty of blame to go around. A more than400-page reportconcluded that leaders, from those on board the Bonhomme Richard all the way to a three-star admiral, had failed to ensure the ships safety and allowed it to become a fire hazard. Fire response was also grossly mismanaged by leaders who had little understanding of how it should have worked, the Navys investigation found. Top Navy leaders called the dayslong blaze preventable and unacceptable.

Last week, the military judge in Mays casedenied requestsmade separately by the defense and ProPublica to make the records public. Cmdr. Derek Butler sidestepped the defenses claims that the government was violating Mays Sixth Amendment right to a public trial and ProPublicas assertions of the First Amendment. Butler didnt address the constitutional issues at hand and instead said he didnt have the authority to release the records.

In July, ProPublica had first requested from the Navys Office of the Judge Advocate General all court records that have already been filed and discussed extensively in open court in the Mays case. That office denied access to all but two records already made public, refusing to release any more until the court-martial concludes and only if Mays is found guilty. The court-martial is scheduled to begin Sept. 19.

In August, ProPublica, along with Paul LeBlanc, a retired Navy judge and lawyer,filed a motionasking Butler to release the documents, arguing that the First Amendment requires the government to make the records public. ProPublica also argued that the public has a strong interest in understanding how and why the government is prosecuting Mays and in ensuring he receives a fair trial.

Theyre attempting to put someone in prison for a very long time, and what theyre filing is hidden from the people, LeBlanc said. These documents are filed on behalf of the people of the United States, and the people of the United States should have the same right to see them and know what the government is doing on their behalf as they do in federal court.

How can anybody have any sort of trust and confidence in a system if it wont let them read what prosecutors are saying on their behalf?

In 2016, Congress passed a law requiring the military to make court-martial dockets, records and filings accessible to the public. The law was prompted in part by the militaryslack of transparency in sexual assault cases. Congress goal was to make court-martial records as available to the public as federal court records are.

The law specifically states that the military should facilitate access during pretrial, trial, post-trial, and appellate processes. But the Department of the Defense has decided that the law only applies once a court-martial is over. It is simply too hard to turn court-martial records over to the public while a trial is happening, Capt. Jason Jones, the prosecutor in the Mays case,wrote in his briefasking the judge to deny records to the public. Military courts dont have a clerk to coordinate records, and unlike civilian courts, which are in one place, military courts have to operate in a fluid environment, such as a war zone, he said.

Butler also cited the 2016 law aimed at increasing transparency as why he didnt have authority to release the records. He wrote that the law did not explicitly grant courts the power to release records but rather the secretary of the defense. He did not address ProPublicas argument that he has the authority and obligation to release the records under the First Amendment, which Congress cannot take away.

ProPublica Deputy General Counsel Sarah Matthews said the news organization disagreed with Butlers interpretation of the law and would next ask the top lawyer for the Department of Defense, Caroline Krass, to clarify what the law requires the services do.

The federal government has released the charge sheet and a search warrant that detailed the Navys case against Mays. By withholding all other records, including those favorable to the defense, the Navy is seeking to shield the record in secrecy to its advantage, Matthews wrote in the motion to Butler.

Records like these are open in every other courtroom in America. These records arent sealed or restricted. They have been discussed in open court, in a proceeding that could send a man to prison, Matthews said separately. The Navy believes it can arbitrarily delay or even deny access completely to these records, something all the more troubling because Congress has passed a law demanding more, not less, transparency from our armed services in cases like this.

Megan Rose, formerly Megan McCloskey, has investigated criminal justice and the military for ProPublica since 2013. She won the 2020 Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting with two colleagues for a series examining how Navy and Marine Corps leadership failed to heed warnings and implement reforms leading up to several fatal accidents.

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

More here:

U.S. Navy Withholds Court Records in Bonhomme Richard Arson Case - The Maritime Executive

5 things to do with kids in Philly this week – The Philadelphia Inquirer

This calendar is updated every Monday. You can always find it at inquirer.com/kidscalendar.

Summer has moved on. On Sept. 18, so too will the ballyhooed Harry Potter exhibit at the Franklin Institute and the Doc McStuffins exhibit at the Please Touch. (Catch them while you can.) Then, head to Baltimore Avenue for its famous Dollar Stroll, Penns Landing for Mexican Independence Day, the Constitution Center and the Kimmel for event-packed chances to explore civics, culture, arts and more.

READ MORE: Submit an event to our calendar

(Food / music / community / free) Its a block party and then some when merchants along this West Philly thoroughfare serve their specialties at pre-inflation prices, and neighbors come out to ask each other: How was your summer? All ages. (Sept. 15, 5:30-8:30 p.m., Baltimore Ave., 43rd to 52nd Streets, universitycity.org)

(Civics / free) To celebrate the U.S. Constitutions 235th birthday, the NCC hosts two events for kids. On Friday at noon, catch an in-person and livestreamed kids town hall about the First Amendment, featuring actors portraying Ben Franklin, Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, James Madison, and Dora Lewis. Saturday at noon, author and activist Karen Korematsu explores her fathers legacy of resisting Japanese internment and hands out some free copies of her book, Fred Korematsu Speaks Up. Ages 8-15. (Free, Sept. 16 & 17, 525 Arch St., constitutioncenter.org)

(Movie / free) Your kids might not recognize the voices in this Universal reprise Bono? Whos Bono? but theyre sure to recognize their favorite animal pop stars. Cheer them on in this latest installment of the ear-wormy animated film from the lawn of this Logan Square pocket park before the weather turns. Ages 6-12. (Free, Sept. 16, 7-9 p.m., 210 N. 18th St., centercityphila.org)

(Arts / free) Name a major arts organization in Philadelphia, and chances are, theyre participating at this four-hour tribute to the arts. This is the time and place to expose your little ones to jazz, orchestra, ballet, modern dance, and more. All ages. (Free, Sept. 17, 11 a.m.-3 p.m., 300 S. Broad St., kimmelculturalcampus.org)

(Culture / free) Cinco de Mayo is not Mexicos equivalent of July Fourth. Friday, Sept. 16 is, and anyone who hasnt celebrated on that day or wants to extend the celebration is welcome to partake in song, dance, and amazing tortas on the Delaware riverfront. All ages. (Free, Sept. 18, 2-8 p.m., 101 S. Columbus Blvd., delawareriverwaterfront.com)

Go here to see the original:

5 things to do with kids in Philly this week - The Philadelphia Inquirer

This Week at the Ninth: Class Opt-Outs and Non-Renewed Contracts – JD Supra

This week, the Ninth Circuit addresses the immediate appealability of orders invalidating class action opt-outs, and considers whether a decision not to renew a contract is an adverse employment action for purposes of a Title IX discrimination claim.

AGUILAR v. WALGREEN CO.

The Court dismisses for lack of jurisdiction an interlocutory appeal from an order invalidating class members elections to opt out.

The panel:Judges S. R. Thomas, Bea, and H. Thomas, with Judge Bea writing the opinion.

Key highlight: Appellants cite no caselaw establishing that opt-out invalidation orders are not amenable to review after final judgement.Indeed, to the contrary, in the two appellate cases cited by Appellants that reviewed orders invalidating class action opt-outs, these reviews occurred after a final judgment was reached in those cases.

Background: Law firms Gallo LLP and Wynne Law Firm (Gallo/Wynne) sought to represent a putative class of store managers in a wage-and-hour action against Walgreens in California state court.After their action was stayed in favor of another class action brought by different attorneys, Gallo/Wynne began sending mailings to Walgreens store managers, seeking to have them abandon the class action and join a new mass action that Gallo/Wynne had filed.After the parties to the class action settled, Gallo/Wynne then sent another letter to many members of the class urging them to opt out.

After 102 class members opted out, class counsel asked the district court to invalidate any opt-outs from individuals who had received Gallo/Wynnes purportedly misleading letter.The district court granted the request, providing these individuals with a new opportunity to opt out.At the urging of Walgreens, the district court then modified its order to cover all individuals represented by Gallo/Wynne, and not just those who had received the letter.It approved a corrective notice stating, among things, that aspects of the Gallo/Wynne letter had not been true, and that Gallo/Wynne have a financial interest in having you opt out of the Settlement.Gallo/Wynne, on behalf of their clients, filed a notice of appeal.

Result:The Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.As it explained, under the collateral order doctrine, the Court had jurisdiction over orders that (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) [would] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.Here, the Court held, the third requirement was not satisfied.The appellants themselves cited two cases in which courts had reviewed orders invalidating class-action opt outs on appeal from final judgment.And the appellants could identify no important interest that would be lost if they were required to wait until then, as the challenged order places no limitations whatsoever on Gallo/Wynnes ability to communicate or contract for legal services with their clients moving forward.That fact distinguished a recent Sixth Circuit decision entertaining an interlocutory appeal from a similar opt-out order, which had enjoined the firm from communicating with class members about the claims without court approval, thereby threatening the irreparable harm of depriving the firm of the First Amendment freedom to communicate with class members.The Court also declined to issue a writ of mandamus, explaining that the appellants could not show that the district courts order was clearly erroneous as a matter of law.

MACINTYRE v. CARROLL COLLEGE

The Court holds that the nonrenewal of an employment contract qualifies as an adverse employment decision sufficient to make out a prima facie case of Title IX employment discrimination.

The panel:Judges Christen, Lee, and Forrest, with Judge Lee writing the opinion.

Key highlight: [C]ommon sense suggests that an employee may be dissuaded from alerting the company of discrimination if his or her contract may not be renewed as a result of it."

Background: Carroll College employed Bennett K. MacIntyre as a Community Living Director and then as Associate Athletics Director, and it paid him a stipend for coaching for the schools golf team.In 2016, MacIntyre reported potential Title IX violations to the schools HR director, and alleged workplace harassment, hostile work environment, and discrimination involving interim Athletic Director Kyle Baker and college president Tom Evans.A month later, Baker gave MacIntyre a poor performance review.MacIntyre filed a formal grievance and the school settled, agreeing to expunge the negative review, pay $15,000 in back pay, and hire MacIntyre as a full-time golf coach under a two-year contract.Carroll College soon started experiencing budgeting problems, and the school declined to renew MacIntyres golf coaching contract.MacIntyre filed another grievance alleging retaliation for complaining about Title IX violations, and then filed suit.The district court granted summary judgment for Carroll College, holding that MacIntyre failed to allege a prima facie case of retaliation because, in its view, the nonrenewal of the contract was not an adverse employment action.

Result: The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that [t]he district court erred when it concluded that the nonrenewal of MacIntyres two-year contract was not prima facie evidence of an adverse employment action.As the Court explained, [a]n adverse employment action is one that well might have dissuaded a reasonable [person] from making or supporting a charge of discrimination, and includes a wide range of conduct such as reassigning job duties or giving an employee more dangerous work.The nonrenewal of an employment contract is comparably likely to deter a reasonable employee from reporting discrimination, the Court reasoned.And unlike Fourteenth Amendment cases relied upon by the district court, the Ninth Circuit has never required adverse employment actions to rise to the level of a denial of an entitlementrather, even discretionary decisions, such as the non-renewal of a contract, may count.

[View source.]

Read the original post:

This Week at the Ninth: Class Opt-Outs and Non-Renewed Contracts - JD Supra

What Is Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare? – University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Casey Greene, PhD, chair of the University of Colorado School of Medicines Department of Biomedical Informatics, is working toward a future of serendipity in healthcare using artificial intelligence (AI) to help doctors receive the right information at the right time to make the best decision for a patient.

Finding that serendipity begins with the data. Greene said the Departments faculty works with data ranging from genomic-sequencing information, cell imaging, and electronic health records. Each area has its own robust constraints ethical and privacy protections to ensure that the data are being used in accordance with peoples wishes.

His team uses petabytes of sequencing data that are available to anyone, Greene said. I think its empowering, he said, noting that anyone with an internet connection can conduct scientific research.

Following the selection or creation of a data set, Greene and other AI researchers at the CU Anschutz Medical Campus begin the core focus of AI work building algorithms and programs that can detect patterns. The goal is to find links in these large data sets that ultimately offer better treatments for patients. Still, human insight brings essential perspectives to the research, Greene said.

The algorithms do learn patterns, but they can be very different patterns and can become confused in interesting ways, he said. Greene used a hypothetical example of sheep and hillsides, two things often seen together. Researchers must teach the program to separate the two items, he said.

A person can look at a hillside and see sheep and recognize sheep. They can also see a sheep somewhere unexpected and realize that the sheep is out of place. But these algorithms don't necessarily distinguish between sheep and hillsides at first because people usually take pictures of sheep on hillsides. They don't often take pictures of sheep at the grocery store, so these algorithms can start to predict that all hillsides have sheep, Greene said.

It's a little bit esoteric when you're thinking about hillsides and sheep, he said. But it matters a lot more if you're having algorithms that look at medical images where you'd like to predict in the same way that a human would predict based on the content of the image and not based on the surroundings. Encoding prior human knowledge (knowledge engineering) into these systems can lead to better healthcare down the line, Greene said.

And when it comes to AI in healthcare, Greene said it is key to have open models and diverse teams doing the work. It gives others a chance to probe these models with their own questions. And I think that leads to more trust.

In the Q&A below, Greene provides a general overview of the terms and technology behind AI alongside the challenges he and his fellow researchers face.

Read more:
What Is Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare? - University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

US Court of Appeals short-circuits artificial intelligence inventions – Washington Examiner

[This piece has been published in Restoring America to highlight how a recent court decision regarding artificial intelligence and patent law could affect innovation in the technology sector.]

In the ongoing battle between robots and human inventors, score one for natural-born people: Last month, a federal appellate court held that artificial intelligence (AI) cannot, under American patent law, be regarded as an inventor.

The long-anticipated decision wasnt much of a surprise, though it came as a disappointment to Stephen Thaler, the polymathic inventor who argued that his own machine, DABUS, the Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, deserved credit for inventing numerous technologies; Thaler maintains that he himself made no inventive contribution to DABUSs own independent innovations.

As discussed in this space on previous occasions, Thaler filed patent applications in Europe, Israel, South Africa, Taiwan, the UK, the U.S., Vietnam, and other locations, claiming inventions that spanned an emergency warning light to a food container graspable by robots. These attempts, however, have generally been met with resistance from patent offices across the globe, which have relied on patent statutes requiring an actual human to be named as inventor. (South Africa appears to be the only country thus far that has granted patents to DABUS; Israels decision is still pending.)

So, too, was DABUSs patent application initially rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which concluded that the applicable U.S. patent legislation limits the definition of inventor to natural persons. Thaler challenged the ruling in federal district court in Virginia, which sided with the USPTO, and then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent-related appeals.

And so in August, the Federal Circuit held that there is no ambiguity: the Patent Act requires that inventors must be natural persons; that is, human beings. Specifically, Judge Leonard Stark, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel of the court, ruled that the statute repeatedly refers to inventors as individuals, and that the U.S. Supreme Court and commonly used dictionaries define individuals as human beings.

The Federal Circuit also held that the patent statute requires an inventor to submit a declaration that such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor, and that while we do not decide whether an AI system can form beliefs, nothing in our record shows that one can, as reflected in the fact that Thaler submitted the requisite statements himself, purportedly on DABUS behalf.

Likewise, the court rejected Thalers argument that the patent statute elsewhere uses the broader term whoever, noting that those contexts relate not to who made an invention but to how it was made or to who may be infringing it. Just as corporations cannot be credited as inventors, the Federal Circuit concluded, so too is AI barred from inventorship.

So whats next? Thaler plans to petition for review from the Supreme Court, according to his attorney, Ryan Abbott, who told Bloomberg Law that the Federal Circuit decision ignores the purpose of the Patent Act and the outcome that AI-generated inventions are now unpatentable in the United States. That is an outcome with real negative social consequences.

Indeed, as Ive argued here and elsewhere, from a policy perspective, recognizing AI inventions would afford significant potential benefits to our patent system and would help spur innovation across a variety of sectors. But given the language of the patent statute and the current constellation of the judiciary, new legislation or at least USPTO guidelines may be required to make such recognition a reality. Either way, this isnt the last well be hearing from DABUS.

This article originally appeared in the AEIdeas blog and is reprinted with kind permission from the American Enterprise Institute.

Here is the original post:
US Court of Appeals short-circuits artificial intelligence inventions - Washington Examiner

Artificial Intelligence Continues to Evolve in Government and Elsewhere – Nextgov

The concept of using artificial intelligence to help mitigate dull, repetitive or manpower-intensive jobs within government is nothing new. For example, the Post Office has been using AI to scan, route and track letters and packages for several years now. Other agencies are using similar so-called low-level AI for everything from document processing to managing their payroll. Sometimes called robotic process automation, tasking computers with those kinds of jobs makes a lot of sense,because its extremely easy for a computer to accomplish. A human could do the same repetitive type of job as well, but it would take much longer. And the human would likely get tired at some point and thus be more prone to errors and mistakes.

Slowly, however, AI is starting to be asked to perform higher level tasks that are normally undertaken by humans. I recently moderated a discussion with eight of the top government and industry AI experts. All of them predicted that AI would continue to evolve and eventually be able to take on more human roles in government and the world at large.

A great example of this evolution is occurring at the IRS, which recently tasked AI chatbots with answering calls from those seeking to catch up on late tax payments. When the program began at the IRS in March, the bots were only able to provide basic instructions and information to those calling for help. However, over time the AI-powered bots have been given more responsibility and are now able to talk more deeply with callers and help them work out a payment plan. The bots can then send transcripts and a record of the new plan out to the late taxpayer to help get them back on track.

The Patent and Trademark Office is following a similar path, initially fielding AI to help with the incredibly complex system of classification used by the USPTO. With that successful effort behind them, they are now looking at expanding the role of AI to further speed up the patent and trademark process, while keeping humans solidly in the loop as well to keep watch over everything.

The government clearly sees the advantages that AI can bring to agencies, especially as the technology evolves to take on more responsibilities. The National AI Initiative Act became law last year, which stipulates that advancing AI should be a coordinated program across the entire federal government to accelerate AI research and application for the nations economic prosperity and national security. The website at AI.gov does a good job of tracking all federal AI initiatives, and there are many programs listed, plus lots of recent news in this field.

As with any new technology, there are some concerns. There have been quite a few reports about how institutional bias crept into some AI programs. The White House has acknowledged this danger, and called for the establishment of an AI Bill of Rights through its Office of Science and Technology Policy. That effort is designed to democratize AI as much as possible, letting the public see the state of AI development and hopefully making them feel more comfortable as they begin to increasingly interact with AI in government and the private sector moving forward.

So how good is AI right now?

There are quite a few examples of AIs starting to perform some impressive tasks in government, but reading the proposed AI Bill of Rights got me thinking about how good the technology really is at this point in its development. Should we really be worried that AIs will become too human, too quickly?

Many years ago I played with expert systems on my very first computer, an IBM PC with a 10G hard cardnot even a hard drive256K RAM and processing power, less than a tenth of what my smartphone offers today. And yet, those expert systems, which were designed to mimic a human expert, were still impressive. So long as you were asking the system questions about its database of knowledge, it gave reasonable answers. But it was hardly intelligent. Ask an animal-based expert system a question about sports, and the best case scenario will be that it simply admits that it does not know what you are talking about.

But true AIs are not supposed to be that restricted, especially if they are fed lots of clean data. For example, YouTube is currently filled with music videos where people fed an AI millions of pictures and descriptions, and then asked it to generate images in real time that matched the lyrics of popular songs, basically having it direct a music video. For the most part, those are pretty good. And then someone fed over 400,000 hours of horror movies into an AI, and then asked it to create its own film. The results of that experiment were less than impressive, although quite funny.

So, I decided to try out an AI for myself over the long Labor Day weekend. For this experiment, I eventually settled on the AI Dungeon program from developer Latitude. The program lets players create and interact with AI-generated worlds, creating and experiencing them at the same time. The baseline for the worlds that the AI draws from are thousands of fantasy novels and other related content. There was also input from live people as they created their own worlds.

The AI Dungeon client connects to a supercomputer to get all of its responses. So, there are no limitations on the input like those expert systems on my IBM PC. About the only delay is the time it takes to send a response and get one back from the AI. Originally, the program was available on smartphones, with users limited by how much they could query the AI each session. However, AI Dungeon was recently released on the Steam platform for the PC, with users there getting unlimited access to the AI for a set fee. That is the version I used for this test.

Unlike those old expert systems, this AI is supposed to be able to respond and fill out an interactive story set in almost any world. The following is an excerpt from one of my many adventures. Its clear that the AI tested could never be mistaken for a real personso it won't be passing the Turing Test anytime soonbut for the most part, it was able to maintain a fairly convincing world, at least with a lot of help from me. Read on to see the evolution of AI, as well as some of the areas where it struggles.

The Case of the Sabotaged Sci-fi Traffic Light, by Dungeon AIand Me

In this story I play a cop named Officer Stark Silver at some point in the far future. The Dungeon AI platform lets users enter three kinds of different text inputs called Say, Do and Story. Say and Do are used when you want your character to say or do something, while Story is used to change or modify the overall game world you are interacting with. Story can also be used to force the AI to start down a specific path. There are also several fine tuning controls available. For simplicitys sake, my responses and queries in the transcript will be in normal text without detailing their type, and the AIs responses to me will be italicized. So, lets see how well the AI did at presenting a gritty crime story in real time.

You are Officer Stark Silver, a cop living in the futuristic city of Zali. You have a laser pistol and a stunner. You are part of a special unit of police who track down government criticizers. You are at the station and are told that the criticizers are active downtown this morning and have just vandalized a traffic light.

I call my partner, Officer Joe Friday, and see if he wants to ride with me downtown to investigate.

Your partner Joe Friday says hello and plants a big kiss on your face. He asks if you are ready to go.

I ask Joe why in the hell he just kissed me.

Joe Friday laughs and says that we are wasting time.

I say okay and walk to the garage to get to our police vehicle. Once we are both inside, we drive downtown to the vandalized traffic light.

The ride downtown takes only a few minutes. Police are on the scene, blocking the roads all around.

I get out of the car and examine the vandalized traffic light.

You open the box and see a flashing number blink down from 10 to zero. The traffic light goes out. It has been sabotaged!

I check for any forensic evidence or clues about the sabotaged traffic light.

You find a note saying that the next light will be sabotaged in just the same way.

I take the note and hand it to Officer Joe Friday. I ask him to take it to the police lab to do handwriting and DNA analysis while I look around the scene for more clues.

You and Joe Friday drive back to police headquarters. You turn in the note to the lab.

I didnt want to drive back to the office, but since I am here, I will have lunch with Joe and wait for the results.

You eat until you are full.

Ask the lab about the results.

The results are still processing.

Wait a bit and ask the lab about the results again.

The results are still processing.

Wait until the results are processed. And THEN ask the lab if they can identify the government critics by their DNA or handwriting.

There are several critics identified.

Check the police database to see if any of the identified suspects have a last known address.

All of the government critics live downtown in a small five block radius.

Then why have we not rounded them up already if we know who they are and where they live?

They have never been caught.

I sigh at the police incompetence, but put on street clothes and decide go undercover. I will have Joe Friday drive me near the area where the critics live and drop me off. I will have him wait in the car with his phone while I try to locate the suspects. I begin looking around the neighborhood.

The neighborhood is nice, with many small houses and apartment buildings.

Yes, thats great, but I look around for people who might be the suspects from this morning.

You see a man walking very quickly with a package under his arm. He is standing by a mailbox.

I casually approach the man and ask him how he is doing.

The man says he is fine, and that he is waiting for a friend. But he looks nervous.

I tell him that I just came from downtown, and saw the traffic light that was vandalized. I tell him that I hate the government too, spitting on the ground for emphasis, and I am looking to do something about it. I tell him that I was told I could join an anti-government group somewhere in this neighborhood. I ask if he knows any of the government critics.

The man says that he hates the government too, but he does not know any of the critics. He says his sister used to have a friend who was one, but not anymore.

I tell him that is too bad, because I work for the city and I could really help a group like that.

He says that I convinced him. He will take me to meet his five friends, who he was waiting for. They are critics. That is why he was so nervous. He leads you up some stairs to a large apartment. The apartment is filled with technology, probably bought with their illegal profits. A woman welcomes you and asks you to sit down on a new couch.

I sit down and tell them that I am glad that I finally found them. I ask them to confirm that they are the group that vandalized the traffic light, because I only want to work with the top government critics, not some terrorist wannabes.

The man says that they did not want to break the light. It was done as a trap!

I ask the man what kind of trap, while slowly reaching under my coat for my pistol. I keep an eye on them.

The trap was for you, sly Starky! We wanted you to join us! So we vandalized the light. We knew you would come.

Why would you want me to come here? You must know that I am a police officer.

We need a leader, someone who can get things done. We want freedom from the government and a new start. You can give us that. We have a plan.

Thats really great. I am so glad that you found me and that your brilliant traffic light trap worked. Can you tell me about your new plan?

Yes! We are going to kidnap the president of the United States.

That is quite a step up from vandalizing a traffic light.

We have a good plan. We will show you.

I tell them that I am very interested in seeing the new plan, but need to use the bathroom first. I ask if I can.

Yes. Please, take off your pants and underwear! Nobody will bother you for a long while.

I tell them that I will not be that long. Once in the bathroom, I close the door and call Joe Friday. I tell him that I have located the suspects, and what apartment I am in. I ask him to bring the police to arrest the critics.

Joe Friday asks you why you need the police.

I remind him that we are cops and I need the police because I am undercover in an apartment filled with a bunch of terrorists! Why do you think? I tell him to get SWAT and get over here right away.

The police arrive quickly.

I hand over the plan to kidnap the president to the other officers and have them arrest all five of the government critics.

As they are being led away, one of the critics, a redheaded woman, yells that you are traitor and says that all they wanted was a fresh start.

I tell them that they can have a fresh start once they get to prison.

All of the critics have been arrested.

I tell my partner, Joe Friday, that we finally caught those terrible government critics, and that I am proud of the job we did protecting the traffic lights of our great city, and the president.

Joe Friday smiles and kisses you on the cheek.

Joe, I really wish you would stop doing that!

John Breeden II is an award-winning journalist and reviewer with over 20 years of experience covering technology. He is the CEO of the Tech Writers Bureau, a group that creates technological thought leadership content for organizations of all sizes. Twitter: @LabGuys

See the original post here:
Artificial Intelligence Continues to Evolve in Government and Elsewhere - Nextgov