Daily Archives: August 28, 2021

A team of six Emory computer science students are helping to usher in a new era in artificial intelligence. Theyve developed a chatbot capable of making logical inferences that aims to hold deeper, more nuanced conversations with humans than have previously been possible. Theyve christened their chatbot Emora, because it sounds like a feminine version of Emory and is similar to a Hebrew word for an eloquent sage.

The team is now refining their new approach to conversational AI a logic-based framework for dialogue management that can be scaled to conduct real-life conversations. Their longer-term goal is to use Emora to assist first-year college students, helping them to navigate a new way of life, deal with day-to-day issues and guide them to proper human contacts and other resources when needed.

Eventually, they hope to further refine their chatbot developed during the era of COVID-19 with the philosophy Emora cares for you to assist people dealing with social isolation and other issues, including anxiety and depression.

The Emory team is headed by graduate students Sarah Finch and James Finch, along with faculty advisorJinho Choi, associate professor in the Department of Computer Sciences. The team also includes graduate student Han He and undergraduates Sophy Huang, Daniil Huryn and Mack Hutsell. All the students are members of ChoisNatural Language Processing Research Laboratory.

Were taking advantage of established technology while introducing a new approach in how we combine and execute dialogue management so a computer can make logical inferences while conversing with a human, Sarah Finch says.

We believe that Emora represents a groundbreaking moment for conversational artificial intelligence, Choi adds. The experience that users have with our chatbot will be largely different than chatbots based on traditional, state-machine approaches to AI.

Last year, Choi and Sarah and James Finch headed a team of 14 Emory students that took first place in Amazons Alexa Prize Socialbot Grand Challenge, winning $500,000 for their Emora chatbot. The annual Alexa Prize challenges university students to make breakthroughs in the design of chatbots, also known as socialbots software apps that simplify interactions between humans and computers by allowing them to talk with one another.

This year, they developed a completely new version of Emora with the new team of six students.

They made the bold decision to start from scratch, instead of building on the state-machine platform they developed in 2020 for Emora. We realized there was an upper limit to how far we could push the quality of the system we developed last year, Sarah Finch says. We wanted to do something much more advanced, with the potential to transform the field of artificial intelligence.

They based the current Emora on three types of frameworks to advance core natural language processing technology, computational symbolic structures and probabilistic reasoning for dialogue management.

They worked around the clock, making it into the Alexa Prize finals in June. They did not complete most of the new system, however, until just a few days before they had to submit Emora to the judges for the final round of the competition.

That gave the team no time to make finishing touches to the new system, work out the bugs, and flesh out the range of topics that it could deeply engage in with a human. While they did not win this years Alexa Prize, the strategy led them to develop a system that holds more potential to open new doors of possibilities for AI.

In the run-up to the finals, users of Amazons virtual assistant, known as Alexa, volunteered to test out the competing chatbots, which were not identified by their names or universities. A chatbots success was gauged by user ratings.

The competition is extremely valuable because it gave us access to a high volume of people talking to our bot from all over the world, James Finch says. When we wanted to try something new, we didnt have to wait long to see whether it worked. We immediately got this deluge of feedback so that we could make any needed adjustments. One of the biggest things we learned is that what people really want to talk about is their personal experiences.

Sarah and James Finch, who married in 2019, are the ultimate computer power couple. They met at age 13 in a math class in their hometown of Grand Blanc, Michigan. They were dating by high school, bonding over a shared love of computer programming. As undergraduates at Michigan State University, they worked together on a joint passion for programming computers to speak more naturally with humans.

If we can create more flexible and robust dialogue capability in machines, Sarah Finch explains, a more natural, conversational interface could replace pointing, clicking and hours of learning a new software interface. Everyone would be on a more equal footing because using technology would become easier.

She hopes to pursue a career in enhancing computer dialogue capabilities with private industry after receiving her PhD.

James Finch is most passionate about the intellectual aspects of solving problems and is leaning towards a career in academia after receiving his PhD.

The Alexa Prize deadlines required the couple to work many 60-hour-plus weeks on developing Emoras framework, but they didnt consider it a grind. Ive enjoyed every day, James Finch says. Doing this kind of dialogue research is our dream and were living it. We are making something new that will hopefully be useful to the world.

They chose to come to Emory for graduate school because of Choi, an expert in natural language processing, and Eugene Agichtein, professor in the Department of Computer Science and an expert in information retrieval.

Emora was designed not just to answer questions, but as a social companion.

A caring chatbot was an essential requirement for Choi. At the end of every team meeting, he asks one member to say something about how the others have inspired them. When someone sees a bright side in us, and shares it with others, everyone sees that side and that makes it even brighter, he says.

Chois enthusiasm is also infectious.

Growing up in Seoul, South Korea, he knew by the age of six that he wanted to design robots. I remember telling my mom that I wanted to make a robot that would do homework for me so I could play outside all day, he recalls. It has been my dream ever since. I later realized that it was not the physical robot, but the intelligence behind the robot that really attracted me.

The original Emora was built on a behavioral mathematical model similar to a flowchart and equipped with several natural language processing models. Depending on what people said to the chatbot, the machine made a choice about what path of a conversation to go down. While the system was good at chit chat, the longer a conversation went on, the more chances that the system would miss a social-linguistic nuance and the conversation would go off the rails, diverting from the logical thread.

This year, the Emory team designed Emora so that she could go beyond a script and make logical inferences. Rather than a flowchart, the new system breaks a conversation down into concepts and represents them using a symbolic graph. A logical inference engine allows Emora to connect the graph of an ongoing conversation into other symbolic graphs that represent a bank of knowledge and common sense. The longer the conversations continue, the more its ability to make logical inferences grows.

Sarah and James Finch worked on the engineering of the new Emora system, as well as designing logic structures and implementing related algorithms. Undergraduates Sophy Huang, Daniil Huryn and Mack Hutsell focused on developing dialogue content and conversational scripts for integrating within the chatbot. Graduate student Han He focused on structure parsing, including recent advances in the technology.

A computer cannot deal with ambiguity, it can only deal with structure, Han He explains. Our parser turns the grammar of a sentence into a graph, a structure like a tree, that describes what a chatbot user is saying to the computer.

He is passionate about language. Growing up in a small city in central China, he studied Japanese with the goal of becoming a linguist. His family was low income so he taught himself computer programming and picked up odd programmer jobs to help support himself. In college, he found a new passion in the field of natural language processing, or using computers to process human language.

His linguistic background enhances his technological expertise. When you learn a foreign language, you get new insights into the role of grammar and word order, He says. And those insights can help you to develop better algorithms and programs to teach computers how to understand language. Unfortunately, many people working in natural language processing focus primarily on mathematics without realizing the importance of grammar.

After getting his masters at the University of Houston, He chose to come to Emory for a PhD to work with Choi, who also emphasizes linguistics in his approach to natural language processing. He hopes to make a career in using artificial intelligence as an educational tool that can help give low-income children an equal opportunity to learn.

A love of language also brought senior Mack Hutsell into the fold. A native of Houston, he came to Emorys Oxford College to study English literature. His second love is computer programming and coding. When Hutsell discovered the digital humanities, using computational methods to study literary texts, he decided on a double major in English and computer science.

I enjoy thinking about language, especially language in the context of computers, he says.

Chois Natural Language Processing Lab and the Emora project was a natural fit for him.

Like the other undergraduates on the team, Hutsell did miscellaneous tasks for the project while also creating content that could be injected into Emoras real-world knowledge graph. On the topic of movies, for instance, he started with an IMDB dataset. The team had to combine concepts from possible conversations about the movie data in ways that would fit into the knowledge graph template and generate unique responses from the chatbot. Thinking about how to turn metadata and numbers into something that sounds human is a lot of fun, Hutsell says.

Language was also a key draw for senior Danii Huryn. He was born in Belarus, moved to California with his family when he was four, and then returned to Belarus when he was 10, staying until he completed high school. He speaks English, Belarusian and Russian fluently and is studying German.

In Belarus, I helped translate at my church, he says. That got me thinking about how different languages work differently and that some are better at saying different things.

Huryn excelled in computer programming and astronomy in his studies in Belarus. His interests also include reading science fiction and playing video games. He began his Emory career on the Oxford campus, and eventually decided to major in computer science and minor in physics.

For the Emora project, he developed conversations about technology, including an AI component, and another on how people were adapting to life during the pandemic.

The experience was great, Huryn says. I helped develop features for the bot while I was taking a course in natural language processing. I could see how some of the things I was learning about were coming together into one package to actually work.

Team member Sophy Huang, also a senior, grew up in Shanghai and came to Emory planning to go down a pre-med track. She soon realized, however, that she did not have a strong enough interest in biology and decided on a dual major of applied mathematics and statistics and psychology. Working on the Emora project also taps into her passions for computer programming and developing applications that help people.

Psychology plays a big role in natural language processing, Huang says. Its really about investigating how people think, talk and interact and how those processes can be integrated into a computer.

Food was one of the topics Huang developed for Emora to discuss. The strategy was first to connect with users by showing understanding, she says.

For instance, if someone says pizza is their favorite food, Emora would acknowledge their interest and ask what it is about pizza that they like so much.

By continuously acknowledging and connecting with the user, asking for their opinions and perspectives and sharing her own, Emora shows that she understands and cares, Huang explains. That encourages them to become more engaged and involved in the conversation.

The Emora team members are still at work putting the finishing touches on their chatbot.

We created most of the system that has the capability to do logical thinking, essentially the brain for Emora, Choi says. The brain just doesnt know that much about the world right now and needs more information to make deeper inferences. You can think of it like a toddler. Now were going to focus on teaching the brain so it will be on the level of an adult.

The team is confident that their system works and that they can complete full development and integration to launch beta testing sometime next spring.

Choi is most excited about the potential to use Emora to support first-year college students, answering questions about their day-to-day needs and directing them to the proper human staff or professor as appropriate. For larger issues, such as common conflicts that arise in group projects, Emora could also serve as a starting point by sharing how other students have overcome similar issues.

Choi also has a longer-term vision that the technology underlying Emora may one day be capable of assisting people dealing with loneliness, anxiety or depression. I dont believe that socialbots can ever replace humans as social companions, he says. But I do think there is potential for a socialbot to sympathize with someone who is feeling down, and to encourage them to get help from other people, so that they can get back to the cheerful life that they deserve.

Continued here:

Emory students advance artificial intelligence with a bot that aims to serve humanity - SaportaReport

August 26, 2021, Mountain View, Calif., Frontier Development Lab (FDL), in partnership with the SETI Institute, NASA and private sector partners including Google Cloud, are transforming space and Earth science through the application of industry-leading artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools.

FDL tackles knowledge gaps in space science by pairing ML experts with researchers in physics, astronomy, astrobiology, planetary science, space medicine and Earth science.These researchers have utilized Google Cloud compute resources and expertise since 2018, specifically AI / ML technology, to address research challenges in areas like astronaut health, lunar exploration, exoplanets, heliophysics, climate change and disaster response.

With access to compute resources provided by Google Cloud, FDL has been able to increase the typical ML pipeline by more than 700 times in the last five years, facilitating new discoveries and improved understanding of our planet, solar system and the universe. Throughout this period, Google Clouds Office of the CTO (OCTO) has provided ongoing strategic guidance to FDL researchers on how to optimize AI / ML , and how to use compute resources most efficiently.

With Google Clouds investment, recent FDL achievements include:

"Unfettered on-demand access to massive super-compute resources has transformed the FDL program, enabling researchers to address highly complex challenges across a wide range of science domains, advancing new knowledge, new discoveries and improved understandings in previously unimaginable timeframes, said Bill Diamond, president and CEO, SETI Institute.This program, and the extraordinary results it achieves, would not be possible without the resources generously provided by Google Cloud.

When I first met Bill Diamond and James Parr in 2017, they asked me a simple question: What could happen if we marry the best of Silicon Valley and the minds of NASA? said Scott Penberthy, director of Applied AI at Google Cloud. That was an irresistible challenge. We at Google Cloud simply shared some of our AI tricks and tools, one engineer to another, and they ran with it. Im delighted to see what weve been able to accomplish together - and I am inspired for what we can achieve in the future. The possibilities are endless.

FDL leverages AI technologies to push the frontiers of science research and develop new tools to help solve some of humanity's biggest challenges. FDL teams are comprised of doctoral and post-doctoral researchers who use AI / ML to tackle ground-breaking challenges. Cloud-based super-computer resources mean that FDL teams achieve results in eight-week research sprints that would not be possible in even year-long programs with conventional compute capabilities.

High-performance computing is normally constrained due to the large amount of time, limited availability and cost of running AI experiments, said James Parr, director of FDL. Youre always in a queue. Having a common platform to integrate unstructured data and train neural networks in the cloud allows our FDL researchers from different backgrounds to work together on hugely complex problems with enormous data requirements - no matter where they are located.

Better integrating science and ML is the founding rationale and future north star of FDLs partnership with Google Cloud. ML is particularly powerful for space science when paired with a physical understanding of a problem space. The gap between what we know so far and what we collect as data is an exciting frontier for discovery and something AI / ML and cloud technology is poised to transform.

You can learn more about FDLs 2021 program here.

The FDL 2021 showcase presentations can be watched as follows:

In addition to Google Cloud, FDL is supported by partners including Lockheed Martin, Intel, Luxembourg Space Agency, MIT Portugal, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, USGS, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Mayo Clinic, Planet and IBM.

About the SETI InstituteFounded in 1984, the SETI Institute is a non-profit, multidisciplinary research and education organization whose mission is to lead humanity's quest to understand the origins and prevalence of life and intelligence in the universe and share that knowledge with the world. Our research encompasses the physical and biological sciences and leverages expertise in data analytics, machine learning and advanced signal detection technologies. The SETI Institute is a distinguished research partner for industry, academia and government agencies, including NASA and NSF.

Contact Information:Rebecca McDonaldDirector of CommunicationsSETI Institutermcdonald@SETI.org

DOWNLOAD FULL PRESS RELEASE HERE.

Visit link:

Frontier Development Lab Transforms Space and Earth Science for NASA with Google Cloud Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Technology - SETI...

During armed conflict, unequal power relations and structural disadvantages derived from gender dynamics are exacerbated. There has been increased recognition of these dynamics during the last several decades, particularly in the context of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict, as exemplified for example in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. Though initiatives like this resolution are a positive advancement towards the recognition of discrimination against women and structural disadvantages that they suffer from during armed conflict, other aspects of armed conflict, including, notably, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) for targeting purposes, have remained resistant to insights related to gender. This is particularly problematic in the operational aspect of international humanitarian law (IHL), which contains rules on targeting in armed conflict.

The Gender Dimensions of Distinction and Proportionality

Some gendered dimensions of the application of IHL have long been recognized, especially in the context of rape and other categories of sexual violence against women occurring during armed conflict. Therefore, a great deal of attention has been paid in relation to ensuring accountability for crimes of sexual violence during times of armed conflict, while other aspects of conflict, such as the operational aspect of IHL, have remained overlooked.

In applying the principle of distinction, which requires distinguishing civilians from combatants (only the latter of which may be the target of a lawful attack), gendered assumptions of who is a threat have often played an important role. In modern warfare, often characterized by asymmetry and urban conflict and where combatants can blend in with the civilian population, some militaries and armed groups have struggled to reliably distinguish civilians. Due to gendered stereotypes of expected behavior of women and men, gender has operated as a de facto qualified identity that supplements the category of civilian. In practice this can mean that, for women to be targeted, IHL requirements are rigorously applied. Yet, in the case of young civilian males, the bar seems to be lower gender considerations, coupled with other factors such as geographical location, expose them to a greater risk of being targeted.

An illustrative example of this application of the principle of distinction is in so-called signature strikes, a subset of drone strikes adopted by the United States outside what it considers to be areas of active hostilities. Signature strikes target persons who are not on traditional battlefields without individually identifying them, but rather based only on patterns of life. According to reports on these strikes, it is sufficient that the persons targeted fit into the category military-aged males, who live in regions where terrorists operate, and whose behavior is assessed to be similar enough to those of terrorists to mark them for death. However, as the organization Article 36 notes, due to the lack of transparency around the use of armed drones in signature strikes, it is difficult to determine in more detail what standards are used by the U.S. government to classify certain individuals as legal targets. According to a New York Times report from May 2012, in counting casualties from armed drone strikes, the U.S. government reportedly recorded all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants [] unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

However, once a target is assessed as a valid military objective, the impact of gender is reversed in conducting a proportionality assessment. The principle of proportionality requires ensuring the anticipated harm to civilians and civilian objects is not excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage of an attack. But in assessing the anticipated advantage and anticipated civilian harms, the calculated military advantage can include the expected reduction of the commanders own combatant casualties as an advantage in other words, the actual loss of civilian lives can be offset by the avoidance of prospective military casualties. This creates the de facto result that the lives of combatants, the vast majority of whom are men, are weighed as more important than those of civilians who in a battlefield context, are often disproportionately women. Taking these applications of IHL into account, we can conclude that a gendered dimension is present in the operational aspect of this branch of law.

AI Application of IHL Principles

New technologies, particularly AI, have been increasingly deployed to assist commanders in their targeting decisions. Specifically, machine-learning algorithms are being used to process massive amounts of data to identify rules or patterns, drawing conclusions about individual pieces of information based on these patterns. In warfare, AI already supports targeting decisions in various forms. For instance, AI algorithms can estimate collateral damage, thereby helping commanders undertake the proportionality analysis. Likewise, some drones have been outfitted with AI to conduct image-recognition and are currently being trained to scan urban environments to find hidden attackers in other words, to distinguish between civilians and combatants as required by the principle of distinction.

Indeed, in modern warfare, the use of AI is expanding. For example, in March 2021 the National Security Commission on AI, a U.S. congressionally-mandated commission, released a report highlighting how, in the future, AI-enabled technologies are going to permeate every facet of warfighting. It also urged the Department of Defense to integrate AI into critical functions and existing systems in order to become an AI-ready force by 2025. As Neil Davison and Jonathan Horowitz note, as the use of AI grows, it is crucial to ensure that its development and deployment (especially when coupled with the use of autonomous weapons) complies with civilian protection.

Yet even if IHL principles can be translated faithfully into the programming of AI-assisted military technologies (a big and doubtful if), such translation will reproduce or even magnify the disparate, gendered impacts of IHL application identified previously. As the case of drones used to undertake signature strikes demonstrates, the integration of new technologies in warfare risks importing, and in the case of AI tech, potentially magnifying and cementing, the gendered injustices already embodied in the application of existing law.

Gendering Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Warfare

There are several reasons that AI may end up reifying and magnifying gender inequities. First, the algorithms are only as good as their inputs and those underlying data are problematic. To properly work, AI needs massive amounts of data. However, neither the collection nor selection of these data are neutral. In less deadly application domains, such as in mortgage loan decisions or predictive policing, there have been demonstrated instances of gender (and other) biases of both the programmers and the individuals tasked with classifying data samples, or even the data sets themselves (which often contain more data on white, male subjects).

Perhaps even more difficult to identify and correct than individuals biases are instances of machine learning that replicate and reinforce historical patterns of injustice merely because those patterns appear, to the AI, to provide useful information rather than undesirable noise. As Noel Sharkey notes, the societal push towards greater fairness and justice is being held back by historical values about poverty, gender and ethnicity that are ossified in big data. There is no reason to believe that bias in targeting data would be any different or any easier to find.

This means that historical human biases can and do lead to incomplete or unrepresentative training data. For example, a predictive algorithm used to apply the principle of distinction on the basis of target profiles, together with other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance tools, will be gender biased if the data inserted equate military-aged men with combatants and disregard other factors. As the practice of signature drone strikes has demonstrated, automatically classifying men as combatants and women as vulnerable has led to mistakes in targeting. As the use of machine learning in targeting expands, these biases will be amplified if not corrected for with each strike providing increasingly biased data.

To mitigate this result, it is critical to ensure that the data collected are diverse, accurate, and disaggregated, and that algorithm designers reflect on how the principles of distinction and proportionality can be applied in gender-biased ways. High quality data collection means, among other things, ensuring that the data are disaggregated by gender otherwise it will be impossible to learn what biases are operating behind the assumptions used, what works to counter those biases, and what does not.

Ensuring high quality data also requires collecting more and different types of data, including data on women. In addition, because AI tools reflect the biases of those who build them, ensuring that female employees hold technical roles and that male employees are fully trained to understand gender and other biases is also crucial to mitigate data biases. Incorporating gender advisors would also be a positive step to ensure that the design of the algorithm, and the interpretation of what the algorithm recommends or suggests, considers gender biases and dynamics.

However, issues of data quality are subsidiary to larger questions about the possibility of translating IHL into code and, even if this translation is possible, the further difficulty of incorporating gender considerations into IHL code. Encoding gender considerations into AI is challenging to say the least, because gender is both a societal and individual construction. Likewise, the process of developing AI is not neutral, as it has both politics and ethics embedded, as demonstrated by documented incidents of AI encoding biases. Finally, the very rules and principles of modern IHL were drafted when structural discrimination against women was not acknowledged or was viewed as natural or beneficial. As a result, when considering how to translate IHL into code, it is essential to incorporate critical gender perspectives into the interpretation of the norms and laws related to armed conflict.

Gendering IHL: An Early Attempt and Work to be Done

An example of the kind of critical engagement with IHL that will be required is provided by the updated International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention. Through the incorporation of particular considerations of gender-specific risks and needs (para. 1747), the updated commentary has reconsidered outdated baseline gender assumptions, such as the idea that women have non-combatant status by default, or that women must receive special consideration because they have less resilience, agency or capacity (para. 1682). This shift has demonstrated that it is not only desirable, but also possible to include a gender perspective in the interpretation of the rules of warfare. This shift also underscores the urgent need to revisit IHL targeting principles of distinction and proportionality to assess how their application impacts genders differently, so that any algorithms developed to execute IHL principles incorporate these insights from the start.

As a first cut at this reexamination, it is essential to reassert that principles of non-discrimination also apply to IHL, and must be incorporated into any algorithmic version of these rules. In particular, the principle of distinction allows commanders to lawfully target only those identified as combatants or those who directly participate in hostilities. Article 50 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions defines civilians in a negative way, meaning that civilians are those who do not belong to the category of combatants and IHL makes no reference to gender as a signifier of identity for the purpose of assessing whether a given individual is a combatant. In this regard, being a military-aged male cannot be a shortcut to the identification of combatants. Men make up the category of civilians as well. As Maya Brehm notes, there is scope for categorical targeting within a conduct of hostilities framework, but the principle of non-discrimination continues to apply in armed conflict. Adverse distinction based on race, sex, religion, national origin or similar criteria is prohibited.

Likewise, in any attempt to translate the principle of proportionality into code, there must be recognition of and correction for the gendered impacts of current proportionality calculations. For example, across Syria between 2011 and 2016, 75 percent of the civilian women killed in conflict-related violence were killed by shelling or aerial bombardment. In contrast, 49 percent of civilian men killed in war-related violence were killed by shelling or aerial bombardment; men were killed more often by shooting. This suggests that particular tactics and weapons have disparate impacts on civilian populations that break down along gendered lines. The studys authors note that the evolving tactics used by Syrian, opposition, and international forces in the conflict contributed to a decrease in the proportion of casualties who were combatants, as the use of shelling and bombardment two weapons that were shown to have high rates of civilian casualties, especially women and children civilian casualties increased over time. Study authors also note, however, that changing patterns of civilian and combatant behavior may partially explain the increasing rates of women compared to men in civilian casualties: A possible contributor to increasing proportions of women and children among civilian deaths could be that numbers of civilian men in the population decreased over time as some took up arms to become combatants.

As currently understood, IHL does not require an analysis of the gendered impacts of, for example, the choice of aerial bombardment versus shooting. Yet this research suggests that selecting aerial bombardment as a tactic will result in more civilian women than men being killed (nearly 37 percent of women killed in the conflict versus 23 percent of men). Selecting shooting as a tactic produces opposite results, with 23 percent of civilian men killed by shooting compared to 13 percent of women. There is no right proportion of civilian men and women killed by a given tactic, but these disparities have profound, real-world consequences for civilian populations during and after conflict that are simply not considered under current rules of proportionality and distinction.

In this regard, although using force protection to limit ones own forces casualties is not forbidden, such strategy ought to consider the effect that this policy will have on the civilian population of the opposing side including gendered impacts. The compilation of data on how a certain means or method of warfare may impact the civilian population would enable commanders to take a more informed decision. Acknowledging that the effects of weapons in warfare are gendered is the first key step to be taken. In some cases, there has been progress in incorporating a gendered lens into positive IHL, as in the case of cluster munitions, where Article 5 of the convention banning these weapons notes that States shall provide gender-sensitive assistance to victims. But most of this analysis remains rudimentary and not clearly required. In the context of developing AI-assisted technologies, reflecting on the gendered impact of the algorithm is essential during AI development, acquisition, and application.

The process of encoding IHL principles of distinction and proportionality into AI systems provides a useful opportunity to revisit application of these principles with an eye toward interpretations that take into account modern gender perspectives both in terms of how such IHL principles are interpreted and how their application impacts men and women differently. As the recent update of the ICRC Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention illustrates, acknowledging and incorporating gender-specific needs in the interpretation and suggested application of the existing rules of warfare is not only possible, but also desirable.

Disclaimer:This post has been prepared as part of a research internship at theErasmus University Rotterdam, funded by the European Union (EU) Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium as part of a larger EU educationalinitiative aimed at building capacity in the next generation of scholars and practitioners innon-proliferation policy and programming. The views expressed in this post are those of theauthor and do not necessarily reflect those of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, the EU Non-Proliferation andDisarmament Consortium or other members of the network.

Originally posted here:

Embedding Gender in International Humanitarian Law: Is Artificial Intelligence Up to the Task? - Just Security