“The most difficult part of what was a 10-month programme of work was that we were working to transform the current application, which was manually built, on-premise, and converting that into infrastructure as code,” says Niculescu.
“So we essentially took what would be manually-built environments that would usually take us weeks and months and numerous contract amendments to essentially grow and scale environments, and transformed it so that we could do them within the day – but now we can do all of this within 40 minutes, roughly.”
Obtaining FDA approval can be a difficult and long process. “The traditional paradigm of medical device regulation was not designed for adaptive AI or ML technologies, which have the potential to adapt and optimize device performance in real – time to continuously improve healthcare for patients,” the report said.
“The highly iterative, autonomous, and adaptive nature of these tools requires a new, total product lifecycle (TPLC) regulatory approach that facilitates a rapid cycle of product improvement and allows these devices to continually improve while providing effective safeguards.”
If a manufacturer decides that its device that studies retinal scans for diabetic retinopathy can also measure if a patient has high blood pressure or not, it’ll have to contact FDA officials to check if the device can be used for that purpose.
This is probably a good space for that Talebian thinking that goes “start with what’s worked for thousands of years, and probably don’t stop.”
“Citi cites forecasts that ePrivacy could trigger a 70% reduction in European display ad revenue, and a 33% cut in digital ad budgets, either of which could eviscerate Facebook and Google, at least under their current business model.”
The narrative that these are “tech companies,” at at least that these are the only tech companies, still drives me crazy. For example, are IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle in that bucket. Aside from advertising at Bing, clearly not. So called “tech companies” in this discussion should be called “advertising companies.”
Original source: European privacy regulations predicted to damage digital advertising revenue
Given all the Facebook stuff, I think less balancing towards the side of the robots would probably probably be good:
‘A recent study advocating a U.S. strategy for developing machine intelligence also noted the potential barriers to development that include GDPR and other data privacy efforts. The study released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that the shift to “data localization” will require “balancing legitimate concerns around privacy and consumer protection both in the United States and abroad with the need for an open, flexible data ecosystem that supports innovation and experimentation in AI.”’
Original source: GDPR Seen Slowing AI Innovation
“This Cambridge Analytica scandal proves that Facebook ought to be heavily regulated, and that’s not good for Facebook’s bottom line.”
Original source: Facebook Stock Plunges
“Tech companies, innovators, must take responsibilities for how their platforms are used, Khan said. He also called on politicians and policymakers to look out for the public and pass regulation when necessary.”
Original source: Mayor of London Calls for Regulation of the Tech Industry
“What’s more, the fact that power is concentrated among so few companies has made it possible to weaponise the web at scale. In recent years, we’ve seen conspiracy theories trend on social media platforms, fake Twitter and Facebook accounts stoke social tensions, external actors interfere in elections, and criminals steal troves of personal data. We’ve looked to the platforms themselves for answers. Companies are aware of the problems and are making efforts to fix them — with each change they make affecting millions of people. The responsibility — and sometimes burden — of making these decisions falls on companies that have been built to maximise profit more than to maximise social good. A legal or regulatory framework that accounts for social objectives may help ease those tensions.”
Original source: Web inventor wants regulation of web
‘This argument enraged the ICO, which said in the submission: “The concept of ‘journalism’ presupposes a process by which content is published to an audience pursuant to the taking of human editorial decisions as to the substantive nature and extent of that content.”… In plain English, humans (mostly) don’t decide what appears in search results so calling Google’s activities “journalism” is just plain wrong, according to the commissioner.’
Original source: Info Commissioner tears into Google’s ‘call us journalists’ trial defence
“In the drone industry, it seems counterintuitive, but we actually want regulation. And not having regulations is putting a halt to the growth of this industry,” says West.
As ever: don’t make blanket assumptions about complex systems, here: all the regulations put in place by the federal government.