AI technology is becoming an integral part of many industries. The automotive sector is a prime example. Global automotive companies are expected to spend $74.5 billion on AI by 2030. From the early days of the automobile, back in 1901, the automobile has never stopped evolving. The rise of industrialization led to the automobile becoming […]

The post From Bolts to Bots: How AI Is Fortifying the Automotive Industry appeared first on SmartData Collective.

The startup’s product first used in California wine country as wildfires damage crops

The updates include several enhancements to the vehicles’ assisted driving capabilities

It’s 2022, and industries from all over the world are beginning to wake up to decentralized technologies such as blockchain.

The post Op-ed: On-chain forensics monitoring is crypto’s judge, jury and executioner appeared first on CryptoSlate.

A surprise new update has just dramatically updated how Neighborhood Stories work in The Sims 4, as picked up by Eurogamer. The feature, which has appeared in previous Sims games, allows Sims in non-active households to go about their lives autonomously and make major changes, including having or adopting children, changing careers, moving house, and even dying in an accident.

The feature was soft-launched last November, with an early version of Neighborhood Stories having neighboring Sims able to make changes in their lives, but only if the player okayed it first or initiated the change. The new update gives non-active households full autonomy, though it can be customized for players who like to have more control over their communities.

The new feature is heavily customisable, meaning you can still allow neighbor Sims to make some changes in their lives, but can turn off Neighborhood Stories options like accidental death or moving out that may change the neighborhood too drastically. Players even have the option to configure these settings household-by-household if they want to micromanage their neighbors' lives. Players who liked the game as it was can also turn the new feature off altogether, and continue playing as usual.

Even if players don't interact with their neighbors enough to see the results of their newly-given freedom, players will now be able to check Neighborhood Stories updates from any mailbox. The blog post detailing these changes encourages players to check these updates, and use the information contained in them to visit neighbors and check in on all the changes that are happening.

New vehicle designs will include many features determined by the end customer, and the list grows longer as vehicles become more autonomous.

The post What Else Can You Do While Driving A Car? appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.

The company’s Digital Asset Broker allows connected devices to transact with one another

Esports wagering platform Challenger has secured a seed investment round, led by SeventySix Capital. The investment round will be used to expand Challenger’s offerings to Xbox and PlayStation consoles, whilst also introducing its contests to new game titles. Financial figures were not disclosed.  RELATED:  Esports Entertainment Group announces Q2 financial results for fiscal year Challenger […]

Machine learning (ML) helps organizations increase revenue, drive business growth, and reduce cost by optimizing core business functions across multiple verticals, such as demand forecasting, credit scoring, pricing, predicting customer churn, identifying next best offers, predicting late shipments, and improving manufacturing quality. Traditional ML development cycles take months and require scarce data science and ML […]

On 9 February 2022, the appeal by the Commissioner of Patents against the decision of Justice Beach finding that the ‘AI’ machine known as DABUS (‘Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience’) could be named as inventor on a patent application filed by Dr Stephen Thaler, was heard before an expanded Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia.  The five-judge panel comprised Chief Justice Allsop, and Justices Nicholas, Yates, Moshinsky and Burley.  The appointment of an expanded panel (three judges is usual), including the Chief Justice, is notable, and suggests that the court considers the question of whether a machine can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 to be one of particular legal importance.  The case was argued for Dr Thaler by David Shavin QC (who also appeared at first instance), and for the Commissioner of Patents by Sophie Goddard SC (appearing for the first time in this matter).  Hamish Bevan (who represented the Commissioner at first instance) argued the Commissioner’s case in reply.  The proceedings were conducted via video conference, and I observed online.

I think that it is fair to say that Dr Thaler did not experience such a smooth ride on appeal as he did at first instance.  Where Justice Beach seemed positively enthusiastic about the idea of allowing patent applications to be filed, and patents granted, for inventions autonomously devised by machines, the judges on the Full Bench appeared sceptical of a number of the arguments presented on behalf of Dr Thaler, and at times subjected Mr Shavin to fairly sharp questioning and criticism.  There are some aspects of the original decision that are unlikely to survive the appeal, although Dr Thaler only requires one line of reasoning to stand in order to prevail.

Based on the arguments presented, there are a number of sub-questions that the Full Court may need to decide.  First, there is a question of whether the case is simply about determining the meaning of the word ‘inventor’ as a matter of pure statutory construction, or about deciding whether or not to develop the concept of the inventor according to a common law methodology.  Either way, the court then needs to decide whether or not a non-human, machine inventor should be included.  In doing so, it may need to consider whether non-human inventors are compatible with other provisions of the Act, and in particular with the section that deals with the entitlement to be granted a patent.  A machine cannot possess or assign intellectual property rights, so provisions that most naturally apply to transfers of title between (natural or legal) persons may not necessarily be compatible with ‘AI’ inventors.  Justice Beach found that two different mechanisms specified in the legislation could apply to enable Dr Thaler to claim ownership of patent rights on inventions made by DABUS.  He will need at least one of these to survive the appeal.

There are a number of avenues by which the Commissioner could succeed in her appeal, but by the same token there are multiple opportunities for Dr Thaler’s defence of the appeal to be successful.  It is difficult to predict which lines of reasoning the court may adopt, and indeed it is not unlikely that the judges will hand down multiple concurring and/or dissenting opinions.  On balance, my sense is that the appeal is more likely than not to succeed – perhaps by a majority rather than unanimous judgment.  If so, then Australia will rejoin the many other jurisdictions in which corresponding applications naming DABUS as inventor have been rejected.

The remainder of this article provides a summary of the major arguments presented at the hearing.  It is somewhat lengthy, but considerably less so than the full day spent at the Federal Court!

Read more »

What it will take to make DoD constellations more resilient and achieve space superiority is still being debated, industry executives said.

The post DoD wants ‘resilient’ space systems, but how to get there is still unclear appeared first on SpaceNews.

Autonomously driving robotic assistance system for the automated placement of coil creels Due to the industry standard 4.0, digitalization, automation and networking of systems and...