New Podcast: Will AI outwit our laws?

7 June 2018 by

In Episode 34 of Law Pod UK, Rosalind English talks to Professor Karen Yeung of Birmingham University about questions of civil liability of algorithm-run systems, the difficulties of regulating something we cannot truly predict, and the so-called “alignment problem” – how to align the utility function of intelligent machines with the values of the human race, which are very difficult to define.

Professor Yeung is Interdisciplinary Fellow in both the Law and Computer Science Schools at Birmingham, and recently gave evidence before the House of Lords Select Committee on AI. We posted on the report ‘AI in the UK: ready, willing and able?’ in April.

Law Pod UK is available for free download from iTunes, Overcast and Audioboom.


  1. Artifical means not real, unnatural.
    Therefore Artificial Intelligence means unnatural, unreal response which can never equate to the
    Intelligence Created and Designed in Human Beings by the sole Creator.
    The two words AI are used which is similar to refer to Batteries. We have a common concept on the various uses of Batteries.
    However, the major aspect which is not disclosed is in what Products, in what capacity if in Human-noids, in Robots, in Army Tanker Vehicles, etc will AI be used.
    What is the purpose to replace Human Beings by Human-noids?
    Having heard the pod cast, AI is compared to Goggle the search engine.
    When search engines are used 1000.s of results are displayed. It is similar to asking what is 2 + 2 and the answer appears as ratios of 100’s of combinations. How does one choose.
    I am never able to obtain accurate information through a search engine.
    The debates covered schools, constantly highlighting privicy.What is the sudden need for secure privacy when all our conversations and communications are tapped into.
    Is the main reason for AI to do away with girl and boy, male and female, this is what appears apparent.
    Oxford Press claims that UK is the global leader in AI.
    Where do they obtain this information from when the subject is not even properly debated.
    A Consulation should commence along with total disclosure in the various intended uses for AI.
    Without this information no Consultation, no debate can be held. Hence OPress needs to withdraw their claim.

  2. hughmac says:

    It will evolve just like credit scoring bureau’s evolved, quietly, secretly and without any legislative control until its far too late for anyone to turn back the clock and demand accountability! There are rumours that recently, Japanese scientists working for the military on autonomous robots were killed when the robots, which were satellite-controlled, malfunctioned. The deaths were attributed to the fact that the robots had to be pulled apart to stop the destruction, there being no other way to stop them! Interesting times indeed!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: