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!

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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: