25 years ago, when AI & Society was launched, the emphasis was, and still is, on dehumanisation and the effects of technology on human life, including reliance on technology. What we forgot to take into account was another very great danger to humans. The pervasiveness of computer technology, without appropriate security safeguards, dehumanises us by allowing criminals to steal not just our money but also our confidential and private data at will. Also, denial-of-service attacks prevent us from accessing the information (...) we need when we want it. We are being dehumanised not by the technology but by criminals who use the ubiquity of the technology and its lack of security to steal from us and prevent us from doing what we want. What is more interesting is that this malevolent use of the technology doesn’t come from monolithic corporate structures eager to control our lives but mainly from individuals keen to demonstrate their knowledge of the technology for social networking purposes. The aim of this paper is to turn the clock back 25 years and present an alternative perspective: the single, biggest threat of dehumanisation is not the pervasiveness and ubiquity of computers but the lack of ensuring that humans are provided with the basic security they need for using the technology safely and securely. Cyberspace is not a safe space to be. This was something that even far-sighted researcher colleagues in the 1970s and 1980s overlooked. The paper will explore where we went wrong 25 years ago in our predictions and concerns. We will also present a scenario that allows future generations to have a safer cyberworld. (shrink)

Significant technological advancements over the last two decades have led to enhanced accessibility to computing devices and the Internet. Our society is experiencing an ever-growing integration of the Internet into everyday lives, and this has transformed the way we obtain and exchange information, communicate and interact with one another as well as conduct business. However, the term ‘Internet addiction’ has emerged from problematic and excessive Internet usage which leads to the development of addictive cyber-behaviours, causing health and social problems. The (...) most commonly used intervention treatments such as motivational interviewing, cognitive-behavioural therapy, and retreat or inpatient care mix a variety of psychotherapy theories to treat such addictive behaviour and try to address underlying psychosocial issues that are often coexistent with IA, but the efficacy of these approaches is not yet proved. The aim of this paper is to address the question of whether it is possible to cure IA with the Internet. After detailing the current state-of-the-art including various IA definitions, risk factors, assessment methods and IA treatments, we outline the main research challenges that need to be solved. Moreover, we propose an Internet-based IA Recovery Framework which uses AI to closely observe, visualize and analyse patient’s Internet usage behaviour for possible staged intervention. The proposal to use smart Internet-based systems to control IA can be expected to be controversial. This paper is intended to stimulate further discussion and research in IA recovery through Internet-based frameworks. (shrink)

As courts become increasingly technologically sophisticated, it can be expected that the use of the latest visualisation techniques will also increase to make the most of this technology. In particular, the use of computer-generated animations can be expected to become more dominant. There is, however, very little research into the effects of animated evidence on jurors and other members of the judicial process. This paper investigates whether there is a difference in the quality and robustness of memories formed by either (...) hearing an oral testimony or seeing an animated version of it. Also, the paper investigates whether different opinions and attitudes are produced when testimony is presented as an animation as opposed to being verbally presented. Preliminary results reported here indicate that there is indeed a difference in attitude (and therefore potential bias) when animations are used instead of verbal testimony, but that this difference is only apparent in the long term (four weeks or more after the presentation of the animated evidence). The results point to the need for improved knowledge structures for mapping verbal testimony into animations, where issues of implicit knowledge and potential bias are explicitly referenced in the knowledge structure. The paper argues that, until and unless such issues are addressed, it is not safe to use animations in court except to present purely factual information. (shrink)