From imagination to reality and back to imagination

by Nikos Giannaros*

The history of Artificial Intelligence as something achievable coincides with the history of computer evolution. The first theories for the development of systems with Artificial Intelligence capabilities came out back in the 1950s. Only man possesses such capabilities and could be able to teach a computer system to take autonomous decision and act as a thoughtful being.

The initially theoretical approach of Artificial Intelligence was directed to the creation of the necessary tools for a computer to act like the human brain.

These tools were based on logic and semantics, which constitute the prominent tools with which the human brain thinks and acts depending on the stimulus it receives. In this context, there have been efforts to standardize logical rules and correlations, which led to the creation of tools such as Logical Programming.

The basis of Logical Programming is the provision of basic entities to a computer system, so that with the application of a procedure of creation of logical conclusions, the system will be able to take decisions, imitating the procedure followed by the human brain.

This approach is based on the “up to down” logic. The system is supplied with the total of the requisite knowledge and the endeavour focuses on the way with which it will manage and combine properly this knowledge.

It soon became obvious that this kind of approach can offer limited practical solutions, because are not harmonized with the fundamental functional principles of a computer. The computer in its core is a machine, which can process mathematical calculations with great speed. There was a need for an approach which would work the other way round; the “down to up” approach.

This approach focuses on the endeavour to modelize a problem of -apparently- logic to a pure mathematical problem. A mathematical problem can be solved by using certain procedures with clearly determined steps, on which the computer is highly efficient. The outcome is also easy to classify, to categorize and be interpreted by the computer.

This finding led to the evolution of Machine Learning since the 1980s. This approach aims at modelizing through math certain human actions, so that a computer can conclude to the same result.

The most notable of these problems include the recognition of voice and image, processing of a human language into written form, robotics, forecasting, etc. Machine Learning uses the power of computers, their incomparable calculating capability, to make good use of big volumes of data to learn successfully to take decisions such as the ones taken by humans.

The models used are based on the way of functioning of the human organism (neuronic networks, genetic algorithms), of other living organisms (particle swarm optimisation, ant colony optimisation, bees algorithm), on applications of probability theory and of other field of Mathematics.

The various approaches which result to tangible algorithms, which can be carried out be a computer, that does not need any special structure or design, was revolutionary for Machine Learning.

Machine Learning consists of 3 main fields:

– Supervised Learning;

– Unsupervised Learning and

– Reinforcement Learning, which constitutes a combination of the other two.

The notion of Supervised Learning is the simplest of the three; the computer is provided with an appropriate training data set to get trained on the work which we want to assign to it.

The most common example for Supervised Learning is the provision of photos of men and women to a computer; on the photos there is a tag clarifying whether the photo depicts a man or a woman. A successful training will result in the computer being able to recognize the sex of the person depicted in any photo, since it will have been trained in classifying the data it receives.

In order to achieve this, the computer is provided with many features for every sex. Therefore, it becomes able to decide upon the sex of the person depicted in any photo with remarkable precision, based on the features appearing on each photo. This procedure requires that the determination and standardization of the features has been made by a human, specialized on the topic, before the training begins.

The feature extraction and selection constitutes a keystone for the successful application of Supervised Learning and has ended up being a whole, autonomous field.

Supervised Learning has long got away from the experimental and theoretical sphere and is used in commercial applications of voice, face and handwriting recognition, as well as in more specialized applications depending on the applicable field, such as customer segmentation, recommender systems/collaborative filtering, stock market prediction, preventive maintenance, etc.

Furthermore, with the appearance of Deep Learning, a sub-field of Supervised Learning, the feature extraction and selection can now be carried out by the computer itself; this results in further diminishing human intervention in the procedure. In the example of photo classification, the computer could, after having processed the photos it used as a training set, decide that lip shape is a more vital characteristic for the classification than eye shape and therefore give more importance to this feature.

In Unsupervised Learning, the computer does not first come through a training stage with use of data with determined features, in which the intended result is known. On the contrary, it is self-trained based on unknown data, which it can process.

The computer’s potential to work without first having been provided with knowledge, makes Unsupervised Learning look like extremely exotic and part of science fiction.

The truth is that in this case also, the applicable models make use of the computer’s ability to compare things and decide the level of similarity between them.

The structural difference with Supervised Learning is that the computer does not “know” the qualitative interpretation of the produced result. In contradiction to the example of Supervised Learning, an algorithm of Unsupervised Learning, which can classify photos of people according to their sex, can do so with equal rates of success, but does not know which category belongs to “man” and which to “woman”.

Unsupervised Learning has also many commercial applications. These are often in fields like the ones of Supervised Learning. However, as the power of computer systems is rapidly evolving, the ability of a system to be self-trained will replace the onerous human preliminary work with one more automated procedure. A perfect example for Unsupervised Learning is the ability of a computer to classify vegetables and fruits according to their shape, their size and their colour, without having first been trained to do so.

Finally, Reinforcement Learning constitutes a combination of the other two methods and is mostly used in robotics. The robot tries to carry out the instructions with which it has been trained in the best possible way, but on the same time enjoys some freedom to decide to deviate from these instructions. This might result in an even better result than the one already achieved.

Applications of Reinforcement Learning, such as self-driving cars, are in the anteroom of commercial application. Moreover, the various robots, which are used as human assistants, apply successfully the model of Reinforcement Learning, since their behaviour evolves based on the various stimulus they receive from different people with who they discuss.

It is obvious that Machine Learning is already here. It constitutes a reality and part of our everyday lives and not a science fiction plot. Many projects which seem evident, such as the recognition of the plate of our car in the airport parking, the digital help assistants in the phone centre of banks, which recognize our voice instructions, the applications of recognition of the music track we listen to (such as Shazam), the advertisements and the suggested posts in social media (such as Facebook, which combines the posts we open with the history of our search engine to show us relevant advertisements), the security applications, which activate video recording when a man approaches the door of a shop out of working hours, constitute a reality thanks to Machine Learning.

The fact that it is impossible that a person carries out the same tasks in the same time, justifies the label of “Artificial Intelligence” that is given to such applications.

On the other hand, the fact that computers carry out these tasks mechanically, without the result having any meaningful result for them and without them deviating from the way they carry out a task if they continue receiving the same stimulus, means that Machine Learning is still far from becoming real Artificial Intelligence; there are many unknown steps until this happens.

Computers carry out the task they have been assigned to without judgement and without feelings, with no possibility to deviate from what they have been designed to do. They can carry out the the tasks assigned to them in an increasingly better fashion, but they are not able to “start a revolution” and change their way of operation. A future in which humans and machines will be equal is definitely far away. The reality of Machine Learning though, is here.

*Nikos Giannaros is an Electric and Computer Engineer. He specializes in Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. He is interested in the sociopolitical impingements of technology.


Statewatch announces the establishment of a new observatory

Statewatch is one of the most prominent NGOs operating in the European plane. Established in 1991, it is an organization of lawyers, academics, journalists, researchers and other activists, focusing on the monitoring of activity of the Council of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA).

JHA is one of the 10 councils forming the Council of the European Union. It consists of the Ministers of Justice and the Ministers of Home Affairs of all the EU Member States. The Ministers of Justice work on judicial cooperation in civil and criminal cases, as well as in cases of fundamental rights violations. The Ministers of Home Affairs are responsible, among others, for immigration, border management and police cooperation.

The activity of JHA is intrinsically linked with fundamental rights. In this context, Statewatch establishes observatories from time to time. Every observatory focuses on a different topic of JHA’s activity. It records all the latest updates, collecting policy proposals, existing legislation, analytics, news from the media, campaigns, etc.

On 12 July, Statewatch announced the establishment of a new observatory. This observatory will record the latest updates on the interoperability of JHA’s databases. The notion of interoperability might seem hard to understand. However, it simply refers to the possibility of sharing data between two or more databases.

Statewatch warns that the interoperability of JHA’s databases will create a collective database, which will include all the existing and future JHA’s databases. Thus, it will be possible to combine biometric data (such as fingerprints) and other personal data, which are contained in JHA’s databases through one sole search.

As underlined by the Director of Statewatch, Mr. Tony Bunyan, “the time to ring the alarm bells is not when Big Brother is in place but when there are the first signs of its construction”.

Homo Digitalis will keep informing you on the latest news on the issue.You can read the press release by Statewatch here.


Three important studies examine the threats to free, impartial and transparent elections

The UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) published today three new studies regarding personal data analysis for the promotion of political campaigns.

The first report is entitled “Democracy Disrupted? Personal information and political influence”. The objective of the study is to shred light on the use of personal data in the context of political campaigns. Moreover, this report includes ten (10) proposals for the legal and transparent use of personal data during political campaigns by political parties of the UK in the future.

The second report is entitled “Investigation into data analytics for political purposes – update”. The objective of the study is to inform the public on the new findings of the Authority in the context of its investigation, initiated on May 2017, regarding the processing of personal data in political campaigns. This investigation was launched subsequently to claims for secret processing of voters’ personal data and use of targeted political advertisements during the referendum on Brexit.

Furthermore, the report includes an analytical reflection on the recent regulatory acts of the UK regarding companies involved (Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, etc.), political parties, data brokers, organizations supporting political campaigns, etc. It is for sure that one of the latest acts of the Authority, which has caught the attention of the press, is the notice to Facebook, with which it informs the company of its intention to issue a fine of 500,000 pounds against it (around 565,000 Euro) for the violation of the Data Protection Act of 1998. It must be underlined that this fine was the maximum, which could be issued according to the then legislation.

The third report was concluded in cooperation with the investigation team DEMOS and is entitled “DEMOS report – The future of political campaigning”. This study analyzes the modern and future trends regarding the way in which various data are used during political campaigns.

Furthermore, the report describes the methods, which are widely known in the online advertising sector, and the way in which these methods are already being used or might be used in the near future for political campaigns. Finally, it mentions the risks and challenges which stem from data analysis for political campaigns.


EU: Freedom of online expression was saved!

The European Parliament rejected the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

5 July 2018 is a fantastic day for freedom of online expression and information.

Today, the European Parliament rejected the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market with 318 against, 278 in favour and 31 abstentions.

As analyzed by Homo Digitalis, the dangers which could stem from this Directive were significant.

Consequently, the negative vote of the Proposal is a tremendous victory for freedom of online expression and information. The Internet is fortunately not going to change!

According to the legislative procedure, the Proposal for the Directive will return to the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, which will suggest amendments and will introduce the new Proposal to be voted in the plenary of the Parliament in September.

Homo Digitalis will keep informing you on any updates.

Today is a day of joy for all European citizens, who use the Internet.

For us, the joy is double, because part of this result is your accomplishment.

We would like to thank you all for embracing the endeavour of Homo Digitalis for the rejection of the Proposal, through the pressure put on the Greek Members of the Parliament through emails.

Let us not forget the words of the famous writer Helen Keller: “Alone we can do so little. Together we can do so much.”

We will all together keep fighting for our digital rights.

Thank you.


FRA published today the summary of his second report on surveillance by the intelligence services in Greek

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) published its second report on the protection of fundamental rights in the context of surveillance by national intelligence services in October 2017. The title of the report in Greek is «Παρακολούθηση από τις υπηρεσίες πληροφοριών: εγγυήσεις και μέσα έννομης προστασίας των θεμελιωδών δικαιωμάτων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση – Τόμος ΙΙ».

For those who are not familiar with its work, FRA was established with the objective of offering independent and well-documented assistance and experts’ advice regarding fundamental rights in the institutions of the EU Member States. It is an independent EU institution, funded by the EU budget.

Considering the growing threats of terrorism, the cyber-attacks and the sophisticated transboundary criminal networks, the scope of the intelligence services has become more emergent, complex and international and the services may interfere gravely with fundamental rights.

The report of October 2017 is the second report published by FRA, subsequently to the request by the European Parliament for a thorough examination of the consequences of surveillance on fundamental rights. It is a continuation of the first report by FRA, published in 2015. This first report examined the legal frameworks on surveillance in the 28 EU Member States and analyzed them through the perspective of fundamental rights. In this way, the first report by FRA presented a comparative analysis of the legal framework on surveillance in the whole of the EU. The Greek summary of the first report is available here.

The second report is an updated version of the 2015 legal analysis, which also includes long interviews with various experts of certain EU Member States. It also includes 16 FRA opinions, which are based on the main findings of the report.Today, the Greek version of the summary of the second report was published on FRA’s website and is available here. It is worth noting that the Greek version of the summary is one of the first available translations in official EU languages.


Freedom of online expression and freedom of information need you!

You use the Internet on a daily basis to communicate, to get informed and have fun. But Internet as you know it might cease to exist, if you do not take immediate action.

What happened?

On June 20, 2018 the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted in favour of the Proposal for the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

The proposed Directive aims to harmonize the legal provisions in the Member States regarding copyrights, taking particularly into account the digital and cross-border uses of the protected content. In simple words, what the european legislator aspires to achieve is that all EU Member States are on the same page regarding copyrights in the contemporary digital single market. Everything seems fine up to here.

Nonetheless, the provisions of the proposed Directive and especially Article 13 are not safe from blunders and could jeopardize freedom of online expression and freedom of information.

Article 13 requires that Internet platforms use filters for any information uploaded by the users on the platform, in order to avoid copyright infringements.

What does this mean?

Content-recognition technologies will filter the posts of the Internet users to ascertain whether there has been a copyright violation in the content of the posts under question. Subsequently, based on the said filtering, the posts will be approved or prohibited. The risks from such a practice for freedom of online expression and information are obvious.

1. The Internet platforms will have excessive power

Under the new scheme platforms will have to filter the content, which they host, without any complaint regarding a copyright violation. Until now, legislation provided that content which violates copyright would get banned from the platform according to a procedure. This procedure commenced subsequently to a complaint filed by the alleged copyright owner. Now, any post will be subject to this filtering.

2. The available technology is not able to recognize posts which are made in the context of parody, criticism or reference for research and commentary

Although technology evolves rapidly, the available filtering mechanisms are not able to recognize the difference between legal and illegal content use, which is subject to copyrights, and which is used in research, commentary, even for criticism or parody (i.e. reference to artistic excerpts for commentary, reproduction of speeches for informing the public for current affairs, generation of parodies of a film -such as memes- or parodies of songs.

Therefore, the creativity of Internet users and freedom of online expression and information will be inevitably restricted. Additionally, the said filtering mechanisms will have to be supported by a whole army of employees of the Internet platform in question. These employees will proceed to a second phase of monitoring of all the posts for which the filtering mechanisms will have concluded that they infringe copyrights.

This is definitely a costly and time-consuming procedure and the extra cost for the extra employees might fall on the Internet user through a rise on the prices for Internet services or the introduction of annual or monthly fees in the various Internet platforms.

What can I do to prevent this?

On July 5 the European Parliament’s plenary will vote on the proposed Directive. Send today and email to the Greek Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and call them to vote against the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

A full list with the contact information of all the Greek MEPs can be found here.

Remember that every email counts. We must unite our voices and request all together from the Greek MEPs to vote against the proposed Directive. The preservation of freedom of online expression and information concerns us all and is a vital prerequisite for the proper functioning of democracy.

If you want to save time, you can use the following template. However, we suggest that you personalize your message as much as possible and express also your own concerns.

“ Subject:  Vote against the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market

Dear Ms/Mr (Name),

I am sending this message because on July 5, the European Parliament plenary will vote on the proposed Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market.

This act will drastically change the form of the Internet, as we know it, for the worse. It will restrict significantly the right to freedom of online expression and information for all Greek and European Internet users.

More specifically;

Creativity and freedom of speech will be significantly damaged, since algorithms are not always able to recognize the difference between legal and illegal use of content, which is subject to copyrights, and which is used in research, commentary, even for criticism or parody. If the use of this content is regulated by automated systems, which take decisions the letter and not the spirit of law, creativity and freedom of online speech, will be inevitably restricted.

There are no appropriate technical means to implement Article 13. There is no recognition technology, which can monitor successfully all the forms of content which are included in the proposed Directive (text, audio, video, images and software).

Therefore, it is absurd to expect from the courts of the 27 Member-States to constantly judge on which would be the most appropriate technical means for the implementation of the proposed Directive on a case by case basis.

The Internet service providers should not become responsible for the implementation of the copyright legislation, as prescribed by Article 13. In order to achieve their compliance and avoid fines and sanctions, the companies will prefer to become overprotective in regards to copyright, thus restricting freedom of expression.

Providing the companies with the right to delete content for copyright violations will give them excessive power, since there is no provision for the protection of Internet users against such deletions -even if their content is legal.

Taking into account all the above, I call you to vote against the proposed Directive. In this way, the text of the proposal will become subject to review, in order for the requisite balance between copyright protection and protection of freedom of online expression and information to be found.

With best regards,

(Name) “


Homo Digitalis sends an e-mail to the Greek members of the European Parliament

On the 20th of June 2018 the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted in favour of the adoption of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the digital single market.

The provisions of this proposed Directive, and more specifically the Article 13 that it includes, could be proven hazardous. The aforementioned legislation will change the Internet as we know it, only for the worse, setting serious limitations to freedom of expression and information of Greek people as well as all the internet users inside the European Union.

Before the voting process of this proposed directive, Homo Digitalis had contacted Mr. Chrysogonos, the only Greek representative in the Legal Affairs Committee, suggesting that he should examine in detail the Article 13 of the Directive. Mr. Chrysogonos proposed its amendment during the voting session. Unfortunately, his proposal was denied and the text was adopted from the Legal Affairs Committee. Read more about this here.

On the 5th of July the plenary of the European Parliament will be called to vote on this proposed Directive. If the voting goes through and in favour of this Directive, it will soon become a reality.

Thus, the last chance of reviewing this text, in order to ensure the required balance between the protection of copyrights and freedom of expression and information on the internet, is now.

Homo Digitalis noticed via e-mail all the Greek members of the EU Parliament to vote against this directive. See the e-mail in Greek here.

European citizens must act now and request from the Members of the European Parliament of their countries to vote against this proposed Directive on the 5th of July and protect the freedom of expression and information. Only if we unite our forces we will be able to send a loud and clear message.

Every e-mail to the Members of the Parliament is of utmost importance. Take action!


EU: Censorship on the internet? The first step is done

The European Union made the first step for the adoption of the directive that limits the freedom of expression on the Internet

On the 20th of June 2018 the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament voted in favour of the adoption of the Proposal for a Directive on Copyright in the digital single market.

Before the voting process of this proposed directive, Homo Digitalis had contacted Mr. Chrysogonos, the only Greek representative in the Legal Affairs Committee, suggesting that he should examine in detail the Article 13 of the directive.

The Article 13 in detail:

The use of content from service providers of the society of information who save and provide access to a great bulk of material that is uploaded by the internet users.

The service providers of the society of information who save and provide access to a great bulk of material that is uploaded by the internet users, are getting, in collaboration with the beneficiaries, measures in order to ensure the function of the agreements which are appended with the beneficiaries for the use of their creations and other owned material or the deterrence of their availability again in collaboration of the two sides. The aforementioned measures, for example the use of effective technologies of content identification, are suitable and proportional. The service providers provide the beneficiaries with sufficient information concerning the usage and application of the measures, whereas, wherever needed, they file reports for the recognition and use of the material.

The Member States ensure that the service providers referred in paragraph 1 are establishing mechanisms of complaints and compensation available to users in case of any difference with the application of measures as referred in paragraph 1.

The Member States facilitate, on a case-by-case basis, the cooperation between the service providers of the society of information and the beneficiaries, hosting dialogue between the stakeholders, in order to clarify the best practices, such as the use of suitable and proportional content identification technologies, considering among others the nature of each service, the technology availability and their effectiveness in consideration of the technological advancements.

Specifically Homo Digitalis highlighted that article 13 may change the Internet as we know it.

– Creativity and freedom of speech will be severely harmed, because algorithms are not always in the position to identify the difference between the legal and illegal use of material, which is subject to copyrights and which is used in research, commenting or criticism and parody. If the use of all this material is managed by automatic systems which decide based on the letter and not the spirit of the law, then creativity and freedom of speech will be limited inevitably.

-There are no suitable technical tools for the application of the Article 13. There is no existing technology of recognition/identification, which can efficiently inspect all the kind of material that is referred in the proposed directive, which include “content, audio material, video material, images and software”. Therefore, it is irrational to expect from the courts of the 27 Member States to decide on which are the most efficient technical tools and means for the application of the directive in each case.

– The entities that provide Internet services should not be responsible for the application of the copyright law, as the Article 13 provides. In order to ensure their compliance and avoid fines and penalties, the companies will become all the more protective concerning copyrights, greatly limiting the freedom of expression. The provision of the right to proceed in deleting content as a result of copyrights violation, will overpower those companies, because there is no possibility provided to the users to challenge such deletions, even if the content was legal.

Mr. Chrysogonos proposed its amendment during the voting session. Unfortunately, his proposal was denied and the text was adopted by the committee of Legal Issues. However, this was only the first stage from where this proposed Directive had to pass until it becomes a part of the EU legislation.

It is highly possible that in the beginning of July, a voting session of the plenary of the EU Parliament will occur for this text, for which the committee voted in favor of. Finally, the European Parliament will be called to vote if this proposal will become a directive. This is expected to occur possibly either on December 2018 or January 2019.

It is obvious that that we are still in the beginning of the road for the adoption of this controversial directive. Homo Digitalis will continue to inform you on any news or advancements in this case, while concurrently fighting with all its means to ensure that the Internet remains a means of free expression and sharing of ideas.


Homo Digitalis signs the open letter on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics

Homo Digitalis signs the open letter to the European Commission on Artificial Intelligence and Robotics

Artificial Intelligence and robotics constitute an ever-increasing part of our everyday lives. It seems that robots or robotic applications will be used in many aspects of our lives in the near future. Therefore, it crucial that an adequate legislative framework is created, regulating their activity, safeguarding the principles of democracy and human rights. This framework should not only be examined from an economic and legal perspective, but there must be a holistic approach to it, which will include sociological, psychological and ethical aspects.

In this context, the European Parliament with a resolution proposed to the European Commission:

“the adoption of a legal instrument on robotics in the long term, so that at least the most hi-tech, autonomous robots are recognized as electronic persons, having liability for any damage they cause and potentially implementation of this electronic personality in cases in which robots decide autonomously or interact independently in any other way with third parties”.

Scientists and manufacturers specializing in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, law professionals, health scientists, university professors in the related fields, as well as organizations operating in the aforementioned fields, as well as ethics, address the European Commission through an open letter regarding the proposal by the European Parliament.

Their purpose is to support the drafting of a legal instrument in the European plane, which will regulate robots’ activities, safeguarding human rights and limiting the risks, which may be caused by their acts. They believe that the European Commission should create a feasible legislative instrument for innovative and responsible progress in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, resulting in the enjoyment of even more benefits for European citizens and the European single market.

However, the experts underline that:

  • It is necessary to adopt a holistic approach for the creation of the regulatory framework.
  • From an ethical and legal aspect, it is impossible to create a legal personality for robots, which will be based on any existing law system.

Homo Digitalis is one of the signatories of this open letter, represented by its President, Ms. Elpida Vamvaka.

If you belong to the persons or organizations,which can and wish to sign the letter, thus adding to the endeavour being made before the European Commission, you can do so following the link:

https://www.robotics-openletter.eu/