﻿On the topic of entertainment in the Stanford One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence there are issues not addressed by the authors. One topic lightly touched on is the machine learning, natural language processing, and image processing of companies to personalize content for the average user. While this is discussed in the paper it is only for one small paragraph. This is definitely a much larger phenomenon than they seem to represent, and the number of lives impacted in discrete ways is in the millions. Another way that the topic of entertainment is not fully covered is the absence of attempts to filter content with inappropriate or advertiser unfriendly content. While this is currently a much larger issue and source of contention it still would have been at least a minor talking point that should have been touched upon. An example would be the YouTube algorithms which filter content and automatically assign advertiser friendliness levels for new videos. YouTube also has been working on several ways to phase out content that they do not want portrayed widely on their platform. These have started to take place mostly more recently than the paper was written in 2014, but these issues and potential areas of ambiguity in the censorship laws should have been anticipated as early as 2014 and been at least touched upon in the entertainment section of the study.
One other area that should have been better addressed by the experts assembled for this study is the grey areas and current gaps in laws and regulations governing artificial intelligence and those who are working to develop and improve on current systems. It is addressed but not in a way that is very future oriented. The general summary of this section gives a few steps for moving forward and what the government should do in regards to gaining expertise in these fields so as to be able to keep up with new developments and regulate or boost progress in certain areas. The government focused section is well reasoned and is a very valid way forward in that regard, but the study fails to address actual laws and regulations. These experts are assumably some of the most well equipped people in the world to give examples of ways that artificial intelligence being worked on at the time of the study should be encouraged or regulated. They address the laws and ambiguity of blame in regards to accidents regarding artificial intelligence, and although they could not enact any laws or regulations themselves it would give governmental officials a starting point on how to look at the complicated realm of regulating or deciding fault. Clearly these experts preferred to stay within the topics they were more familiar with and this is not a bad thing. The points made when talking about the issues that may arise or possible future developments are very well thought out. Perhaps it is an issue with the composition of the study panel, and the next study might benefit from having someone well versed in laws and regulations to step in and offer their perspective and thoughts on how regulations might change going forward when speculating about future projects and issues.