	Stanford One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence mostly introduces Artificial Intelligence 
from computer scientists perspective and describes the authors idea about how Artificial Intelligence may 
develop in the future 15 years. However, there are two aspects that I find hard to agree with: the possibilities
of AI being biased, and who is going to be responsible if AI breaks the law.
	In the report, the authors write about the possibility of AIs having biases and mentions three factors. Data 
AI uses to make the decisions, AIs designer, and users. The first one is understandable since anyone could have biases,
and as the authors mentioned in the report, its still a challenge to ensure the data provided to the AIs are non-biased.
However, the latter two, are total avoidable. For the designer factor, companies and research institutions can totally 
hold regular educational sessions, make specific rules for the possible bias, and arrange rounds of peer code reviews to 
make sure there isnt any bias exists in the Artificial Intelligence applications. The designer factor is just about 
institutions regulations rather than a computer science related challenge. And the possible bias that could cause by 
users is also just a problem with how people use it rather than a technical problem. If the AI is used for institutions 
or governments, there is no doubt that they would regulate and make rules about the usage of AI, its just going to be 
problems with how to sort out the non-biased data rather than human-caused problems. AI need huge amount of data to make
decisions so the possible cause of Artificial Intelligence having bias is just going to be about the data, rather than 
users or designers. And if that technical challenge is solved, then at least from computer scientists perspective, they 
do not have to warry about biases anymore.
	The question about who is going to be responsible for the possible illegal behavior of AI is a more complicated problem 
than the authors mentioned. For start, when designing the AI, there must be regulations that prevent AI from breaking the 
laws, even in the future, when AI could study and make decisions based on its cumulated understandings, the restriction 
must still exist. Like normal people, they grow up, and learn from their daily lives. In some situations, they may want to 
break the law, for right or wrong purposes, but most of them still wont choose to break the law since the law is a code that 
everyone keeps in their mind, well most people in the world do. Human obey the law for their conscience and fear of punishment.
And the restriction for AI is more still, its solid code. So, even in rear situations where AI do break the law, it should be 
problem with the user, or original code. But if its the latter situation, then not only does the programmers need to take 
responsibility, who ever let the AI application passed the tests and put into use should also take responsibility. So, if that 
kind of situations where AI do break the laws happened, its not hard to find who should be responsible since everything done by 
a machine should already been recorded. So that should not be something stand in the way of AIs development.
	That's the two aspects I have disagreement with. But mostly I have the same believe as the authors have, that AI is going
to develop real fast in the future and eventually be an important part of society.
