Aggerholm Mcdowell (rooflamp78)

w.clinica.run) and the paper-specific code is available at https//github.com/aramis-lab/AD-ML.The social impact of robotics applied to domains such as education, religion, nursing, and therapy across the world depends on the level of technology as well as the culture in which it is used. By studying how robots are used in Iran, a technologically-savvy country with a long history and a rich culture, we explore their possible impact on interrelated areas of religious and ethical features in education in an Islamic society. To accomplish this task, a preliminary exploratory study was conducted using two social robots as teaching assistants in Islamic religion classes for 42 elementary students. More than 90% of the participants in the study absolutely preferred the robot-assisted religion class over one taught by a human. Building on the results from the students' viewpoints and exam scores, the acceptability and potential of using social robots in the education of Islamic religious concepts in Iran are further discussed in this paper.Prior to their announcement of the birth of gene-edited twins in China, Dr. He Jiankui and colleagues published a set of draft ethical principles for discussing the legal, social, and ethical aspects of heritable genome interventions. Within this document, He and colleagues made it clear that their goal with these principles was to "clarify for the public the clinical future of early-in-life genetic surgeries" or heritable genome editing. In light of He's widely criticized gene editing experiments it is of interest to place these draft principles in the larger ethical debate surrounding heritable genome editing. Here we examine the principles proposed by He and colleagues through the lens of Beauchamp and Childress' Principles of Biomedical Ethics. We also analyze the stated goal that the "clinical future" of heritable genome editing was clarified by He and colleagues' proposed principles. Finally, we highlight what might be done to help prevent individual actors from pushing forward ahead of broad societal consensus on heritable genome editing.One of the main difficulties in assessing artificial intelligence (AI) is the tendency for people to anthropomorphise it. This becomes particularly problematic when we attach human moral activities to AI. For example, the European Commission's High-level Expert Group on AI (HLEG) have adopted the position that we should establish a relationship of trust with AI and should cultivate trustworthy AI (HLEG AI Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI, 2019, p. 35). Trust is one of the most important and defining activities in human relationships, so proposing that AI should be trusted, is a very serious claim. This paper will show that AI cannot be something that has the capacity to be trusted according to the most prevalent definitions of trust because it does not possess emotive states or can be held responsible for their actions-requirements of the affective and normative accounts of trust. While AI meets all of the requirements of the rational account of trust, it will be shown that this is not actually a type of trust at all, but is instead, a form of reliance. Ultimately, even complex machines such as AI should not be viewed as trustworthy as this undermines the value of interpersonal trust, anthropomorphises AI, and diverts responsibility from those developing and using them.The aim of this study is to assess the effect of efavirenz exposure on neurocognitive functioning and investigate plasma neurofilament light (Nfl) as a biomarker for neurocognitive damage. Sub-analysis of the ESCAPE-study, a randomised controlled trial where virologically suppressed, cognitively asymptomatic HIV patients were randomised (21) to switch to rilpivirine or continue on efavirenz. At baseline and week 12, patients underwent an extensive neuropsychological assessment (NPA), and serum efavirenz concentration and plasma Nfl levels were measured. Subgroups of elevated (≥ 4.0 mg/L)