it is, is humanly damaging an inordinately expensive. so it's a cost effective intervention for the minority of people who can't live effectively on their own. new york officials have acknowledged meeting the demand will be difficult and even if successful for many, it will be too late. kristin salumi al jazeera new york ah appropriate check of the headlines here on al jazeera, brazil's new president, luis, and i see alluded to silver as promised to rebuild the country after being sworn in for an unprecedented 3rd term. he said democracy was the true winner of october's election in which he now defeated j both tomorrow or you. yesterday, i saw your review with april from self today, i'll message to brazil is one of hope and reconstruction. the law sovereignty and

development that destination built since 1988 has been systematically demolished in recent years. it is to rebuild these national rights and values that will guide all our efforts. croatia has a doctor, the euro as its official currency at nearly 10 years after it joined the european union. it also becomes part of the shingles zone, allowing travel to other member states without order checks. an attack near the international airport in afghanistan capital has killed at least 14 people. the body of the attacker was found near the scene in cobble no group as yet claimed responsibility. the international monetary funds says that expects a 3rd of the global economy to go into recession. this year. its director says 2023 will be even tougher than the previous year. the i m f blames a simultaneous slow down of activity in the u. s. europe and china, they're feeling the impact of the warn ukraine inflation, high fuel costs, and rising interest rates. russia and ukraine are accusing each other of bombing

civilian areas authorities and keep same missiles a fight on sunday, but there are no reports of casualties. moscow says it was targeting drugs factories. at least 10 people have died and crushed during new years eve celebrations in uganda. it happened that a shopping mall in the capital kampala, as people tried to enter the building after fireworks display. many of the victims suffocated a key bridge connect in columbia and venezuela has fully reopened after being closed for almost 7 years. it was built to facilitate trade, but was never inaugurated because of strained relation in bogota. and the government of venezuelan lead at nicholas maduro. diplomatic ties were restored last year and pope granted has presided over a special new year's day master day after the death of his predecessor benedict, the 16th. he stepped down in 2013 because of poor health, the 1st boat to do so in 600 years. his body will lie in state, in st. peter's basilica for 3 days before the funeral. so those are the headlights

. the news continues here on al jazeera after upfront stage, and can somewhat bipolar as 2022 jewels to place you reflect on the major stories is shatelle, joy, male da 0 for a series of in depth was looking back at this year and a head to 2020 artificial intelligence is the future of war. tech giants and governments are already partnering to produce lethal autonomous weapons. but will these so called killer robots unleash a new kinds of danger? okay, they make war safer. as supporters claim that conversation is coming up. but 1st, with recent world events, the danger of nuclear warheads, spite nuclear weapons are the most dangerous munitions on earth, the potential to kill millions, to level cities and destroy the natural environment for generations to come. yet even with this knowledge, we are no closer to achieving total nuclear non proliferation. in fact,

the topic continues to be debated. why is that? we'll ask this which headliner? beatrice fit executive director of the 2017 nobel peace prize recipients, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. ah, beatrice fin, executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. i can thank you so much for joining us on up front. i can, was a driving force behind the 2017 treaty own the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which your organization was awarded a nobel peace prize. $122.00 countryside onto the treaty. but none of the nuclear powers did. nor did any of the nato countries. and since then, we've seen russian nuclear forces on a high alert level in the u. s. withdraw from the ran deal increases in india in pakistan's, nuclear warheads, dark piles, and a bunch of other recent developments which are the main countries in the world

right now preventing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. well, thank you very much for having me and i can. yeah, i mean the treaty was a great accomplishment. but of course, the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 yukon states and the other countries that are participating in exercising and practicing and hosting new come up as of the territory have not get during the treaty. and this was really the reason why we pushed for this to, to happen because we saw that things were getting worse, with huge monetization programs from the nuclear. i'm states, all of them are upgrading and increasing the nuclear arsenals and much more, a nationalistic tendency. they are threatening each other much more and that's kind of arms face that is happening right now. and of course, now we see how russia is basically threatening the world to use nuclear weapon if anyone interferes with its invasion of ukraine. so this is really a very serious moment,

but it's also exactly why we push for this treaty or having these weapons forever. we will see them being used. eventually we see a very dangerous situation right now. the risk of nuclear use has increased. i'm not saying that it's likely to be used, but i think we have to be aware that we are pushing closer and closer to that point where it's been actually going to be used. and we have to drastically change. and it is the nuclear on states, and it's the nuclear allied states and nato, for example, that really have to lead this charge because we cannot be this vulnerable for one person in the world anymore. well, let's talk about one of those nuclear arms states. russian president vladimir putin actually order nuclear forces to be put on a high alert level. ok, what in your estimation is the likelihood of nuclear war? i wouldn't say that it's like, i still hope that the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains very, very high for all countries. but the more i see, of course, the war developing in ukraine, seeing the threat doesn't paint a great picture for,

for what we could imagine happening in ukraine as well. and also sort of like a very irrational leader under a lot of pressure feeling like there's no way out for him. i'm very worried about this. i'm also very worried about accidents. mistakes, things that we didn't expect could happen. we just saw a few weeks ago in the mistakenly launch a missile on, on pakistan by accident, and having the situations happening right now on the beast tension. if that would have happened between a, a u. s. base and russia person, i mean the consequence it could be absolutely let us know if we could stumble into nuclear war. and of course we see the situations like north korea testing miss also i to be and again, south korea saying that he wants nuclear weapons. we've seen bela roo, say that they could station russian nuclear up on the territory. we've seen poland, se, or we could special station american to come up with an us. there's so many variables

here and so many uncertainty, tuition, and we have just been so vulnerable for just relying on these people, mainly men to always get about to never make a mistake to always behave rationally and basically putting the faith of our entire humanity in the hands of someone i put in and just hope for the best. it's absolutely unsustainable. escalation has been happening for a while now. in 21900 president. trump also withdrew the u. s. from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or the i n f, which mark the 1st time that both the us and russia had agreed to actually reduce their nuclear arsenals. in fact, when this happened, you stated a quote from has fired the starting pistol on cold war 2. so to what extent this moved by the us undermine nuclear disarmament and perhaps even compromise global nuclear security. i mean, we've seen, and this has been a trend of the last 10 years. we've seen the dismantling of international legal

instruments. we've seen violation of international instrument on one side, but from many different sides. we saw trump withdrawal from the i n f treaty from the van via would see russia violates a lot of these kind of instruments. we've seen them barley, the chemical weapons convention as well. we seen a really negative turn and then you add this very kind of trend of nationalistic to match, show leaders threatening sort of rhetoric an arms race, massett, investments in nuclear weapons. and you get the kind of tension. and i think that this is exactly what we want about like if we continue down this path, we are on very dangerous territory. and i think that it's not just one decision here. and there that you know, makes it so dangerous, many different overtime, a complete deportation, depreciation of disarmament, diplomacy of multilateralism, working together and seeing actually reduction of nuclear arsenals as increasing global security. and in the meantime,

you have the rest of the world without nuclear weapons feeling at hostages in this kind of situation. i think that there's a lot of countries around the world now looking at the situation like do they just decide over the face of my country? to do we have a say in this, and that's exactly what the treaty or the prohibition on nuclear weapons is about taking control for other countries to say actually we have to get to disarmament. we have to band and eliminate these weapons. let's talk a little bit about the iran deal because talks have resumed to implement the around the also known as the j. p. o. a. when trump withdrew from the deal in 202018, excuse me. you called it disastrous. and you said it was essentially a pretext for the u. s. to wage war on iran. do you anticipate a return to the iran deal and from a global security standpoint? what's at stake if the deal fails? well, when the trump administration withdrew from the treaty, it had a very sort of, i think so malicious intent with that it was

a functioning deal. it really had strict verification and sure that iran was not developing nuclear weapons. and the u. s. just intentionally sabotaged that, but this standard that was in the round, it was the highest that we've ever seen. an international agreement with verification on nuclear energy facilities. and the i e a verify that iran was implementing it. they are not developing nuclear plants. we know what they're doing . so i think that was just intentionally trying to portray the treaty as bad when it was actually a very high standard treaty. i was really a huge diplomatic achievement to get it. so when it was broken, of course is really hard to put these things back together and you have undermined trust from iran, from all the other countries that were part of this treaty. so i think it's a, it's a real, it's a really good sign that these countries are still trying very hard to get it back together to get a treaty back together. and i think that it shows a commitment from all sides. and i really hope that they will,

but will succeed. now, proponents of deterrence, they argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to build a nuclear arsenal on both sides of a conflict. so that their use would lead to the mutually assured destruction of every one. that's the language it's always being used. you, on the other hand, argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to make sure that there are no such weapons. to begin with. how is nuclear deterrence theory flawed? and how can we approach disarmament in a way that makes the world safer? i mean, new to the terrace theory is it's so strange, right? because it's like it's requires all of these before assumptions that we do. first, it requires that everyone with nuclear weapons forever is always rational and always takes by division. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, when would it be rational to start nuclear war and nuclear war, full skin,

if the war could and might be, as we know what i mean, there will be survivors. but like the world that we know what that would be gone, would it ever be rational to do that? i mean that's collected suicide. would a person like bite and ever feel like that's the right decision to make? probably not, so you would have to, in order to test to even work you have to be irrational. and then you have this idea that the opponent would also make divide assumption about 2 bases. would it be irrational too about, obviously defending nuclear war here. but would it be irrational to launch a nuclear weapon if the other side didn't have one? well that i mean, if you want a mass murder law civilians like sure. and i think that that's also where this, this theory kind of fails. and we see it now is happening in ukraine food and isn't using his nuclear arsenal to protect russia. he's using it to be able to invade a country without nuclear weapons and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invasion, i will use nuclear weapons. so basically,

and countryside united states are limited in an option where they can do to, to help the cranium because it has nuclear weapons. so here is actually a disadvantage. and when you're having this kind of stand up between 22 nuclear on states, for example, like put in and by done, who would be the most reckless like would, would biden ever convincingly threatened to murder more civilians than put it would, would we believe that would put him to leave that and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone i put in accumulation, was she or whoever to always get it right to never cross that line, but still in order for it has to work you have to be prepared to cross that line. so it's a complete contradiction, no to deterrence, and they can never guarantee that they won't. it won't happen. so in this all these kind of weird assumptions and that we're making and at the end of the day, mistakes happen, and people act irrationally. people act unpredictably and we can't guarantee that

it won't happen. and i think that the consequences are so massive that we just have to eliminate them. is that before you go there, many of us who are persuaded by your argument for a nuclear disarmament. but some people would say that, given the history of settler colonialism, imperialism, ah, mass genocide, et cetera, that we have no reason to believe that powerful people, powerful nations, whatever, oh, concede, their weaponry, their nuclear arsenals in particular. and that while the idea is good, will never get there what gives you a hope that we can actually have a world without nuclear weapons. what gets me hope is really that we have made a lot of progress in the nationally in the world when it comes to international law . when it comes to human rights. when it comes to rules on how it's supposed to behave and it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you open your twitter account, you get overwhelmed with all the awful things that are happening right now. but,

you know, things like the un charter and things like that, you know, the geneva conventions be so you know, not just, they don't flaw less ass in preventing russia from doing all these things right now . but we are opposing the invasion because there are rule saying that you can read in a country. and without those rules, if we never develop those rules, it will just fair game for everyone to just to whatever. and the biggest countries would, would, would win all those things and they would do whatever they want. but they can't really, always do whatever they want. and i think the things like the colonization for simple seeing how all these countries who were colonized by the, by be settled, major powerful countries have become free today and all their own countries. and that's, you know, they did that despite these countries having breakfast. i think that is away and the powerful have always lost their power when the majority has risen up and stood against that. that that's when you can really make change happen. so the, treating the prohibition. nicholas is really all way of creating hyper lucian on,

in this nuclear structure that we created like no longer can these 5 countries and the other 4 that has them as well, like just dictate the terms and said this is fine because we have them and you can't have them now where we're changing the game. we're creating new laws, a new rules, and we're going to demand a different system. better spend, thank you so much for joining me on up from ah, our killer robots, the future war, more technically known as lethal autonomous weapon systems or laws. these robots can operate independently and attack targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons already been deployed in military conflict, but some war and the war and ukraine could see both sides using autonomous weapons in an unprecedented way. despite human lead attempts to curb development and established international regulation of laws, countries including the u. s. and russia are continuing their unchecked development

of the technology. human rights organizations are campaigning against killer robots . while some military experts argue that they'll make more safer and more efficient . are they right? and are we witnessing the dawn of a new arms race? joining me to discuss this, our, lar nolan, a former google employee and software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control and matt, math, moody, and artificial intelligence researcher with amnesty international the to see both of you. thank you for joining me. a laura, i'm going to start with you. the evolution of killer robots has been described as a, quote, potentially seismic event in warfare akin to the invention of gun powder and nuclear bombs. that's a rather staggering characterization. is it when you'd agree with that? absolutely. if not, i mean, the essential confederates looked at that is actually pretty much formed that the whole, the whole nature of that they should state the whole way that we live. i don't think the weapons are likely to be thought seismic. i mean,

i think looking at the current context, we live, we're living in a world where people are building these complex weapons which are unproven, their, their utility and their efficacy is completely unproven. i do think that on the weapons are likely to post danger both to both the soldiers themselves. i think there's a very, very high risk of friendly fire incidents. i think there's a high risk of civilian i think there's a very high risk of potentially sparking off the conflict and on the unintentional kind of way met. i want to give it to you for a 2nd in terms of the technology of war. are we now going to see a race to who can to see who can build the biggest and most efficient and what most destructive killer robot? i do think it's important to note that states are course in competition with each other around and systems. i mean, in january 2021 along we've seen any vision, raphael baset their past systems building and showcasing commercial jones and robot dog capable official recognition. we've seen in libby on march 2020. the use of

various cargo drawings, which has been developed by turkey mc number of cases in which technologies that are atomic weapon system by definition are being used. however, we said the form of the art arms race might look quite different to what we're expecting. a lot of the technologies that autonomy, about the systems are built on our technologies that are being used in everyday context. in the leasing context. for example, facial recognition for math surveillance, emotion recognition, gate recognition, predictive analytics. these are all tools that we know are being used against, for example, life matter for testers, and have been known to time and time again fail and to augment racially discriminatory policing, and our defacto against international human rights law. so if we're looking for that one terminator to show up at our door, we're maybe looking in the wrong place. and that argue that what we're actually needing to, to keep an eye out,

or are these more on sort of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives and got her how we live. and it seems to me that a big part of that is the growing partnerships between these tech companies and governments. laura, you worked as an engineer for google before residing in 2018 out of protest after you were assigned to work on project maven, which seeks to advanced drone technology for the u. s. military. in recent years, amazon, microsoft and google have us on contracts with the pentagon, while others, including elan, must have pledge not to develop lethal autonomous weapons. how dangerous are these partnerships? particularly in light of the fact that these companies have the personal information of more than a 1000000000 people around the world. i think i don't like to underline what not just said, which is that. and these are not only military technologies. and there are huge implications here for civil liberties for privacy and for you know, how,

how we live our lives. i've cyber warfare context as well. so fundamentally, when you're talking about autonomous weapons, if you want to blow up a bridge, you don't really need not on this weapon out. almost weapons are fundamentally about targets that are mobile and not, not for talking. military base is an offer, tracking time columns there about people there about people and vehicles that have people in them. and therefore it, these kinds of weapons are very intimately backed up in surveillance technologies because you need to have a lot on the weapon. you need to have a technology to know where people are, where people are moving around to understand their behavior. so we're big tech comes into this is if you think about cloud computing technology, you have big companies like amazon, microsoft, google, they're making a lot of money out of selling commodity cloud computing technology. now surveillance technology is hugely compute intensive. so quite simply, it takes

a lot of c p u cycles, a lot of memory, a lot of expensive competing and infrastructure to run this kind of technology. so there's a huge business opportunity here to build surveillance systems. and i think we can see that more and out in the fact that all of the major credit companies have built a p ice for recognizing objects for recognizing people. this is, as i say, this is very much dual use technology between military and civilian obligations. man, let me ask you a question about precision here. us air strikes are notoriously imprecise. they've killed thousands of civilians. for example, there was a gross reagan rural yemen in 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 us air strike in northern syria killed at least 120 civilians could a our technology, at least reduce deadly incidents like this. absolutely not. humans are not just numbers and i think the systems do process human beings as if they were,

we know from research that joy well, and we intend to get routed a while ago. that in many cases, facial recognition systems are incapable of identifying especially black women with a rate of anywhere between $60.00 to $70.00, to sometimes 90 percent, depending on the study that you look at. now even if you were to make those systems 99 percent accurate, let's say that you could, you're still dealing with systems that are inherently existing in the context of discrimination, institutional racism, massage any etc. and so i think it's important that we learn how would that be different than the current systems of policing or surveillance, or education or anything else we have. so it would double down in a meant those existing crises and also my existing forms of discrimination. so we don't want to have the system in which say you have these discriminatory practices and put them on steroids. that's exactly the opposite of what we want to do. and so

what we need is in fact a legally binding instrument, which is what the stock killer robot campaign has been calling or. and what we need is also a global ban on remote biometric surveillance technologies. which figure in to these autonomous weapon systems. i did want to make a quick gun point regarding what matt said before that and about the dangers of back accountability regulation and why it makes a difference that we might take an imperfect process that is executed by human beings and automated. so one of the great problems that we have, and i guess with both preserving our civil rights in a free society and also with overseeing and national humanitarian law and ensuring that the, the international bosa warfare. our respect to is that we have a lack of transparency. and one of the things that we see is when we automate a process, we as much as we make it less flexible. and we also tend to make it much less transparent. if we start taking the logic of what we're doing in warfare or am in

our society, i'm starting coding it in, in, in processing algorithms and processes that are very inscrutable that can be inspected by few people. and that are controlled by a few people. then we, we do, we do risk things spinning out of control and ways that we do not want laura, there's also an argument to be made that it's too late, right? the most powerful nations are supporting this stuff. the technologies are already in use u. s. national security commission co chair robert work said a, a i in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and again, the most powerful people are behind it. what do we do? is it too late? i think that that is a very, very at nationalistic kind of approach to, to take to us and look at nuclear weapons. they were used in 1945 and they haven't been used since. so it's possible to refrain from the use of certain weapons as

regards development. and there is also been very, very strong. norm has emerged against chemical weapons and also biological weapons . and of course, there's a very, very strong emerging norm against the use of landlines because of the, the hard that they do to civilians. so i think it's, and i don't, i don't think it's correct to say that there's no hope that the weapons never beat that weapons or never band, or those dates never refrained from using particular types of weapons met. it's never too late, but we have to put human beings and not data points ahead of the agenda and avenue seems higher time again with even issues of tech. as soon as enough people are aware of the kinds of harms the systems are causing, they will inevitably move the needle on what is seen as permissible. and what we need to do in this particular moment is move the needle on how permissible we're finding thomas weapon system. and as you know from where we're standing, it's absolutely acceptable. laura met, thank you so much for joining me on up front. all right,

that is our show up front will be back next week. ah ah. in depth analysis of the days headlines from around the world, what it did was i said to them they had to sign because they didn't a wouldn't get in frank assessments. do you think diplomacy still stand the chance? i'm not very upset about any kind of negotiation informed opinions. everybody tweets. everybody's on tick, tock, tick, tock doesn't vote. you have them for

a winter. it's going to be whole there. pretty soon. inside story on al jazeera, he came from a wealthy background in paris and became an artist against his families wishes. he went on to bring a fresh perspective to oriental, if painting falling in love with the harmon culture. making algeria his home and converting to islam. algae 0 world tells the story of nothing in the deep and his unique artistic work. the french orientalist analogy 0 january analogies era hope process is to promote a message of peace and reconciliation while visiting the democratic republic of congo and sat stood on his 5th visit to africa as head of the catholic church, rigorous debates and unflinching questions. up front, cut through the headlines to challenge conventional wisdom immersive personal short

documentaries. africa direct showcases african stories from african filmmakers can public private partnerships. so some of the wealth most pressing challenges when government business in civil society does meet for the world economic forum. clinical host, the ball, africa musical, was a celebration of talent and creativity. corners of the african continent. january analogies. ah, brazil's new president unit, a silver promise is to rebuild the country after being sworn in full and unprecedented 3rd. ah, hello, i'm darn jordan. this is al jazeera life and joe are also coming up to the international monetary fund, warns of another tough year ahead. it says a.