230 results for search: www.xn--299aqd11rg1lb34as7a.net/feed/anitagohdes
Syria’s celebrations muted by evidence of torture in Assad’s notorious prisons
The Human Rights Data Analysis Group, an independent scientific human rights organization based in San Francisco, has counted at least 17,723 people killed in Syrian custody from 2011 to 2015 — around 300 every week — almost certainly a vast undercount, it says.
Families flock to Syria’s prisons looking for released inmates
According to the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, at least 17,723 people were killed in government custody from the start of the uprising in March 2011 to December 2015 – an average of 300 deaths each month. There are no figures for subsequent years but there is no reason to believe the killings stopped.
Can We Harness AI To Fulfill The Promise Of Universal Human Rights?
The Human Rights Data Analysis Group employs AI to analyze data from conflict zones, identifying patterns of human rights abuses that might be overlooked. This assists international organizations in holding perpetrators accountable.
The Ways AI Decides How Low-Income People Work, Live, Learn, and Survive
HRDAG is mentioned in the “child welfare (sometimes called “family policing”)” section: At least 72,000 low-income children are exposed to AI-related decision-making through government child welfare agencies’ use of AI to determine if they are likely to be neglected. As a result, these children experience heightened risk of being separated from their parents and placed in foster care.
Lancet study estimates Gaza death toll 40% higher than recorded
“Patrick Ball, a statistician at the US-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group not involved in the research, has used capture-recapture methods to estimate death tolls for conflicts in Guatemala, Kosovo, Peru and Colombia.
Ball told AFP the well-tested technique has been used for centuries and that the researchers had reached “a good estimate” for Gaza.”
Gaza death toll 40% higher than official number, Lancet study finds
“Patrick Ball, a statistician at the US-based Human Rights Data Analysis Group not involved in the research, has used capture-recapture methods to estimate death tolls for conflicts in Guatemala, Kosovo, Peru and Colombia.
Ball told AFP the well-tested technique had been used for centuries and that the researchers had reached “a good estimate” for Gaza.”
Estimated Gaza toll may have missed 25,000 deaths, study says
Patrick Ball, director of research at the Human Rights Data Analysis Group, and a statistician who has conducted similar estimates of violent deaths in conflicts in other regions, said the study was strong and well reasoned. But he cautioned that the authors may have underestimated the amount of uncertainty caused by the ongoing conflict.
The authors used different variations of mathematical models in their calculations, but Dr. Ball said that rather than presenting a single figure — 64,260 deaths — as the estimate, it may have been more appropriate to present the number of deaths as a range from 47,457 to 88,332 deaths, a span that encompasses all of the estimates produced by modeling the overlap among the three lists.
“It’s really hard to do this kind of thing in the middle of a conflict,” Dr. Ball said. “It takes time, and it takes access. I think you could say the range is larger, and that would be plausible.”
Why top funders back this small human rights organization with a global reach
Eric Sears, a director at the MacArthur Foundation who leads the grantmaker’s Technology in the Public Interest program, worked at Human Rights First and Amnesty International before joining MacArthur, and has been following HRDAG’s work for years. … One of HRDAG’s strengths is the long relationships it maintains with partners around the globe. “HRDAG is notable in that it really develops deep relationships and partnerships and trust with organizations and actors in different parts of the world,” Sears said. “I think they’re unique in the sense that they don’t parachute into a situation and do a project and leave. They tend to stick with organizations and with issues over the long term, and continually help build cases around evidence and documentation to ensure that when the day comes, when accountability is possible, the facts and the evidence are there.”
Watch now: “In the Face of Tyranny,” a Webinar with HRDAG
How public involvement can improve the science of AI
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
As AI systems from decision-making algorithms to generative AI are deployed more widely, computer scientists and social scientists alike are being called on to provide trustworthy quantitative evaluations of AI safety and reliability. These calls have included demands from affected parties to be given a seat at the table of AI evaluation. What, if anything, can public involvement add to the science of AI? In this perspective, we summarize the sociotechnical challenge of evaluating AI systems, which often adapt to multiple layers of social context that shape their outcomes. We then offer guidance for improving the science of AI by engaging lived-experience experts in the design, data collection, and interpretation of scientific evaluations.
© 2025 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Nathan Matias and Megan Price (2025). How public involvement can improve the science of AI. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 122, No. 48. 14 November, 2025. © 2025 National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2421111122
