Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
B
bedfordfalls
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
  • Issues 34
    • Issues 34
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 0
    • Merge Requests 0
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Packages & Registries
    • Packages & Registries
    • Package Registry
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI / CD
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Collapse sidebar
  • Activity
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Issue Boards
  • Bill Stover
  • bedfordfalls
  • Issues
  • #14

Closed
Open
Opened 3 months ago by Bill Stover@billstover7938Maintainer
  • Report abuse
  • New issue
Report abuse New issue

AI Pioneers such as Yoshua Bengio

Open

AI Pioneers such as Yoshua Bengio


Artificial intelligence algorithms need big quantities of information. The techniques used to obtain this data have raised concerns about privacy, monitoring and copyright.

AI-powered devices and services, such as virtual assistants and IoT items, continually collect personal details, raising concerns about intrusive information event and unapproved gain access to by 3rd parties. The loss of privacy is further intensified by AI's ability to procedure and integrate huge quantities of information, possibly resulting in a surveillance society where specific activities are continuously kept an eye on and evaluated without appropriate safeguards or transparency.

Sensitive user information gathered may consist of online activity records, geolocation data, video, or audio. [204] For instance, in order to build speech recognition algorithms, Amazon has recorded countless personal discussions and permitted short-term employees to listen to and transcribe a few of them. [205] Opinions about this extensive security variety from those who see it as a required evil to those for whom it is plainly unethical and an infraction of the right to privacy. [206]
AI designers argue that this is the only method to provide valuable applications and have developed a number of techniques that try to maintain personal privacy while still obtaining the data, such as data aggregation, de-identification and differential privacy. [207] Since 2016, some privacy experts, such as Cynthia Dwork, have started to see privacy in regards to fairness. Brian Christian composed that experts have actually rotated "from the concern of 'what they understand' to the question of 'what they're doing with it'." [208]
Generative AI is frequently trained on unlicensed copyrighted works, including in domains such as images or computer code; the output is then used under the rationale of "fair use". Experts disagree about how well and under what scenarios this reasoning will hold up in law courts; relevant factors might consist of "the purpose and character of the usage of the copyrighted work" and "the result upon the potential market for the copyrighted work". [209] [210] Website owners who do not want to have their material scraped can show it in a "robots.txt" file. [211] In 2023, leading authors (including John Grisham and Jonathan Franzen) took legal action against AI companies for using their work to train generative AI. [212] [213] Another talked about method is to envision a different sui generis system of security for developments generated by AI to make sure fair attribution and payment for human authors. [214]
Dominance by tech giants

The business AI scene is dominated by Big Tech business such as Alphabet Inc., Amazon, Apple Inc., Meta Platforms, and Microsoft. [215] [216] [217] A few of these players already own the huge majority of existing cloud infrastructure and computing power from data centers, allowing them to entrench further in the market. [218] [219]
Power requires and environmental effects

In January 2024, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released Electricity 2024, Analysis and Forecast to 2026, forecasting electric power use. [220] This is the very first IEA report to make projections for information centers and power consumption for synthetic intelligence and cryptocurrency. The report mentions that power need for these usages may double by 2026, with additional electric power use equal to electrical power utilized by the entire Japanese country. [221]
Prodigious power consumption by AI is accountable for the growth of fossil fuels use, and may delay closings of outdated, carbon-emitting coal energy facilities. There is a feverish increase in the construction of data centers throughout the US, making big innovation firms (e.g., Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon) into voracious customers of electric power. Projected electric consumption is so immense that there is concern that it will be satisfied no matter the source. A ChatGPT search includes the use of 10 times the electrical energy as a Google search. The large firms remain in haste to find power sources - from nuclear energy to geothermal to fusion. The tech companies argue that - in the viewpoint - AI will be eventually kinder to the environment, however they require the energy now. AI makes the power grid more effective and "intelligent", will help in the development of nuclear power, and track overall carbon emissions, according to technology firms. [222]
A 2024 Goldman Sachs Term Paper, AI Data Centers and the Coming US Power Demand Surge, discovered "US power demand (is) most likely to experience growth not seen in a generation ..." and forecasts that, by 2030, US data centers will consume 8% of US power, instead of 3% in 2022, presaging growth for the electrical power generation industry by a variety of methods. [223] Data centers' need for a growing number of electrical power is such that they may max out the electrical grid. The Big Tech companies counter that AI can be utilized to take full advantage of the utilization of the grid by all. [224]
In 2024, the Wall Street Journal reported that huge AI business have actually begun settlements with the US nuclear power service providers to provide electricity to the data centers. In March 2024 Amazon purchased a Pennsylvania nuclear-powered data center for $650 Million (US). [225] Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said nuclear power is a great option for the information centers. [226]
In September 2024, Microsoft revealed an arrangement with Constellation Energy to re-open the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant to supply Microsoft with 100% of all electric power produced by the plant for twenty years. Reopening the plant, which suffered a partial nuclear crisis of its Unit 2 reactor in 1979, will need Constellation to survive rigorous regulatory processes which will consist of substantial security scrutiny from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. If authorized (this will be the very first US re-commissioning of a nuclear plant), over 835 megawatts of enough for 800,000 homes - of energy will be produced. The cost for re-opening and upgrading is approximated at $1.6 billion (US) and is reliant on tax breaks for nuclear power contained in the 2022 US Inflation Reduction Act. [227] The US government and the state of Michigan are investing almost $2 billion (US) to reopen the Palisades Atomic power plant on Lake Michigan. Closed considering that 2022, the plant is planned to be resumed in October 2025. The Three Mile Island facility will be relabelled the Crane Clean Energy Center after Chris Crane, a nuclear proponent and previous CEO of Exelon who was accountable for Exelon spinoff of Constellation. [228]
After the last approval in September 2023, Taiwan suspended the approval of data centers north of Taoyuan with a capability of more than 5 MW in 2024, due to power supply scarcities. [229] Taiwan aims to phase out nuclear power by 2025. [229] On the other hand, Singapore imposed a ban on the opening of data centers in 2019 due to electric power, but in 2022, raised this ban. [229]
Although a lot of nuclear plants in Japan have been shut down after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear mishap, according to an October 2024 Bloomberg short article in Japanese, cloud gaming services business Ubitus, in which Nvidia has a stake, is searching for land in Japan near nuclear reactor for a brand-new data center for generative AI. [230] Ubitus CEO Wesley Kuo said nuclear reactor are the most effective, low-cost and steady power for AI. [230]
On 1 November 2024, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) turned down an application sent by Talen Energy for approval to provide some electrical energy from the nuclear power station Susquehanna to Amazon's data center. [231] According to the Commission Chairman Willie L. Phillips, it is a burden on the electrical energy grid as well as a considerable expense moving concern to families and larsaluarna.se other company sectors. [231]
Misinformation

YouTube, Facebook and others utilize recommender systems to guide users to more content. These AI programs were offered the goal of making the most of user engagement (that is, the only objective was to keep people viewing). The AI found out that users tended to choose misinformation, conspiracy theories, and severe partisan content, and, to keep them enjoying, the AI suggested more of it. Users also tended to enjoy more material on the exact same subject, so the AI led people into filter bubbles where they received several variations of the exact same false information. [232] This convinced numerous users that the misinformation held true, and eventually undermined trust in institutions, the media and the government. [233] The AI program had actually properly discovered to optimize its goal, however the result was hazardous to society. After the U.S. election in 2016, significant technology business took actions to reduce the issue [citation required]

In 2022, generative AI began to produce images, audio, video and text that are indistinguishable from real pictures, recordings, films, or human writing. It is possible for bad actors to utilize this innovation to create huge quantities of false information or propaganda. [234] AI leader Geoffrey Hinton expressed concern about AI enabling "authoritarian leaders to control their electorates" on a large scale, among other dangers. [235]
Algorithmic bias and fairness

Artificial intelligence applications will be biased [k] if they gain from biased information. [237] The developers might not understand that the predisposition exists. [238] Bias can be introduced by the method training information is chosen and by the method a design is released. [239] [237] If a prejudiced algorithm is utilized to make choices that can seriously harm people (as it can in medication, financing, recruitment, housing or policing) then the algorithm may cause discrimination. [240] The field of fairness research studies how to avoid damages from algorithmic predispositions.

On June 28, 2015, Google Photos's new image labeling feature erroneously recognized Jacky Alcine and a friend as "gorillas" since they were black. The system was trained on a dataset that contained extremely couple of images of black individuals, [241] an issue called "sample size variation". [242] Google "repaired" this issue by avoiding the system from labelling anything as a "gorilla". Eight years later on, in 2023, Google Photos still could not determine a gorilla, and neither might similar products from Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon. [243]
COMPAS is an industrial program widely used by U.S. courts to evaluate the probability of an accused becoming a recidivist. In 2016, Julia Angwin at ProPublica discovered that COMPAS displayed racial predisposition, in spite of the fact that the program was not informed the races of the offenders. Although the error rate for both whites and blacks was calibrated equivalent at exactly 61%, the mistakes for each race were different-the system consistently overstated the possibility that a black individual would re-offend and would underestimate the possibility that a white person would not re-offend. [244] In 2017, several scientists [l] revealed that it was mathematically difficult for COMPAS to accommodate all possible steps of fairness when the base rates of re-offense were various for whites and blacks in the data. [246]
A program can make prejudiced choices even if the data does not explicitly point out a bothersome function (such as "race" or "gender"). The function will associate with other functions (like "address", "shopping history" or "first name"), and the program will make the very same choices based upon these features as it would on "race" or "gender". [247] Moritz Hardt said "the most robust reality in this research study location is that fairness through loss of sight doesn't work." [248]
Criticism of COMPAS highlighted that artificial intelligence models are developed to make "predictions" that are just valid if we assume that the future will resemble the past. If they are trained on data that consists of the outcomes of racist choices in the past, artificial intelligence models must anticipate that racist decisions will be made in the future. If an application then utilizes these forecasts as suggestions, a few of these "recommendations" will likely be racist. [249] Thus, artificial intelligence is not well fit to assist make choices in locations where there is hope that the future will be much better than the past. It is detailed instead of prescriptive. [m]
Bias and unfairness may go undetected since the designers are overwhelmingly white and male: amongst AI engineers, about 4% are black and 20% are ladies. [242]
There are numerous conflicting definitions and mathematical models of fairness. These concepts depend on ethical presumptions, and are affected by beliefs about society. One broad classification is distributive fairness, which focuses on the results, often identifying groups and seeking to compensate for analytical disparities. Representational fairness tries to make sure that AI systems do not strengthen negative stereotypes or render certain groups invisible. Procedural fairness concentrates on the decision procedure instead of the result. The most appropriate ideas of fairness might depend on the context, significantly the type of AI application and the stakeholders. The subjectivity in the concepts of predisposition and fairness makes it hard for companies to operationalize them. Having access to sensitive attributes such as race or gender is also considered by numerous AI ethicists to be required in order to compensate for predispositions, but it might conflict with anti-discrimination laws. [236]
At its 2022 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (ACM FAccT 2022), the Association for Computing Machinery, in Seoul, South Korea, provided and published findings that recommend that until AI and robotics systems are demonstrated to be complimentary of bias errors, they are unsafe, and the usage of self-learning neural networks trained on large, uncontrolled sources of problematic internet information must be curtailed. [suspicious - go over] [251]
Lack of openness

Many AI systems are so complex that their designers can not explain how they reach their choices. [252] Particularly with deep neural networks, in which there are a large amount of non-linear relationships between inputs and outputs. But some popular explainability strategies exist. [253]
It is difficult to be certain that a program is operating properly if no one knows how precisely it works. There have actually been many cases where a machine discovering program passed rigorous tests, however nevertheless found out something different than what the developers planned. For instance, a system that could identify skin diseases better than medical specialists was discovered to actually have a strong tendency to categorize images with a ruler as "cancerous", because images of malignancies typically include a ruler to reveal the scale. [254] Another artificial intelligence system developed to help effectively allocate medical resources was found to classify patients with asthma as being at "low danger" of passing away from pneumonia. Having asthma is really a severe danger factor, however since the clients having asthma would generally get far more medical care, they were fairly unlikely to die according to the training information. The correlation between asthma and low threat of dying from pneumonia was genuine, however deceiving. [255]
People who have been damaged by an algorithm's choice have a right to an explanation. [256] Doctors, for example, are anticipated to plainly and totally explain to their associates the reasoning behind any choice they make. Early drafts of the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation in 2016 included an explicit declaration that this best exists. [n] Industry specialists noted that this is an unsolved problem without any solution in sight. Regulators argued that however the damage is genuine: if the problem has no solution, the tools need to not be used. [257]
DARPA developed the XAI ("Explainable Artificial Intelligence") program in 2014 to try to resolve these problems. [258]
Several methods aim to address the transparency problem. SHAP enables to visualise the contribution of each feature to the output. [259] LIME can in your area approximate a design's outputs with a simpler, interpretable design. [260] Multitask learning offers a big number of outputs in addition to the target category. These other outputs can assist developers deduce what the network has learned. [261] Deconvolution, DeepDream and other generative methods can permit designers to see what different layers of a deep network for computer vision have actually discovered, and produce output that can suggest what the network is finding out. [262] For generative pre-trained transformers, Anthropic developed a technique based on dictionary learning that associates patterns of nerve cell activations with human-understandable concepts. [263]
Bad stars and weaponized AI

Expert system supplies a variety of tools that work to bad actors, such as authoritarian federal governments, terrorists, wrongdoers or rogue states.

A lethal autonomous weapon is a device that locates, picks and engages human targets without human supervision. [o] Widely available AI tools can be used by bad actors to establish affordable self-governing weapons and, if produced at scale, they are potentially weapons of mass damage. [265] Even when used in traditional warfare, they presently can not reliably pick targets and might potentially eliminate an innocent person. [265] In 2014, 30 countries (including China) supported a ban on autonomous weapons under the United Nations' Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, however the United States and others disagreed. [266] By 2015, over fifty countries were reported to be investigating battleground robotics. [267]
AI tools make it easier for authoritarian governments to efficiently control their people in numerous methods. Face and voice acknowledgment allow extensive surveillance. Artificial intelligence, running this data, can categorize possible enemies of the state and avoid them from hiding. Recommendation systems can exactly target propaganda and misinformation for maximum effect. Deepfakes and generative AI aid in producing false information. Advanced AI can make authoritarian centralized decision making more competitive than liberal and decentralized systems such as markets. It reduces the cost and problem of digital warfare and advanced spyware. [268] All these innovations have been available given that 2020 or earlier-AI facial acknowledgment systems are currently being utilized for mass surveillance in China. [269] [270]
There numerous other manner ins which AI is anticipated to assist bad actors, a few of which can not be visualized. For instance, machine-learning AI is able to design tens of countless poisonous molecules in a matter of hours. [271]
Technological joblessness

Economists have frequently highlighted the dangers of redundancies from AI, and speculated about unemployment if there is no appropriate social policy for full employment. [272]
In the past, technology has actually tended to increase rather than reduce overall work, but economic experts acknowledge that "we remain in uncharted territory" with AI. [273] A survey of financial experts revealed difference about whether the increasing usage of robotics and AI will trigger a significant increase in long-term unemployment, however they typically concur that it could be a net benefit if productivity gains are rearranged. [274] Risk price quotes vary; for instance, in the 2010s, Michael Osborne and Carl Benedikt Frey estimated 47% of U.S. jobs are at "high risk" of potential automation, while an OECD report categorized only 9% of U.S. jobs as "high risk". [p] [276] The methodology of speculating about future work levels has been criticised as lacking evidential foundation, and for suggesting that innovation, rather than social policy, produces joblessness, instead of redundancies. [272] In April 2023, it was reported that 70% of the tasks for Chinese computer game illustrators had actually been gotten rid of by generative expert system. [277] [278]
Unlike previous waves of automation, lots of middle-class tasks may be gotten rid of by expert system; The Economist mentioned in 2015 that "the concern that AI could do to white-collar jobs what steam power did to blue-collar ones throughout the Industrial Revolution" is "worth taking seriously". [279] Jobs at severe risk variety from paralegals to quick food cooks, while task demand is likely to increase for care-related professions ranging from individual healthcare to the clergy. [280]
From the early days of the advancement of synthetic intelligence, there have been arguments, for example, those advanced by Joseph Weizenbaum, about whether jobs that can be done by computers in fact should be done by them, offered the difference between computers and human beings, and in between quantitative calculation and qualitative, value-based judgement. [281]
Existential threat

It has been argued AI will end up being so powerful that humanity might irreversibly lose control of it. This could, as physicist Stephen Hawking mentioned, "spell completion of the mankind". [282] This situation has actually prevailed in science fiction, when a computer or robotic all of a sudden establishes a human-like "self-awareness" (or "sentience" or "awareness") and ends up being a sinister character. [q] These sci-fi scenarios are deceiving in numerous ways.

First, AI does not require human-like life to be an existential danger. Modern AI programs are provided specific objectives and use knowing and intelligence to attain them. Philosopher Nick Bostrom argued that if one offers nearly any goal to an adequately powerful AI, it might choose to destroy mankind to attain it (he utilized the example of a paperclip factory supervisor). [284] Stuart Russell offers the example of family robotic that looks for a way to eliminate its owner to prevent it from being unplugged, reasoning that "you can't bring the coffee if you're dead." [285] In order to be safe for humankind, a superintelligence would have to be genuinely aligned with humankind's morality and worths so that it is "fundamentally on our side". [286]
Second, Yuval Noah Harari argues that AI does not need a robotic body or physical control to position an existential danger. The vital parts of civilization are not physical. Things like ideologies, law, government, cash and the economy are built on language; they exist since there are stories that billions of individuals think. The existing frequency of misinformation suggests that an AI could use language to encourage people to believe anything, even to take actions that are destructive. [287]
The viewpoints amongst experts and market experts are blended, with substantial portions both worried and unconcerned by threat from ultimate superintelligent AI. [288] Personalities such as Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, and Elon Musk, [289] in addition to AI pioneers such as Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Demis Hassabis, and Sam Altman, have revealed issues about existential risk from AI.

In May 2023, Geoffrey Hinton announced his resignation from Google in order to be able to "freely speak out about the risks of AI" without "thinking about how this impacts Google". [290] He notably pointed out dangers of an AI takeover, [291] and worried that in order to avoid the worst outcomes, developing safety standards will need cooperation amongst those competing in usage of AI. [292]
In 2023, many leading AI professionals endorsed the joint declaration that "Mitigating the danger of termination from AI ought to be a worldwide priority alongside other societal-scale dangers such as pandemics and nuclear war". [293]
Some other scientists were more optimistic. AI leader Jürgen Schmidhuber did not sign the joint declaration, stressing that in 95% of all cases, AI research is about making "human lives longer and healthier and easier." [294] While the tools that are now being used to enhance lives can also be used by bad actors, "they can also be utilized against the bad stars." [295] [296] Andrew Ng likewise argued that "it's an error to fall for the end ofthe world buzz on AI-and that regulators who do will just benefit vested interests." [297] Yann LeCun "belittles his peers' dystopian scenarios of supercharged misinformation and even, eventually, human extinction." [298] In the early 2010s, professionals argued that the risks are too remote in the future to necessitate research study or that human beings will be valuable from the viewpoint of a superintelligent device. [299] However, after 2016, the study of existing and future dangers and possible solutions ended up being a major area of research study. [300]
Ethical makers and positioning

Friendly AI are devices that have been designed from the starting to reduce dangers and to choose that benefit humans. Eliezer Yudkowsky, who coined the term, argues that developing friendly AI ought to be a greater research top priority: it may require a large investment and it must be finished before AI ends up being an existential risk. [301]
Machines with intelligence have the potential to use their intelligence to make ethical decisions. The field of maker ethics offers makers with ethical principles and treatments for fixing ethical dilemmas. [302] The field of maker principles is also called computational morality, [302] and was established at an AAAI seminar in 2005. [303]
Other methods consist of Wendell Wallach's "artificial moral agents" [304] and Stuart J. Russell's 3 principles for establishing provably useful machines. [305]
Open source

Active companies in the AI open-source community include Hugging Face, [306] Google, [307] EleutherAI and Meta. [308] Various AI designs, such as Llama 2, Mistral or Stable Diffusion, have actually been made open-weight, [309] [310] implying that their architecture and trained criteria (the "weights") are publicly available. Open-weight designs can be freely fine-tuned, which enables companies to specialize them with their own information and for their own use-case. [311] Open-weight designs are beneficial for research and innovation however can also be misused. Since they can be fine-tuned, any built-in security measure, such as objecting to damaging demands, can be trained away up until it ends up being ineffective. Some researchers warn that future AI designs may establish harmful capabilities (such as the potential to drastically facilitate bioterrorism) which when launched on the Internet, they can not be erased all over if needed. They advise pre-release audits and cost-benefit analyses. [312]
Frameworks

Expert system tasks can have their ethical permissibility evaluated while creating, developing, and implementing an AI system. An AI framework such as the Care and Act Framework containing the SUM values-developed by the Alan Turing Institute tests projects in 4 main areas: [313] [314]
Respect the dignity of individual people Connect with other individuals truly, freely, and inclusively Look after the wellness of everybody Protect social values, justice, and the public interest
Other advancements in ethical structures include those decided upon during the Asilomar Conference, the Montreal Declaration for Responsible AI, and the IEEE's Ethics of Autonomous Systems initiative, to name a few; [315] nevertheless, these principles do not go without their criticisms, especially concerns to the individuals picked adds to these frameworks. [316]
Promotion of the health and wellbeing of the individuals and communities that these technologies impact needs factor to consider of the social and ethical implications at all phases of AI system design, development and application, and partnership between task functions such as data scientists, product managers, data engineers, domain specialists, and delivery supervisors. [317]
The UK AI Safety Institute launched in 2024 a screening toolset called 'Inspect' for AI safety assessments available under a MIT open-source licence which is freely available on GitHub and can be improved with third-party packages. It can be used to examine AI models in a series of locations consisting of core understanding, ability to reason, and self-governing capabilities. [318]
Regulation

The regulation of artificial intelligence is the development of public sector policies and laws for promoting and managing AI; it is therefore associated to the more comprehensive policy of algorithms. [319] The regulative and policy landscape for AI is an emerging problem in jurisdictions worldwide. [320] According to AI Index at Stanford, the yearly number of AI-related laws passed in the 127 study nations leapt from one passed in 2016 to 37 passed in 2022 alone. [321] [322] Between 2016 and 2020, more than 30 nations embraced dedicated strategies for AI. [323] Most EU member states had actually released national AI methods, as had Canada, China, India, Japan, Mauritius, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, U.S., and Vietnam. Others remained in the procedure of elaborating their own AI method, including Bangladesh, Malaysia and Tunisia. [323] The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence was released in June 2020, mentioning a need for AI to be established in accordance with human rights and democratic values, to make sure public confidence and trust in the technology. [323] Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt, and Daniel Huttenlocher released a joint statement in November 2021 calling for a federal government commission to manage AI. [324] In 2023, OpenAI leaders released suggestions for the governance of superintelligence, which they think may occur in less than 10 years. [325] In 2023, the United Nations likewise released an advisory body to provide suggestions on AI governance; the body makes up innovation company executives, governments officials and academics. [326] In 2024, the Council of Europe developed the first worldwide legally binding treaty on AI, called the "Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law".

Please solve the reCAPTCHA

We want to be sure it is you, please confirm you are not a robot.

Linked issues
...

    Related merge requests

    • You're only seeing other activity in the feed. To add a comment, switch to one of the following options.
    Please register or sign in to reply
    0 Assignees
    Assign to
    None
    Milestone
    None
    Assign milestone
    None
    Time tracking
    No estimate or time spent
    None
    Due date
    None
    0
    Labels
    None
    Confidentiality
    Not confidential
    Lock issue
    Unlocked
    participants
    Reference: billstover7938/bedfordfalls#14