Daily news sites

NEW YORK -- We are entering an age of accelerated development of artificial and robotic technology, three panelists told an audience of investors, engineers and journalists recently.

"A lot of the things that technology was traditionally lousy at are now really, really good, and getting better all the time," said Andrew McAfee, the principal research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "This is unprecedented and unexpected."

McAfee was speaking at an annual lecture on science and technology hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations; joining him on the panel were Rodney Brooks, an entrepreneur and emeritus professor of robotics at MIT, and Abhinav Gupta, of the Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. All three were optimistic about the development of robotics and artificial intelligence technology, but each acknowledged areas where there are still tremendous challenges to overcome.

"Just in the past few years," McAfee said, excitably, "digital technologies in all their manifestations, including robots, have been breaking out of the box and starting to demonstrate capabilities that they never ever had before."

But something as fundamental as taking keys out of a pocket, Brooks said, remains beyond the current capabilities of robots. Even determining that a picture of a child was a picture of a child is too hard. Great strides have been made in other areas, like creating machines that can win a chess game against even the most experienced grandmaster, but it will take years more research to mimic the dexterity of the human hand, the panelists said, or even the spacial awareness of a 1-year-old.

And yet, the most important issues to sort out, the panelists agreed, are not technological. They're in the policy realm.

"None of It Is Rocket Science"

"Why is our infrastructure so lousy?" McAfee asked, exasperated. "Why are our immigration policies -- as far as I can tell -- designed by our enemies? Why are [our schools] turning out the kinds of workers we needed 50 years ago? If we can get these things right, that'd be the best thing we could do to improve the prospects of the American worker, and none of it is rocket science."

Encouraging immigrants to create companies here is another issue. The government permits immigrants who invest $1 million in the economy to stay permanently, Gupta noted. "Why don't we have that for people who have ideas to open a start-up?" he wondered.

Research investment is another area where American government policy needs a serious rethink.

"In the U.S., it's going down," said Gupta. "In China, it's doubling. Europe is even better than the U.S.! If you talk to researchers, like me, Europe has much better research funding than America has."

Two of the largest industries in the American economy -- healthcare and education -- are ripe for disruption, the panelists said.

"We are not seeing crazy price declines in these huge industries that we are seeing elsewhere," McAfee argued. "What's going to bring them there? Opening up these markets. Getting rid of the incumbent's advantage. Education is a cartel."

Geeks Will Astonish Us

In the end, despite the monumental challenges yet to be overcome, the panelists were optimistic about the accelerating abilities of technology and artificial intelligence.

"The exponential improvement in the elements of computing is not about to run out of gas," McAfee said. "We've got generations more of it to go. Geeks out there are going to take that computational power and that ocean of data and do things that astonish us."

But the panelists couldn't muster the same sentiment when it comes to policy-making, economics and security.

"As different technologies have proliferated and really democratized access to innovation and to making things, the economy has moved in the other direction," McAfee said. "It's moved toward more concentration. The big guys are getting bigger. The workforce is becoming more polarized instead of less. I'm really worried about this polarization of opportunity and of mobility. I think it's already a challenge and it's going to get a lot bigger. And what we do about that is going to be the challenge that defines us for the next generation."

Moreover, the global security landscape is becoming more threatening. The proliferation of accessible technology is as beneficial to Iran and the Taliban as it is for Silicon Valley start-ups. Equipment available at RadioShack is used in IEDs targeting American troops in Afghanistan, said Brooks.

"Cybersecurity is scary as hell," McAfee noted.

"The threats of the future are going to be very different sorts of threats," echoed Brooks. "And that worries me."

WASHINGTON -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won applause, whoops and standing ovations on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, but conversations with lawmakers immediately after Netanyahu's long-awaited address suggest that he didn't win the prize he was really looking for: a decisive shift in the conversation about nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

Instead, legislators reiterated old talking points about the nuclear negotiations backed by the Obama administration, and expressed their respect for the Israeli leader and the position he sees himself in as his country's last hope against a potential Iranian nuclear attack. Of course, those who attended the controversial speech were already making a silent statement in support of Netanyahu, given the administration's strident criticism of his address and the choice by many Democrats to give it a miss.

"It was very powerful," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said of the speech. "But I hope it doesn't explode the possibilities of an agreement."

The comment from Feinstein, one of a number of Democrats who have not openly challenged the administration on the negotiations but have indicated receptiveness to Netanyahu's concerns, captured the overall congressional response to Bibi's appearance on the Hill: It was salient, but it didn't change our minds.

"The [Prime Minister] has doubts about Iran, and I have doubts about Iran. I did going in, I still do. That is a valid starting point. We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we want the United States to be a strong ally of Israel," said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who has also supported negotiations. "But reaching the goal of stopping nuclear weapons is clearly what's at issue here. The [Prime Minister] is dismissive of the president's efforts. I think at some parts of his speech, he may have mischaracterized some of things that are being said."

Lawmakers on the other side seemed equally unaffected on Tuesday, just hours before Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that Republicans will next week bring to a vote a recently proposed bill that would require congressional approval for any potential deal between Tehran and the six countries -- the U.S., the U.K., France, Germany, Russia and China -- that are working to limit the Iranian nuclear program. The bill would not introduce additional sanctions on Iran, the action Netanyahu called for this morning. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the Senate's chief proponents of additional sanctions, reaffirmed to The Huffington Post today that he and other legislators would stand by their promise to the administration not to vote on new sanctions until at least March 24.

"I don't think so," said Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), when asked if he thought Netanyahu's speech would derail the ongoing talks, which resumed on Monday. "I've been supportive of negotiations, supportive of a good deal... If there's a good deal to be made, it should be made. It was a great speech and it was information people need to know if they haven't heard it. So I'm glad he gave it."

But Netanyahu's gloomy speech did prompt new expressions of paranoia about Iran from several of Flake's fellow Republicans, who have long criticized the Obama administration for attempting to engage with Iran to peacefully resolve concerns about its nuclear activity.

"There is one threat and one threat only with the potential to once again annihilate 6 million Jews," said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). "A nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to the nation of Israel, that's what Prime Minister Netanyahu tell us. And it is worth underscoring that the word 'existential' does not mean a Frenchman in a black beret chain-smoking. It means going to the very existence of the nation of Israel."

And while Bibi may not have changed lawmakers' minds about negotiations, he did manage to unite both supporters and skeptics of diplomacy around his larger assertion that a deal would not simply be about a nuclear weapon. Rather, he suggested, a deal could enable an even more worrying development by bolstering Tehran's growing regional power.

"Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its Revolutionary Guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror," Netanyahu told Congress. "Backed by Iran, [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Backed by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Backed by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second chokepoint on the world's oil supply... We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror."

This argument -- that Iran is a bad actor in the region and cannot be embraced -- seemed to make a bigger impact on lawmakers Tuesday than Netanyahu's warnings against diplomacy. The administration has indicated that regional politics are not on the table in the negotiations, though skeptics point out that Iran is a de facto partner for the U.S. against the Islamic State in Iraq and has not been directly confronted by Washington in Syria or Yemen.

"I think the world would be a lot better place if Iran would give up terror, give up its support of Hezbollah, Hamas," Feinstein said, referring to Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Palestine.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) went as far as to compare Netanyahu to another politician who once stood in the face of an expanding regional power.

Netanyahu, Kirk told The Huffington Post, is "the Winston Churchill of our time."

Jennifer Bendery contributed reporting.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly listed Sen. Robert Menendez's party. He is a Democrat.

SAO PAULO (AP) — Under a scorching sun, dozens of Haitians shuffled impatiently about the brick-walled courtyard of Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church. The sight of an approaching employer sparked a skirmish, with the men pushing against each other, jostling for attention.

"How many people you need?," several men shouted. "I need a job, what do you want me to do?" No matter what the job was, someone in the crowd yelled out, "I can do that!" There are fewer jobs in Brazil than there are Haitians looking for work. An open-door policy intended to help migrants from the impoverished island is fueling Brazil's largest immigration wave since World War II and prompting calls for lawmakers to do more to help the new arrivals.

"Seeing so many seeking jobs and so much hunger for work, it creates tension," said the Rev. Paolo Parise, a priest who directs the parish's efforts to help Haitian migrants and other impoverished newcomers.

While Haiti is picking itself up from the 7.0 earthquake that devastated its capital in 2010, progress has not been enough to keep tens of thousands of Haitians from chasing opportunities abroad, mainly in the United States and the Dominican Republic. But Brazil also has become an attractive landing spot for migrants eager to find a toehold in Latin America's biggest economy.

Brazil has no limit on the number of humanitarian visas it issues to Haitians. National Migration Council figures suggest more than 52,000 Haitians have migrated since 2012 and have become the country's largest group of foreign laborers, outpacing Portuguese who long held the top spot.

"No other country opened the doors for them like Brazil," said Duval Magalhaes, a demographer at the Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais state who has researched the Haitian migration in Brazil.

Wooldeens Turenne, 23, once earned a reliable income guiding missionary workers helping quake victims in Haiti. But such work gradually dried up and, last year, Turenne saw it was time to leave. Despite being fluent in English, going to the United States wasn't an option due to its restrictive immigration laws. Instead, he flew to Panama, then Ecuador, where he received his visa to enter Brazil. He then flew to Sao Paulo.

Jobs can be found in construction, agriculture and factories, but the salaries barely cover Brazil's high cost of living, let alone leave Haitians enough money to support family back home. Employers know Haitians are desperate, and commonly pay them $300 to $400 a month, barely above the legal minimum.

"If they know you are an immigrant, they don't pay you the salary they are supposed to, and they will give you a lot of work to do," Turenne said. "It's better than Haiti, yes, but it's not possible to make a good living."

Two out of three companies interested in hiring migrants through Parise's church are turned away because they don't want to comply with labor laws, or their work sites don't meet safety standards.

Migrant advocates say the Haitians also face racial discrimination, and many struggle to understand Portuguese. Trying to survive on sporadic and meager incomes, most crowd into shared rooms amid the poorest slums ringing cities such as Sao Paulo.

Brazil has gone through a construction boom, both due to an economic expansion that lifted tens of millions out of poverty and because of public works projects tied to last year's World Cup and next year's Olympics. But the economy is now sluggish, contracting the first half of 2014 and barely moving as the year closed.

That hasn't stemmed the flow of Haitians. Migrant advocates are urging the government to do more, such as allowing those who arrive without visas to apply for them in Brazil, a step that would circumvent a cumbersome process in which they first must seek refugee status. They also complain Brazil needs to provide more shelters for new arrivals and do more to integrate them into society.

"Brazil is giving them a piece of paper (a visa), but there is no public policy of integration," Parise said.

Bernado Franck has spent the past year trying to establish himself in Brazil. While he practiced law in his hometown of Saint-Marc, he's found that landing any job in Brazil is hard, let alone one with salary he can live on. He's been out of work for the last four months.

"We heard so many good things about Brazil, but I am not finding anything," the 28-year-old Franck said at the church yard. "I want to help my mom and family back home; I have to eat and pay rent. How do they expect me to improve my life?"