Minority Report software can predict the future

Business as unusual.

Who'd have thought that Tom Cruise could be a harbinger of our global future? But silly sci-fi in the vein of Minority Report, where future events are predicted and dealt with before they even occur, may well have the last laugh if the findings coming out of the Microsoft Research lab are a sign of things to come.

Teamed with the Technion-Israel Institute, researchers set out to design software that can predict events before they happen. This includes epidemics and outbreaks of violence. It turns out that with 22 years worth of New York Times articles and a data-based Wikipedia the results are surprisingly accurate.

In fact, the software was able to correctly predict outbreaks of cholera in Angola based mainly on the occurrence of droughts in the area. The system signalled that incidents of cholera were likely because previous news reports had shown that cholera is common following droughts - perhaps due to poor sanitation through lack of water. Sure enough, days later in drought-stricken Angola the first cholera cases were being reported.

The researchers also found that the system they had developed could foresee violent and political unrest by combining factors such as location, citizen's earnings, and GDP. After testing the software on everything from political instability to epidemic outbreaks it has proved to be correct between 70-90 per cent of the time.

When it comes to violence, the findings are slightly controversial. The researcher's report concludes: "The system identified, in an automated manner, that for locations with large immigrant populations (e.g. Ohio and New York), the shooting of an unarmed person by the police can cause protests". This result suggests that the automation process may oversimplify complex events.

But the implications when it comes to disease are promising. If an epidemic can be predicted then aid agencies and governments can prepare for the worst, ensuring that help is on hand when the first incident hits.

Tom Cruise: harbinger of our global future? Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

Benn vs McDonnell: how Brexit has exposed the fight over Labour's party machine

In the wake of Brexit, should Labour MPs listen more closely to voters, or their own party members?

Two Labour MPs on primetime TV. Two prominent politicians ruling themselves out of a Labour leadership contest. But that was as far as the similarity went.

Hilary Benn was speaking hours after he resigned - or was sacked - from the Shadow Cabinet. He described Jeremy Corbyn as a "good and decent man" but not a leader.

Framing his overnight removal as a matter of conscience, Benn told the BBC's Andrew Marr: "I no longer have confidence in him [Corbyn] and I think the right thing to do would be for him to take that decision."

In Benn's view, diehard leftie pin ups do not go down well in the real world, or on the ballot papers of middle England. 

But while Benn may be drawing on a New Labour truism, this in turn rests on the assumption that voters matter more than the party members when it comes to winning elections.

That assumption was contested moments later by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell.

Dismissive of the personal appeal of Shadow Cabinet ministers - "we can replace them" - McDonnell's message was that Labour under Corbyn had rejuvenated its electoral machine.

Pointing to success in by-elections and the London mayoral election, McDonnell warned would-be rebels: "Who is sovereign in our party? The people who are soverign are the party members. 

"I'm saying respect the party members. And in that way we can hold together and win the next election."

Indeed, nearly a year on from Corbyn's surprise election to the Labour leadership, it is worth remembering he captured nearly 60% of the 400,000 votes cast. Momentum, the grassroots organisation formed in the wake of his success, now has more than 50 branches around the country.

Come the next election, it will be these grassroots members who will knock on doors, hand out leaflets and perhaps even threaten to deselect MPs.

The question for wavering Labour MPs will be whether what they trust more - their own connection with voters, or this potentially unbiddable party machine.