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 Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.