UPSC CSE 2023 Final Result Updates: The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on Tuesday, April 16, declared the Civil Services 2023 exam results. Candidates who appeared in the personality test can check their results at the official websites – upsconline.nic.in and upsc.gov.in · This ...

UPSC Civil Services Result 2023 (Out) Updates: Know CSE toppers educational qualification | Education News - The Indian Express

UPSC Civil Services 2023 Final Result Highlights: Candidates can check their results at the official website – upsc.gov.in.

UPSC Civil Services Result 2023 Highlights: Results out at upsc.gov.in; Aditya Srivastava gets AIR 1 - Full list of toppers here - Education News | The Financial Express

See Live Michigan Presidential Caucus Election results and maps by county and district from NBC News.

Michigan Presidential Caucus 2024: Live Election Results - NBC News

See live election results and maps by county of the 2024 Michigan Republican presidential primary from The Washington Post.

Michigan Republican presidential primary election results 2024 | The Washington Post

Get live election results and maps from the 2024 Michigan Democratic presidential primary.

Michigan Democratic Primary Election 2024 Live Results: Biden Wins - The New York Times

Rishi Sunak has warned that extremists are trying to tear Britain apart as he called for the country to come together and “beat this poison”.

Rishi Sunak latest news: British democracy being targeted by extremists, says PM

It is not the first time that the BJP has fished in troubled waters to gain an extra berth in the Rajya Sabha

An extra berth: on the Rajya Sabha election results - The Hindu

The Workers Party candidate wins the seat in Greater Manchester, with independent David Tully coming second.

Rochdale by-election result live: Workers Party candidate George Galloway wins - BBC News

See live election results and maps by county of the 2024 Michigan Democratic presidential primary from The Washington Post.

Michigan Democratic presidential primary election results 2024 | The Washington Post

Though each candidate faced revealing challenges in the swing state, both won easily · By Lauren Egan and Elena Schneider

The numbers that explain the messy Michigan primary results

Resights

resights

Authors, artists, and their employers are furious over generative artificial intelligence (AI) – chatbots that write novels and news copy, image generators that create artwork or music to order in the style of any artist whose work is accessible on the internet.  The list of pending lawsuits is long and growing. Major media outlets including The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune contend that their stories were copied “with impunity,” prominent authors of fiction and nonfiction allege “systematic theft on a mass scale,” and famous artists assert that image generators duplicate their work and threaten to destroy their livelihoods. The authors and artists object not only to the actual generation of prose, images, or music by AI but also to the use of their work to train the AI in the first place. Reading some of the pleadings, you sense genuine anxiety in addition to grievance – the feeling that the more prolific and successful the plaintiffs become, the faster they are training their replacements. Their fears are borne out by well-publicized waves of AI-driven layoffs across the entertainment industry and even among the coders themselves. The legal questions, however, are complex and won’t be settled for years. They involve the reach of copyright and the limiting doctrine of “fair use,” as well as the licensing terms that content creators impose on consumers of their work. Resolving these questions is easier, or at least clearer if we are prepared to attribute agency to a computer and judge its activities as if they were undertaken by humans.  At one level, of course, this is ludicrous. Machines don’t think or create like humans – they just do what we tell them to do. Until very recently, it was easy to see computers as sophisticated tools subservient to human agency, regurgitating pre-loaded content and crunching numbers. Today, we converse with chatbots the way we would with a research or coding assistant, and with image generators the way art directors guide human illustrators and graphic designers. Much as it discomfits us, generative AI learns and, at some level, “thinks.” Trained on a significant slice of human knowledge, ChatGPT aced the “Turing test” – the famous measure of a machine’s ability to exhibit human-like intelligent behavior – the day it was released. Since then, chatbots have passed the bar and medical licensing exams, solved long-standing math conundrums, and written more empathetic responses to patient questions than their doctors. They even outperform humans on tests of creativity, and it is precisely to encourage creativity that copyright laws exist. This is not to argue that we should start according rights to machines – far from it. Rather, it is because humans develop and benefit from generative AI that we must ask if there is any legal basis for treating AI differently under copyright law. Humans read books and newspapers to learn, to become more informed, and to become better writers. No one argues that violates copyright. They may bring sketchbooks to museums and record their impressions of works they see, improving artistic skills and broadening stylistic repertoires. All agree this is “fair use.” Why, then, should training a generative AI on publicly accessible content be prohibited? AI systems may not learn or think like biological beings, but learn they do, and, whether or not we choose to call their inferential processes “thinking,” they clearly exhibit intelligent behavior. Leave questions of ontology and the roots of knowledge to the philosophers (or, if you prefer, to their imitative chatbots). We benefit humankind by making the rudiments of knowledge creation accessible to generative AI. AI helps us perform better. It juices our game, as long as we don’t forget how to think for ourselves. We expect doctors to keep up with the medical literature and lawyers to read the latest cases, so if we value the assistance AI provides, we should want to see it exposed to the broadest possible swath of human understanding. It is hard to see how this violates anyone’s rights. The copyright plaintiffs have another theory: that the trained chatbot is so directly derived from their proprietary content as to constitute an infringing work in itself. But chatbots are based on “large language models,” which organize massive numbers of basic text elements into a complex representation that captures meaning and word relationships. This allows the chatbot to formulate coherent answers to queries. It seems difficult to argue that such an esoteric representation, based on so many written works, is any more infringing than a human brain exposed to The New York Times. Whether generative AI, once trained, might produce stories or images that infringe on someone’s copyright is a completely separate question. In its lawsuit, The New York Times cited instances of verbatim copying of its content by ChatGPT. Depending on how much was copied, those specific instances could represent copyright infringement regardless of whether the culprit is man or machine. (OpenAI, the proprietor of ChatGPT, insists such cases are rare and thinks their chatbot may have been tricked into copying.) Artists have a tougher case to make because style has never been protectable by copyright. Today, anyone is free to hire an artist to create a work in the style of another artist. That may be crass but, as long as no specific work by the other artist is copied, it isn’t legally actionable.  Why should we hold image generators to a different standard? While the artist side of the story pits individuals against corporate behemoths like Microsoft, the chatbot wars are a clash of titans: the plaintiffs are Big Media and wealthy authors. They’ve sought to bolster their copyright case with terms of service that prohibit scraping content for use in AI training. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, you can’t enlarge copyright using contractual restrictions. If the use of your content is either noninfringing or falls within “fair use,” which places activities such as research and teaching beyond the reach of copyright, those restrictions are unenforceable. Like all technology revolutions, the advent of generative AI will produce winners and losers, but potentially on a vaster scale – and with a greater share of losers – than any previous advance due to the sheer number of jobs it affects. No career is truly safe because the imperative to save money is universal. Of course, it’s easy to say that technology has been coming for jobs since the Industrial Revolution and the net effect has always been more jobs, not fewer – until it’s your job. But the galloping popularity of generative AI attests to the undeniable and widespread benefits it delivers. Fettering it with legal hopples that benefit one set of big players over another will not, in the long run, and probably much sooner than that, reduce the inevitable dislocation. Authors, artists, and their employers are furious over generative artificial intelligence (AI) – chatbots that write novels and news copy, image generators that create artwork or music to order in the style of any artist whose work is accessible on the internet.  The list of pending lawsuits is long and growing. Major media outlets including The New York Times and The Chicago Tribune contend that their stories were copied “with impunity,” prominent authors of fiction and nonfiction allege “systematic theft on a mass scale,” and famous artists assert that image generators duplicate their work and threaten to destroy their livelihoods. The New York Times The Chicago Tribune The authors and artists object not only to the actual generation of prose, images, or music by AI but also to the use of their work to train the AI in the first place. Reading some of the pleadings, you sense genuine anxiety in addition to grievance – the feeling that the more prolific and successful the plaintiffs become, the faster they are training their replacements. Their fears are borne out by well-publicized waves of AI-driven layoffs across the entertainment industry and even among the coders themselves. The legal questions, however, are complex and won’t be settled for years. They involve the reach of copyright and the limiting doctrine of “fair use,” as well as the licensing terms that content creators impose on consumers of their work. Resolving these questions is easier, or at least clearer if we are prepared to attribute agency to a computer and judge its activities as if they were undertaken by humans.  At one level, of course, this is ludicrous. Machines don’t think or create like humans – they just do what we tell them to do. Until very recently, it was easy to see computers as sophisticated tools subservient to human agency, regurgitating pre-loaded content and crunching numbers. Today, we converse with chatbots the way we would with a research or coding assistant, and with image generators the way art directors guide human illustrators and graphic designers. Much as it discomfits us, generative AI learns and, at some level, “thinks.” Trained on a significant slice of human knowledge, ChatGPT aced the “Turing test” – the famous measure of a machine’s ability to exhibit human-like intelligent behavior – the day it was released. Since then, chatbots have passed the bar and medical licensing exams, solved long-standing math conundrums , and written more empathetic responses to patient questions than their doctors. They even outperform humans on tests of creativity , and it is precisely to encourage creativity that copyright laws exist. solved long-standing math conundrums more empathetic responses outperform humans on tests of creativity This is not to argue that we should start according rights to machines – far from it. Rather, it is because humans develop and benefit from generative AI that we must ask if there is any legal basis for treating AI differently under copyright law. Humans read books and newspapers to learn, to become more informed, and to become better writers. No one argues that violates copyright. They may bring sketchbooks to museums and record their impressions of works they see, improving artistic skills and broadening stylistic repertoires. All agree this is “fair use.” Why, then, should training a generative AI on publicly accessible content be prohibited? AI systems may not learn or think like biological beings, but learn they do, and, whether or not we choose to call their inferential processes “thinking,” they clearly exhibit intelligent behavior. Leave questions of ontology and the roots of knowledge to the philosophers (or, if you prefer, to their imitative chatbots). We benefit humankind by making the rudiments of knowledge creation accessible to generative AI. AI helps us perform better. It juices our game, as long as we don’t forget how to think for ourselves. We expect doctors to keep up with the medical literature and lawyers to read the latest cases, so if we value the assistance AI provides, we should want to see it exposed to the broadest possible swath of human understanding. It is hard to see how this violates anyone’s rights. The copyright plaintiffs have another theory: that the trained chatbot is so directly derived from their proprietary content as to constitute an infringing work in itself. But chatbots are based on “large language models,” which organize massive numbers of basic text elements into a complex representation that captures meaning and word relationships. This allows the chatbot to formulate coherent answers to queries. It seems difficult to argue that such an esoteric representation, based on so many written works, is any more infringing than a human brain exposed to The New York Times . The New York Times Whether generative AI, once trained, might produce stories or images that infringe on someone’s copyright is a completely separate question. In its lawsuit, The New York Times cited instances of verbatim copying of its content by ChatGPT. Depending on how much was copied, those specific instances could represent copyright infringement regardless of whether the culprit is man or machine. (OpenAI, the proprietor of ChatGPT, insists such cases are rare and thinks their chatbot may have been tricked into copying.) The New York Times tricked Artists have a tougher case to make because style has never been protectable by copyright. Today, anyone is free to hire an artist to create a work in the style of another artist. That may be crass but, as long as no specific work by the other artist is copied, it isn’t legally actionable.  Why should we hold image generators to a different standard? While the artist side of the story pits individuals against corporate behemoths like Microsoft, the chatbot wars are a clash of titans: the plaintiffs are Big Media and wealthy authors. They’ve sought to bolster their copyright case with terms of service that prohibit scraping content for use in AI training. Unfortunately for the plaintiffs, you can’t enlarge copyright using contractual restrictions. If the use of your content is either noninfringing or falls within “fair use,” which places activities such as research and teaching beyond the reach of copyright, those restrictions are unenforceable. Like all technology revolutions, the advent of generative AI will produce winners and losers, but potentially on a vaster scale – and with a greater share of losers – than any previous advance due to the sheer number of jobs it affects. No career is truly safe because the imperative to save money is universal. Of course, it’s easy to say that technology has been coming for jobs since the Industrial Revolution and the net effect has always been more jobs, not fewer – until it’s your job. But the galloping popularity of generative AI attests to the undeniable and widespread benefits it delivers. Fettering it with legal hopples that benefit one set of big players over another will not, in the long run, and probably much sooner than that, reduce the inevitable dislocation.

Does Generative AI Violate the Rights of Authors and Artists?

জেনারেটিভ এআই কি লেখক এবং শিল্পীদের অধিকার লঙ্ঘন করে?

Verletzt generative KI die Rechte von Autoren und Künstlern?

¿La IA generativa viola los derechos de los autores y artistas?

L’IA générative viole-t-elle les droits des auteurs et des artistes ?

क्या जनरेटिव एआई लेखकों और कलाकारों के अधिकारों का उल्लंघन करता है?

生成 AI は著者やアーティストの権利を侵害しますか?

Generative AI는 작가와 예술가의 권리를 침해합니까?

A IA generativa viola os direitos de autores e artistas?

Нарушает ли генеративный ИИ права авторов и художников?

Üretken Yapay Zeka Yazarların ve Sanatçıların Haklarını İhlal Ediyor mu?

AI sáng tạo có vi phạm quyền của tác giả và nghệ sĩ không?

生成式人工智能是否侵犯了作者和艺术家的权利？

As AI wows us with how good it is at mimicking us, it’s starting to redefine creative processes that we have shaped over centuries. Until we completely do an overhaul of artists’ rights and intellectual property safety laws, it looks like artists will suffer. This time it’s voice artists. Last month, OpenAI took down a voice used by its ChatGPT that sounded uncannily like Hollywood actress Scarlet Johansson. The bot giant halted using the voice after the actress threatened to sue the company. Their explanation about how they got the voice in the first place is that they used another actress for it. It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? Where are these AI companies getting these voices from? Isn’t the source important? “In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity,” NPR quoted Johansson. In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity
Scarlet Johansson She has a point. There are other voice artists too who went through the shock of hearing their voices from sources they hadn’t lent them to. These incidents show the lack of legal safeguards when it comes to using creative work that aids AI tools. Why is Voice Significant? It might seem hard to imagine how AI that mimics human voice behavior will impact human society because we tend to take it for granted but as tech giants vie to provide much more lifelike voice assistants, we could soon find out. As Visar Berisha, an Arizona State University professor who studies AI speech technology, told NPR, “Communication by voice is really intimate, really impactful. It allows the AI to express subtleties, things that are perceived as sincere, urgent, joy, concern. And all of these serve to foster a deeper connection between the user and the machine. You can see how these interactions can potentially become addictive.” The movie ‘Her’ has naturally become part of this discussion. In the movie, when the protagonist falls for the flirtatious AI operating system, sporting the voice of Scarlet Johansson incidentally, it’s just the voice that tugs at his heartstrings, and we understand why it happens. So, undeniably, there is something in the voice. That voice has an impact on human society is evident from how attractive it is as an investment for businesses. American entrepreneur and investor Naval Ravikant recently launched Airchat, a voice-centric social media app. AI customer reps are filling the market. AI companies, like Hume AI, are starting to introduce EVI, or Empathic Voice Interface, where the AI changes its responses based on the user’s tone. AI & the Music Industry AI is changing more in the voice area, namely the music industry. It isn’t a surprise to find singers crooning away while AI adds effects to their real voices. Already AI is changing one of the biggest and most popular voice entertainment arenas, hip-hop and rap music. An ongoing diss-track rap battle between Kendrick Lamar and Drake has brought out the impact that technology has on hip-hop with curated releases on social platforms and AI-generated songs. It’s not just voice. Creative people are steadily losing to AI. Recently the psychedelic rock band Pink Floyd faced flak from fans when they chose an AI-generated video as the winner of their The Dark Side of The Moon 50th anniversary competition over all the human-made entries. We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney
Artist in Michigan told New York Times As a movie concept artist in Michigan told New York Times, “We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney.” What will happen when the taboo of AI drops, which seems inevitable? As an article in Wired says, “The manner that technology has already changed rap beef begs the question of where it will go next. One day, the taboo around AI in hip-hop will disappear, and entire battles will be orchestrated by LLM rappers trained on the raps of individual artists. Quants will develop metrics for who the winners are. If we are offended by a lyric about a member of our family, we’ll blame the machines. It may sound like the stuff of science-fiction, but the gap between this future reality and 2024 might be smaller (in time and manner) than the gap between Canibus vs. LL Cool J (1998) and Kendrick vs. Drake.” AI is Sneaking in but Here to Stay Last month, Gannett, an American media company that owns hundreds of newspapers, added AI-generated summaries to its articles. Five of this year’s Pulitzer winners used AI in their research. It feels a little like leaving the back door open for AI to sneak in, but we can be certain it will eventually reach the porch. It seems inevitable that these kinds of incidents will rewrite existing copyright laws. Recently, there have been many copyright infringement lawsuits against companies that are making use of tens of thousands of copyrighted books to train generative AI systems. One of them has called it “systematic theft on a mass scale,” not too far from the truth. The Good Side of Voice AI It’s not all evil though. AI voice-cloning technology can also be helpful to some people. People who have lost their speech are using AI voice cloning to get it back. Trained on a 15-second time capsule of her teenage voice, a 21-year-old woman in the US enjoys a synthetic but real-sounding AI voice. Country singer Randy Travis has been able to release his latest song with the help of AI, after he lost his speech to a stroke in 2013. We can’t ignore the glory of such incidents either. Co-creative Partners with AI Researchers are saying that we should lean towards co-creativity, i.e. where humans and machines interact to co-create, or ‘human-centered AI’ and ‘hybrid intelligence.’ They argue this will “ensure both high degrees of automatization through AI and human control” and support “a relationship that optimally empowers each other.” Still, is it that easy? Letting AI into our creative processes to ‘co-create’ articles, stories, images, videos, and music might make things more convenient but the feeling is uneasy. Purists could forever view it as cheating. It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? On the panicky side, as our dependency on AI increases, will we lose our ability to create independently? Imagine an analog world where we grope about, as if in the dark, to come up with basic sentences or paint a simple picture. Already usage of AI is demanding that we give it due acknowledgement in creative works. Navanwita Bora Sachdev, Editor, The Tech Panda As AI wows us with how good it is at mimicking us, it’s starting to redefine creative processes that we have shaped over centuries. Until we completely do an overhaul of artists’ rights and intellectual property safety laws, it looks like artists will suffer. AI redefine creative processes This time it’s voice artists. Last month, OpenAI took down a voice used by its ChatGPT that sounded uncannily like Hollywood actress Scarlet Johansson . The bot giant halted using the voice after the actress threatened to sue the company. Their explanation about how they got the voice in the first place is that they used another actress for it. Scarlet Johansson halted using how they got the voice It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? Where are these AI companies getting these voices from? Isn’t the source important? Where are these AI companies getting these voices from? Isn’t the source important? “In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity,” NPR quoted Johansson. NPR quoted In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity Scarlet Johansson In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity Scarlet Johansson She has a point. There are other voice artists too who went through the shock of hearing their voices from sources they hadn’t lent them to. These incidents show the lack of legal safeguards when it comes to using creative work that aids AI tools. other voice artists too Why is Voice Significant? Why is Voice Significant? Why is Voice Significant? It might seem hard to imagine how AI that mimics human voice behavior will impact human society because we tend to take it for granted but as tech giants vie to provide much more lifelike voice assistants, we could soon find out. As Visar Berisha, an Arizona State University professor who studies AI speech technology, told NPR , “Communication by voice is really intimate, really impactful. It allows the AI to express subtleties, things that are perceived as sincere, urgent, joy, concern. And all of these serve to foster a deeper connection between the user and the machine. You can see how these interactions can potentially become addictive.” NPR NPR The movie ‘ Her ’ has naturally become part of this discussion. In the movie, when the protagonist falls for the flirtatious AI operating system, sporting the voice of Scarlet Johansson incidentally, it’s just the voice that tugs at his heartstrings, and we understand why it happens. So, undeniably, there is something in the voice. Her That voice has an impact on human society is evident from how attractive it is as an investment for businesses. American entrepreneur and investor Naval Ravikant recently launched Airchat, a voice-centric social media app . AI customer reps are filling the market. Naval Ravikant voice-centric social media app AI companies, like Hume AI, are starting to introduce EVI, or Empathic Voice Interface, where the AI changes its responses based on the user’s tone. starting to introduce AI & the Music Industry AI & the Music Industry AI & the Music Industry AI is changing more in the voice area, namely the music industry. It isn’t a surprise to find singers crooning away while AI adds effects to their real voices. Already AI is changing one of the biggest and most popular voice entertainment arenas, hip-hop and rap music. An ongoing diss-track rap battle between Kendrick Lamar and Drake has brought out the impact that technology has on hip-hop with curated releases on social platforms and AI-generated songs. It’s not just voice. Creative people are steadily losing to AI. Recently the psychedelic rock band Pink Floyd faced flak from fans when they chose an AI-generated video as the winner of their The Dark Side of The Moon 50th anniversary competition over all the human-made entries. when they chose We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney Artist in Michigan told New York Times We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney Artist in Michigan told New York Times As a movie concept artist in Michigan told New York Times , “We all laughed in 2022 when Midjourney first came out and said, ‘Oh, that’s cute.’ Now people are losing their jobs to Midjourney.” told New York Times What will happen when the taboo of AI drops, which seems inevitable? As an article in Wired says , “The manner that technology has already changed rap beef begs the question of where it will go next. One day, the taboo around AI in hip-hop will disappear, and entire battles will be orchestrated by LLM rappers trained on the raps of individual artists. Wired says Quants will develop metrics for who the winners are. If we are offended by a lyric about a member of our family, we’ll blame the machines. It may sound like the stuff of science-fiction, but the gap between this future reality and 2024 might be smaller (in time and manner) than the gap between Canibus vs. LL Cool J (1998) and Kendrick vs. Drake.” AI is Sneaking in but Here to Stay AI is Sneaking in but Here to Stay AI is Sneaking in but Here to Stay Last month, Gannett, an American media company that owns hundreds of newspapers, added AI-generated summaries to its articles. Five of this year’s Pulitzer winners used AI in their research. AI-generated summaries used It feels a little like leaving the back door open for AI to sneak in, but we can be certain it will eventually reach the porch. It seems inevitable that these kinds of incidents will rewrite existing copyright laws. Recently, there have been many copyright infringement lawsuits against companies that are making use of tens of thousands of copyrighted books to train generative AI systems. One of them has called it “systematic theft on a mass scale,” not too far from the truth. tens of thousands of copyrighted books The Good Side of Voice AI The Good Side of Voice AI The Good Side of Voice AI It’s not all evil though. AI voice-cloning technology can also be helpful to some people. People who have lost their speech are using AI voice cloning to get it back. Trained on a 15-second time capsule of her teenage voice, a 21-year-old woman in the US enjoys a synthetic but real-sounding AI voice. Country singer Randy Travis has been able to release his latest song with the help of AI, after he lost his speech to a stroke in 2013. a 21-year-old woman release his latest song We can’t ignore the glory of such incidents either. Co-creative Partners with AI Co-creative Partners with AI Co-creative Partners with AI Researchers are saying that we should lean towards co-creativity, i.e. where humans and machines interact to co-create, or ‘human-centered AI’ and ‘hybrid intelligence.’ They argue this will “ensure both high degrees of automatization through AI and human control” and support “a relationship that optimally empowers each other.” are saying Still, is it that easy? Letting AI into our creative processes to ‘co-create’ articles, stories, images, videos, and music might make things more convenient but the feeling is uneasy. Purists could forever view it as cheating. It will take time for us to accept AI as a part of creative processes as a society. Meanwhile, big tech ensures that AI races on, mimicking human creativity within seconds. Where is the time to redefine this new reality and protect the artist? On the panicky side, as our dependency on AI increases, will we lose our ability to create independently? Imagine an analog world where we grope about, as if in the dark, to come up with basic sentences or paint a simple picture. Already usage of AI is demanding that we give it due acknowledgement in creative works. we give it due acknowledgement Navanwita Bora Sachdev, Editor, The Tech Panda Navanwita Bora Sachdev, Editor, The Tech Panda Navanwita Bora Sachdev , Editor, The Tech Panda Navanwita Bora Sachdev

Artists vs. AI: Balancing Innovation with Intellectual Property Rights in Creative Industries 

শিল্পী বনাম এআই: সৃজনশীল শিল্পে বুদ্ধিবৃত্তিক সম্পত্তির অধিকারের সাথে উদ্ভাবনের ভারসাম্য বজায় রাখা 

Künstler vs. KI: Innovation und geistige Eigentumsrechte in der Kreativwirtschaft in Einklang bringen

Artistas versus IA: equilibrio entre la innovación y los derechos de propiedad intelectual en las industrias creativas 

Artistes contre IA : équilibrer l'innovation et les droits de propriété intellectuelle dans les industries créatives 

कलाकार बनाम एआई: रचनात्मक उद्योगों में बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकारों के साथ नवाचार का संतुलन

アーティスト対AI: クリエイティブ産業におけるイノベーションと知的財産権のバランス

예술가 대 AI: 창조 산업에서 혁신과 지적 재산권의 균형 

Artistas versus IA: Equilibrando Inovação com Direitos de Propriedade Intelectual nas Indústrias Criativas 

Художники против ИИ: баланс между инновациями и правами интеллектуальной собственности в творческих отраслях 

Sanatçılar ve Yapay Zeka: Yaratıcı Endüstrilerde İnovasyonu Fikri Mülkiyet Haklarıyla Dengelemek 

Nghệ sĩ và AI: Cân bằng đổi mới với quyền sở hữu trí tuệ trong các ngành công nghiệp sáng tạo 

艺术家与人工智能：创意产业中创新与知识产权的平衡

How Biden's Tech Policies Aim to Safeguard Human Rights

বিডেনের প্রযুক্তি নীতিগুলি কীভাবে মানবাধিকার রক্ষার লক্ষ্য রাখে

Wie Bidens Technologiepolitik die Menschenrechte schützen soll

Cómo las políticas tecnológicas de Biden pretenden salvaguardar los derechos humanos

Comment les politiques technologiques de Biden visent à protéger les droits de l'homme

बिडेन की तकनीकी नीतियों का लक्ष्य मानव अधिकारों की रक्षा करना है

バイデンのテクノロジー政策はいかにして人権保護を目指すのか

Biden의 기술 정책이 인권 보호를 목표로 하는 방법

Como as políticas tecnológicas de Biden visam proteger os direitos humanos

Как техническая политика Байдена направлена на защиту прав человека

Biden'ın Teknoloji Politikaları İnsan Haklarını Nasıl Korumayı Amaçlıyor?

Các chính sách công nghệ của Biden nhằm mục đích bảo vệ nhân quyền như thế nào

拜登的科技政策如何旨在维护人权

You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here. This part is 23 of 38. Line of Effort 6: Negotiate a Rights-Respecting Cybercrime Treaty The United States, its allies, and partners as well as civil society groups have long supported the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (commonly known as the Budapest Convention) as the most effective tool for providing global standards for criminalizing malicious cyber activities, obtaining electronic evidence, and fostering international cooperation on computer-related crimes. The Convention was drafted to be global and open to all regions. Seventy-two countries, including the United States, are currently parties to the Convention, and 21 additional countries have been invited to accede. While supporting accession to the Budapest Convention, the United States and its partners are also actively working to ensure that negotiations in the UN Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a convention against cybercrime reach a positive outcome: a rights-respecting cybercrime treaty that would enable all UN member states to cooperate better in the fight against cybercrime. The United States and its partners will continue to oppose overly broad definitions of cybercrime that could be used to stifle freedom of expression, infringe on privacy, and or endanger individuals and communities. The United States will also continue to advocate for necessary and sufficient safeguards commensurate to the scope of the domestic powers and international cooperation provided for in the convention. Maintaining an open, inclusive, and transparent process will best allow states to negotiate a binding agreement with the participation of interested stakeholders. Continue Reading Here. This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here. This part is 23 of 38. You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here . This part is 23 of 38. here Line of Effort 6: Negotiate a Rights-Respecting Cybercrime Treaty The United States, its allies, and partners as well as civil society groups have long supported the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (commonly known as the Budapest Convention) as the most effective tool for providing global standards for criminalizing malicious cyber activities, obtaining electronic evidence, and fostering international cooperation on computer-related crimes. The Convention was drafted to be global and open to all regions. Seventy-two countries, including the United States, are currently parties to the Convention, and 21 additional countries have been invited to accede. While supporting accession to the Budapest Convention, the United States and its partners are also actively working to ensure that negotiations in the UN Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate a convention against cybercrime reach a positive outcome: a rights-respecting cybercrime treaty that would enable all UN member states to cooperate better in the fight against cybercrime. The United States and its partners will continue to oppose overly broad definitions of cybercrime that could be used to stifle freedom of expression, infringe on privacy, and or endanger individuals and communities. The United States will also continue to advocate for necessary and sufficient safeguards commensurate to the scope of the domestic powers and international cooperation provided for in the convention. Maintaining an open, inclusive, and transparent process will best allow states to negotiate a binding agreement with the participation of interested stakeholders. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State by the U.S Department of State

U.S. Leads Efforts for Rights-Respecting Global Cybercrime Treaty, Ensures Inclusive Negotiations

You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here. This part is 17 of 38. ACTION AREA 2: Align Rights-Respecting Approaches to Digital and Data Governance with International Partners Digital solidarity recognizes the necessity of the domestic governance of digital and emerging technologies but seeks to develop shared mechanisms that will help maintain an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet as well as trusted cross-border data flows. It works to foster democratic values-based and rights-respecting policies. To advance the NSS and the NCS effectively, promoting, building, and maintaining a secure digital ecosystem must be accompanied by efforts to make digital and data governance compatible across allies and partners through greater alignment, mutual recognition, and reciprocity of policies. The Department of State, along with other federal agencies, is building and reinforcing digital solidarity through support for the trusted flow of data; advocacy for multistakeholder, risk-based approaches to digital and data governance; and the promotion of shared values and governance principles for critical and emerging technologies. The Department of State, in collaboration with the Department of Commerce and other agencies, is expanding its capacity to engage in international standards development organizations and to coordinate with industry and civil society to ensure robust participation by U.S. stakeholders in standards setting processes and other international fora. The United States is also working with allies and partners to advance a common, rights-respecting vision for the digital future; negotiate a rights-respecting cybercrime treaty; and defend information integrity. Continue Reading Here. This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here. This part is 17 of 38. You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here . This part is 17 of 38. here ACTION AREA 2: Align Rights-Respecting Approaches to Digital and Data Governance with International Partners Digital solidarity recognizes the necessity of the domestic governance of digital and emerging technologies but seeks to develop shared mechanisms that will help maintain an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet as well as trusted cross-border data flows. It works to foster democratic values-based and rights-respecting policies. To advance the NSS and the NCS effectively, promoting, building, and maintaining a secure digital ecosystem must be accompanied by efforts to make digital and data governance compatible across allies and partners through greater alignment, mutual recognition, and reciprocity of policies. The Department of State, along with other federal agencies, is building and reinforcing digital solidarity through support for the trusted flow of data; advocacy for multistakeholder, risk-based approaches to digital and data governance; and the promotion of shared values and governance principles for critical and emerging technologies. The Department of State, in collaboration with the Department of Commerce and other agencies, is expanding its capacity to engage in international standards development organizations and to coordinate with industry and civil society to ensure robust participation by U.S. stakeholders in standards setting processes and other international fora. The United States is also working with allies and partners to advance a common, rights-respecting vision for the digital future; negotiate a rights-respecting cybercrime treaty; and defend information integrity. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State by the U.S Department of State

Safeguarding Digital Rights and Data Flows Across Borders

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Crypto: Is Everything Free and Open?

ক্রিপ্টোতে বৌদ্ধিক সম্পত্তির অধিকার (IPR): সবকিছু কি বিনামূল্যে এবং উন্মুক্ত?

Geistiges Eigentumsrecht (IPR) bei Kryptowährungen: Ist alles frei und offen?

Derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI) en criptomonedas: ¿todo es gratuito y abierto?

Droits de propriété intellectuelle (DPI) dans la crypto : tout est-il gratuit et ouvert ?

क्रिप्टो में बौद्धिक संपदा अधिकार (आईपीआर): क्या सब कुछ मुफ़्त और खुला है?

暗号通貨における知的財産権 (IPR): すべてが自由かつオープンですか?

암호화폐의 지적재산권(IPR): 모든 것이 자유롭고 개방적인가요?

Direitos de propriedade intelectual (DPI) na criptografia: tudo é gratuito e aberto?

Права интеллектуальной собственности (ПИС) в криптовалюте: все ли бесплатно и открыто?

Kriptoda Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları (IPR): Her Şey Ücretsiz ve Açık mı?

Quyền sở hữu trí tuệ (IPR) trong tiền điện tử: Mọi thứ có miễn phí và mở không?

加密货币中的知识产权（IPR）：一切都是自由和开放的吗？

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 9 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 3. “In Connection with a Public Issue” Finally, CCDH’s actions in furtherance of its free speech rights were in connection with a public issue. X Corp. alleges that CCDH uses its reports “to demand that platform providers kick the targeted users off of their platforms, thus silencing their viewpoints on broadly debated topics such as COVID-19 vaccines, reproductive healthcare, and climate change.” FAC ¶ 3; see also id. ¶ 44 (March 24, 2021 CCDH report on anti-vaxxers), ¶ 46 (November 10, 2022 CCDH article on hate speech), ¶ 49 (February 9, 2023 CCDH report on hate speech), id. ¶ 72 (“X Corp. has been harmed in its mission to provide its users with a platform in which topics of paramount public concern can be discussed and debated free from the censorship efforts of activist organizations advancing narrow ideological agendas through deceitful means.”). These reports implicate public issues. See Resolute Forest Prods., Inc. v. Greenpeace Int’l, 302 F. Supp. 3d 1005, 1025 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (“California courts have broadly construed public interest to include not only governmental matters, but also private conduct that impacts a broad segment of society and/or that affects a community in a manner similar to that of a governmental entity.” (internal quotation marks omitted); see also PPP Br. at 7 (“Public debate and interest on matters of disinformation and hate speech on social media platforms have been profound in recent years, including multiple congressional hearings and constant coverage by national media.”). X Corp. does not dispute this point. The Court therefore concludes that CCDH has met its burden at the first step of the anti-SLAPP analysis. This order will therefore go on to assess whether X Corp. has established that there is a probability that it will prevail on its claims. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(b)(1). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 25, 2024, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. storage.courtlistener

Championing Public Dialogue: CCDH's Defense of Free Speech Rights

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 74 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XXIX: DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES BY META IN VIOLATION OF THE NEBRASKA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1029. The State of Nebraska realleges and incorporates herein each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 850 as though fully alleged in this cause of action. 1030. The Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NE CPA) prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1602. 1031. As described in preceding paragraphs and summarized in Section XI.A of the Complaint, Meta has engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of the NE CPA. 1032. Each deceptive act or practice, as alleged herein, constitutes a separate violation of the NE CPA and the NE UDTPA. Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Nebraska Flames Meta for Threatening Consumer Rights

Automation of Rights, Permissions, and Access Levels in Azure DevOps

Azure DevOps-এ অধিকার, অনুমতি এবং অ্যাক্সেস লেভেলের অটোমেশন

Automatisierung von Rechten, Berechtigungen und Zugriffsebenen in Azure DevOps

Automatización de derechos, permisos y niveles de acceso en Azure DevOps

Automatisation des droits, autorisations et niveaux d'accès dans Azure DevOps

Azure DevOps में अधिकारों, अनुमतियों और पहुंच स्तरों का स्वचालन

Azure DevOps における権利、アクセス許可、アクセス レベルの自動化

Azure DevOps의 권리, 사용 권한 및 액세스 수준 자동화

Automação de direitos, permissões e níveis de acesso no Azure DevOps

Автоматизация прав, разрешений и уровней доступа в Azure DevOps

Azure DevOps'ta Hakların, İzinlerin ve Erişim Düzeylerinin Otomasyonu

Tự động hóa quyền, quyền và cấp độ truy cập trong Azure DevOps

Azure DevOps 中权限、权限和访问级别的自动化

You can jump to any section of the US Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial here. Advancing Equity and Civil Rights. 7.1.  Strengthening AI and Civil Rights in the Criminal Justice System.  (a)  To address unlawful discrimination and other harms that may be exacerbated by AI, the Attorney General shall: (i)    consistent with Executive Order 12250 of November 2, 1980 (Leadership and Coordination of Nondiscrimination Laws), Executive Order 14091, and 28 C.F.R. 0.50-51, coordinate with and support agencies in their implementation and enforcement of existing Federal laws to address civil rights and civil liberties violations and discrimination related to AI; (ii)   direct the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division to convene, within 90 days of the date of this order, a meeting of the heads of Federal civil rights offices — for which meeting the heads of civil rights offices within independent regulatory agencies will be encouraged to join — to discuss comprehensive use of their respective authorities and offices to:  prevent and address discrimination in the use of automated systems, including algorithmic discrimination; increase coordination between the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division and Federal civil rights offices concerning issues related to AI and algorithmic discrimination; improve external stakeholder engagement to promote public awareness of potential discriminatory uses and effects of AI; and develop, as appropriate, additional training, technical assistance, guidance, or other resources; and (iii)  consider providing, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, guidance, technical assistance, and training to State, local, Tribal, and territorial investigators and prosecutors on best practices for investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations and discrimination related to automated systems, including AI. (b)  To promote the equitable treatment of individuals and adhere to the Federal Government’s fundamental obligation to ensure fair and impartial justice for all, with respect to the use of AI in the criminal justice system, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of OSTP: (i)    within 365 days of the date of this order, submit to the President a report that addresses the use of AI in the criminal justice system, including any use in: (A)  sentencing; (B)  parole, supervised release, and probation; (C)  bail, pretrial release, and pretrial detention; (D)  risk assessments, including pretrial, earned time, and early release or transfer to home-confinement determinations; (E)  police surveillance; (F)  crime forecasting and predictive policing, including the ingestion of historical crime data into AI systems to predict high-density “hot spots”; (G)  prison-management tools; and (H)  forensic analysis; (ii)   within the report set forth in subsection 7.1(b)(i) of this section: (A)  identify areas where AI can enhance law enforcement efficiency and accuracy, consistent with protections for privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties; and (B)  recommend best practices for law enforcement agencies, including safeguards and appropriate use limits for AI, to address the concerns set forth in section 13(e)(i) of Executive Order 14074 as well as the best practices and the guidelines set forth in section 13(e)(iii) of Executive Order 14074; and (iii)  supplement the report set forth in subsection 7.1(b)(i) of this section as appropriate with recommendations to the President, including with respect to requests for necessary legislation. (c)  To advance the presence of relevant technical experts and expertise (such as machine-learning engineers, software and infrastructure engineering, data privacy experts, data scientists, and user experience researchers) among law enforcement professionals: (i)    The interagency working group created pursuant to section 3 of Executive Order 14074 shall, within 180 days of the date of this order, identify and share best practices for recruiting and hiring law enforcement professionals who have the technical skills mentioned in subsection 7.1(c) of this section, and for training law enforcement professionals about responsible application of AI. (ii)   Within 270 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, consider those best practices and the guidance developed under section 3(d) of Executive Order 14074 and, if necessary, develop additional general recommendations for State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies and criminal justice agencies seeking to recruit, hire, train, promote, and retain highly qualified and service-oriented officers and staff with relevant technical knowledge.  In considering this guidance, the Attorney General shall consult with State, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies, as appropriate. (iii)  Within 365 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall review the work conducted pursuant to section 2(b) of Executive Order 14074 and, if appropriate, reassess the existing capacity to investigate law enforcement deprivation of rights under color of law resulting from the use of AI, including through improving and increasing training of Federal law enforcement officers, their supervisors, and Federal prosecutors on how to investigate and prosecute cases related to AI involving the deprivation of rights under color of law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 242. 7.2.  Protecting Civil Rights Related to Government Benefits and Programs.  (a)  To advance equity and civil rights, consistent with the directives of Executive Order 14091, and in addition to complying with the guidance on Federal Government use of AI issued pursuant to section 10.1(b) of this order, agencies shall use their respective civil rights and civil liberties offices and authorities — as appropriate and consistent with applicable law — to prevent and address unlawful discrimination and other harms that result from uses of AI in Federal Government programs and benefits administration.  This directive does not apply to agencies’ civil or criminal enforcement authorities.  Agencies shall consider opportunities to ensure that their respective civil rights and civil liberties offices are appropriately consulted on agency decisions regarding the design, development, acquisition, and use of AI in Federal Government programs and benefits administration.  To further these objectives, agencies shall also consider opportunities to increase coordination, communication, and engagement about AI as appropriate with community-based organizations; civil-rights and civil-liberties organizations; academic institutions; industry; State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments; and other stakeholders. (b)  To promote equitable administration of public benefits: (i)   The Secretary of HHS shall, within 180 days of the date of this order and in consultation with relevant agencies, publish a plan, informed by the guidance issued pursuant to section 10.1(b) of this order, addressing the use of automated or algorithmic systems in the implementation by States and localities of public benefits and services administered by the Secretary, such as to promote:  assessment of access to benefits by qualified recipients; notice to recipients about the presence of such systems; regular evaluation to detect unjust denials; processes to retain appropriate levels of discretion of expert agency staff; processes to appeal denials to human reviewers; and analysis of whether algorithmic systems in use by benefit programs achieve equitable and just outcomes. (ii)  The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within 180 days of the date of this order and as informed by the guidance issued pursuant to section 10.1(b) of this order, issue guidance to State, local, Tribal, and territorial public-benefits administrators on the use of automated or algorithmic systems in implementing benefits or in providing customer support for benefit programs administered by the Secretary, to ensure that programs using those systems: (A)  maximize program access for eligible recipients; (B)  employ automated or algorithmic systems in a manner consistent with any requirements for using merit systems personnel in public-benefits programs; (C)  identify instances in which reliance on automated or algorithmic systems would require notification by the State, local, Tribal, or territorial government to the Secretary; (D)  identify instances when applicants and participants can appeal benefit determinations to a human reviewer for reconsideration and can receive other customer support from a human being; (E)  enable auditing and, if necessary, remediation of the logic used to arrive at an individual decision or determination to facilitate the evaluation of appeals; and (F)  enable the analysis of whether algorithmic systems in use by benefit programs achieve equitable outcomes. 7.3.  Strengthening AI and Civil Rights in the Broader Economy.  (a)  Within 365 days of the date of this order, to prevent unlawful discrimination from AI used for hiring, the Secretary of Labor shall publish guidance for Federal contractors regarding nondiscrimination in hiring involving AI and other technology-based hiring systems. (b)  To address discrimination and biases against protected groups in housing markets and consumer financial markets, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency and the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are encouraged to consider using their authorities, as they deem appropriate, to require their respective regulated entities, where possible, to use appropriate methodologies including AI tools to ensure compliance with Federal law and: (i)   evaluate their underwriting models for bias or disparities affecting protected groups; and (ii)  evaluate automated collateral-valuation and appraisal processes in ways that minimize bias. (c)  Within 180 days of the date of this order, to combat unlawful discrimination enabled by automated or algorithmic tools used to make decisions about access to housing and in other real estate-related transactions, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, and the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is encouraged to, issue additional guidance: (i)   addressing the use of tenant screening systems in ways that may violate the Fair Housing Act (Public Law 90-284), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Public Law 91-508), or other relevant Federal laws, including how the use of data, such as criminal records, eviction records, and credit information, can lead to discriminatory outcomes in violation of Federal law; and (ii)  addressing how the Fair Housing Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (title X of Public Law 111-203), or the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (Public Law 93-495) apply to the advertising of housing, credit, and other real estate-related transactions through digital platforms, including those that use algorithms to facilitate advertising delivery, as well as on best practices to avoid violations of Federal law. (d)  To help ensure that people with disabilities benefit from AI’s promise while being protected from its risks, including unequal treatment from the use of biometric data like gaze direction, eye tracking, gait analysis, and handmotions, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board is encouraged, as it deems appropriate, to solicit public participation and conduct community engagement; to issue technical assistance and recommendations on the risks and benefits of AI in using biometric data as an input; and to provide people with disabilities access to information and communication technology and transportation services. This content was published on October 30, 2023, on . WhiteHouse.gov Attribution - Creative Commons 3.0

Biden Order Strengthens Civil Rights Protections in AI Systems

Stories, News & Mentions about RESIGHTS

Resights’s Stories on HackerNoon

Resights's News & Mentions