From Covid fights to 2.7 billion US dollars

Not worried about Ki 'agents'

By Matt O'Brien

Artists can take over copyright works with the assistance of artificial intelligence, based on a brand new report by the US copyright, which could proceed to make clear the best way for the Use of AI tools In Hollywood, the music industry and other creative areas.

And while lots of these decisions are constituted of case to case Report on Wednesday Clarifies the approach of the office as one based on what the best US copyright describes, described as a “centrality of human creativity” within the creation of a piece that justifies the protection of copyright.

“Where this creativity is expressed by the use of AI systems, it continues to enjoy protection,” says a explanation of the register of copyright Shira Perlmutter who heads the office.

An AI supported work might be protected by copyright if the manual work of an artist is perceptible. A human adaptation of an AI-generated edition with “creative arrangements or modifications” could also drop it under copyright protection.

The report follows a review that began in 2023 and issued opinions from hundreds of people who were enough for AI developers about actors and country singers.

It shows that the copyright office will proceed to reject copyright claims for fully generated content from machines. According to the report, a one that only prompted a chat bot or AI image generator to create a job doesn’t give this person the chance to guard this work too. “Expansion of protection to material, the expressive elements of which are determined by a machine … would undermine the constitutional goals of copyright than to promote,” said Perlmutter.

The debate about copyright -protected human work, which is drawn from the Internet and other sources, isn’t addressed within the report back to train AI systems. Often without permission or compensation. Fine artists, authors, news organizations and others have sued AI company For copyright theft in cases that also work through US dishes.

The copyright office doesn’t burden these legal cases, but it surely is working on one other report that’s working “the training of AI models on copyright -protected work, licensing considerations and allocation of all liability”.

Originally published: January 29, 2025 at 12:05 p.m. PST

Although San Francisco police have repeatedly said the death of OpenAI whistleblower Suchir Balaji was suicide, influential figures on each ends of the political spectrum are spreading questions around the globe about a criminal offense raised by the young man's grieving family.

Former Fox News provocateur Tucker Carlson spoke with Balaji's mother Poornima Ramarao on his podcast Tuesday about her son's death in November and said he expects to be a possible witness in a lawsuit against his employer OpenAI. The podcast was headlined that Balaji was “probably murdered.”

hours later, a pc scientist from Turkey posted the accusation to his 35,000 followers on the social media platform X: “Looks like the OpenAI whistleblower was murdered by OpenAI.”

Then on Wednesday, Elon Musk reposted the claim to his 213 million followers on X via one other contributor on the platform with 1 million followers who said: “OpenAI whistleblower Suchir Balaji was murdered” with a clip from the Carlson podcast. Musk also retweeted a post with a Excerpt from this podcast where Ramarao talks about OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

Speculation that the 26-year-old's death was not of his own making also crossed the political divide. Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna called on Wednesday for “a full and transparent investigation” after Balaji raised “very serious concerns about a crime committed by his family.”

Nolan Higdon, a lecturer at Cal State University East Bay who studies online culture and propaganda, described the continuing public chatter as “a fascinating, baseless conspiracy, particularly because it attracts people from across the political spectrum.”

In a press release, OpenAI said: “Law enforcement is the appropriate authority in this situation and we trust them to continue to share updates as necessary.”

Experts say many conspiracy theories gain credibility because they’re based on a kernel of truth. A month later, Balaji was found dead in his San Francisco apartment on November 26 he told the New York Times that OpenAI violated federal copyright laws to siphon data from the Internet that it used to power its artificial intelligence. In court filings, the newspaper had named him as certainly one of several people whose “unique and relevant documents” would help its copyright lawsuit against OpenAI.

Balaji's allegations followed lawsuits from artists and 7 newspapers – including The Mercury News and The New York Times – accusing OpenAI and a business partner, Microsoft, of using their content in violation of current U.S. “fair use” laws having stolen how people can use previously published work.

“In this case, the core of the truth has to do with what he did a month before his death,” said Subramaniam Vincent, an ethics expert at Santa Clara University.

The San Francisco Medical Examiner's Office determined in a preliminary ruling that Balaji died by suicide, but said a final autopsy report is not going to be released until toxicology tests are accomplished. No details have been released.

Balaji's mother told Carlson that a non-public autopsy commissioned by the family suggested a murderer shot him. The family told this news organization that they don’t imagine Balaji died by suicide, but declined to share the autopsy.

In the absence of definitive, definitive details about how Balaji died, online speculation gave shape and impetus to a conspiracy theory.

Doubts about whether Balaji took his own life began circulating on social media even before his mother spoke out, partially out of compassion for his family, said Vincent, director of journalism and media ethics on the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics from Santa Clara University.

“They want answers,” Vincent said. “They feel that the lack of response from the police beyond the initial determination and the quick assessment that it was a suicide and nothing else gives them cause for concern.”

If someone considered a whistleblower suddenly dies while able to reveal more information, “that's enough for people to sense that something is wrong,” Vincent said. “Then the whole army of people come online.”

Online influencers — like the one that reposted Musk, who screamed murder and has greater than 1,000,000 followers — are jumping into the dialogue, attempting to “start a cycle of speculation” and “fuel the fire,” said Vincent.

For influencers and would-be influencers, who can receives a commission for social media posts with high user engagement, and for podcasters like Carlson, who sell promoting from their shows, spreading conspiracy theories can bring financial rewards, Higdon said.

“Things like murder, assassination, cover-up,” Higdon said, “all of that gets people’s attention.”

Musk has a history of publicizing his personal and business disputes through online attacks. An early investor in OpenAI and former board co-chairman alongside Altman, Musk has filed two lawsuits — certainly one of which was later dropped — over the San Francisco startup's transition from nonprofit to for-profit.

“He doesn’t exactly have a love affair with OpenAI,” Vincent said.

Skepticism amongst conservatives about government institutions leads many legal advocates to reject official narratives, akin to the finding that Balaji died by suicide, Higdon said.

“It is not surprising that some have moved from skepticism to outright allegations of wrongdoing,” Higdon said. “However, the lack of accountability to the rich and powerful in today’s legal system – something criticized across the ideological spectrum – contributes to this mindset.”

Khanna didn’t immediately reply to questions on the timing of his post and his concerns about Balaji's death. The congressman's post got here the day after Balaji's mother, Tucker, told Carlson she hadn't heard from him, and Carlson picked up his phone on camera and said he was texting Khanna.

Balaji just isn’t the primary Bay Area tech industry insider whose death fueled Musk and Carlson's conspiracy theories. Both used the 2023 assassination of tech founder Bob Lee in San Francisco to advance culture war attacks on the town as a criminal hellhole, with Musk tweeting: “Violent crime in SF is terrible“, and Carlson, then at Fox News, said in San Francisco: “This form of thing happens to normal people on a regular basis.”

An East Bay technology consultant and Lee associate was convicted of murder last month.

Originally published: January 19, 2025 at 6:15 am PST

A strategic purpose

Since the USA increasingly polarizedDiversity, equity, and inclusion – also referred to as DEI – have been touted as a method to bridge social divides and foster a way of belonging for all, especially those that have traditionally been excluded or marginalized.

But lately there was a backlash, and lots of institutions Cutting funding for his or her diversity and inclusion efforts in response to Pressure from employees, Complaints and even Condition Governments.

Ironic, Critics say DEI efforts fail to incorporate different perspectives – for instance, by emphasizing certain backgrounds while neglect othersSome argue that these programs actually worsen the issues they’re imagined to solve.

Because not all criticism of DEI is made in good faith, it is simple to dismiss this backlash as pure bigotry. Still, it is crucial to take into consideration how DEI efforts themselves might be made more inclusive in an effort to gain the crucial support and help society as an entire progress.

The insights I share with you listed here are based on my experience as Professor of Educational Management who has extensively researched and taught about inclusion within the workplace and my time as a human resources skilled exploring these issues from an employer's perspective. The bottom line is that true inclusion cannot occur if people proceed to feel alienated.

To be clear, my proposed response is just not for employers to disregard identity entirely or take a “colour-blind” approach – not least because that is just not what the workers wantA greater approach can be for employers to consciously include people from all backgrounds so that everybody looks like they belong.

Building higher DEI training

Unfortunately, lots of the preferred DEI efforts – for instance, short, one-time diversity trainings – have proven ineffectivenot less than not in the shape through which they’re implemented. In other words, they’ve not been shown to enhance workforce diversity, especially in leadershipIn fact, they’ll sometimes even be counterproductive, Increase microaggression and bias somewhat than reduce them.

Research suggests that these problems are because of the best way programs structured and implementedThese programs often prioritize achieving quick, symbolic wins—comparable to simply providing the training without considering its effectiveness, or just mandating that the following round of hires consist of individuals from a certain background—on the expense of addressing long-term, systemic problems that led to such problems in the primary place. This allows biased Daily practices proceed unabated.

For example, it is just not unusual for employers to put aside a couple of hours annually for his or her employees to attend lecture-style diversity training. But research suggests that this format often fails To change deep-rooted prejudices and behaviorsespecially if there are not any systemic institutional changes.

Instead, research suggests that diversity training collaborative and sustainable to enable an ongoing dialogue so that individuals can truthfully address issues that usually go unspoken. This strategy makes intuitive sense: Different biased behaviors have different causes, and every requires a differentiated response as a substitute of a one-size-fits-all solution.

In contrast, compulsory training that takes place in a non-supportive environment can Cause resentment.

The value of shared understanding

Despite the tensions surrounding DEI, most individuals would probably agree that staff ought to be treated fairly and given equal access to profession opportunities—a fundamental goal of DEI. But defining concepts like fairness, inclusion, and variety often requires difficult conversations that usually go unhad.

The right wording might be an excellent start line. Ideas like inclusion might be worded in a way that speaks to shared core values, which inspires collaboration – or they might be worded in a way that politically, which may promote division and feelings of threat and defense.

An effective method to achieve mutual understanding is to offer people the chance to share your individual experiencesIf those that feel discriminated against share your perspectivesothers can begin to higher understand and empathize with others' perspectives. On this basis, they’ll more easily develop latest strategies and structures that higher include individuals who have traditionally been neglected.

To be effective, diversity efforts shouldn’t only concentrate on individual employees but in addition structural practices on the organizational levelFor example, when people from different backgrounds have more opportunities to work together in work teams, research shows that bias might be reduced.

The business model for DEI

While criticism could also be on the rise, it will be a mistake for employers to cut back their DEI efforts. Instead, they need to concentrate on improving them. Because US society is increasingly diverseand organizations must prepare and adapt.

Despite the backlash, the truth is many employees value DEIStudies now show that workplaces with a poor climate of inclusion higher saleswhich in turn creates high costs for the employer by way of substitute and retraining. Ultimately, employers who don’t offer their employees what they need – namely an inclusive work environment – ​​are prone to be less competitive.

And while some critics mistakenly imagine that a various workforce is an inferior workforce, research suggests that the alternative is the caseThis implies that hiring “the best person for the job” doesn’t conflict with achieving diversity goals.

The advantages of diversity within the workplace have been empirically demonstrated in various areas, from Healthcare To Training To Business. Greater diversity is related to improvements in innovation, communication, business performance and profits. In addition, a various workforce with different perspectives can provide higher service to increasingly diverse customers.

Organizations shouldn’t be deterred from their efforts to advertise DEI within the workplace. Rather, the study says, they need to redouble their efforts and take a more inclusive approach that emphasizes civility and dialogue – an approach that goals to Finding common groundShifting from an “us versus them” mentality to a concentrate on empathy, support and connection can change hearts and minds.

By Stephanie Armour, KFF Health News

---

Republicans and allies of former President Donald Trump are attacking Vice President Kamala Harris on the immigration issue, claiming the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee supported using taxpayer money to offer free medical health insurance to immigrants who’re within the country without legal permission.

Candidates for the Senate and House of Representatives, a Trump-supporting American political motion committee and the Republican National Committee have made similar claims in recent days.

We reached out to the Trump and Harris campaigns for comment on Trump's statement, but neither responded.

The claims are misleading. It is true that Harris advocated for providing public medical health insurance to immigrants within the US no matter their immigration status. During the primary Democratic presidential primary debate in 2019 in Miami Kamala Harris raised her hand when a moderator asked candidates to boost their hands if their government's medical health insurance also covers immigrants who’re within the country illegally.

That doesn’t mean, nonetheless, that Harris explicitly said she supports taxpayer funding of services or that medical health insurance can be free.

PolitiFact has verified similar claims republican And Trump made in 2019 and located it largely false. The moderator didn’t ask Harris and the opposite candidates directly whether their plans would supply the coverage without cost or with taxpayer money, so the claim is baseless.

Recently, Republicans have pointed to statements made by Harris in 2019 during her presidential campaign wherein she was portrayed as a supporter of providing public advantages to immigrants living within the country illegally. Specifically: CNN's Jake Tapper asked Harris whether their Medicare for All plan would cover such immigrants.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee posted an excerpt of the interview on social media platform X on July 23 with the message: “FLASHBACK: Kamala Harris tells Jake Tapper she supports universal health insurance and Medicare-for-all for illegal immigrants.”

But she doesn't say that on this clip. Instead, when asked whether Medicare for All should apply to people living within the country illegally, she responded: “I oppose any policy in our country that denies a person access to public safety, public education or public health care, period.” Tapper didn't take any further questions on the matter.

Medicare for All is a system promoted by some Democrats wherein all Americans would receive their medical health insurance through a government program modeled after the one which currently covers people age 65 and older and the disabled.

Under the Law on emergency medical treatment and occupational safetywhich became law in 1986, all patients, no matter their citizenship or immigration status, are already entitled to treatment in hospital emergency rooms.

Some anti-immigration activists still imagine Harris supports taxpayer-funded medical health insurance advantages for undocumented immigrants.

“Instead of fighting back, she is at least implicitly supporting Medicare for illegal immigrants,” said Joey Chester, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reforma gaggle that wishes to scale back immigration overall. The undeniable fact that she raised her hand in the course of the 2019 debate means her position is to offer taxpayer-funded health care to people who find themselves within the country illegally, he added.

Harris' proposal would have provided comprehensive medical health insurance to all Americans. But not all the things would have been free. She would have allowed Americans to purchase into this system immediately, while expanding it over ten years. The plan she recommend was just like current Medicare, where people should purchase plans administered by the federal government or private insurers.

During a 10-year transition period, newborns and uninsured people can be routinely enrolled. But their proposal left open tips on how to finance insurance for recipients living within the U.S. without authorization.

Harris wrote in 2019 Article on Medium The “good options” for financing Medicare for All plans included income-based employer contributions, higher taxes on the richest one percent of Americans, taxing Wall Street deals, and savings from accelerating health care reforms and changes in provider payments.

California, where Harris served as attorney general from 2011 to 2017, this 12 months became the primary state to expand Medicaid eligibility to all qualified immigrants no matter immigration status, phasing it in over several years. Medicaid is a federal health program that gives medical health insurance to low-income and disabled adults.

California's program for immigrants is funded almost entirely by state funds, in accordance with the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonprofit research organization. Federal law generally prohibits states from using federal funds to pay for medical health insurance for immigrants living within the country without legal permission.

However, taxpayers may bear the brunt of unpaid health care when people without medical health insurance, including illegal immigrants, seek treatment in hospitals or other providers. The costs are passed on to other consumers in the shape of upper prices and place a burden on state and native budgets.

“Government payments are the primary source of coverage for providers' costs for caring for the uninsured, and these government payments are ultimately funded by taxpayers,” says Laurel Lucia, health care program director on the University of California-Berkeley's Center for Labor Research and Education Center, which provides research and policy information.

Immigrants who’re within the country illegally also pay billions in taxes.

“If she supports subsidized health insurance for noncitizens, I would think that's a good thing, not a bad thing,” says Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy. “Many of the new immigrants are taking care of our children, our elderly, working in hospitality, food service and food production. Isn't it in our best interest for these people to have access to good health care?”

Our verdict

Republicans tried to portray Harris as an extremist on immigration, claiming she supports free, taxpayer-funded medical health insurance for immigrants within the country illegally.

Harris hinted in 2019 that her Medicare-for-All proposal would cover all immigrants no matter their status. She has also said she would oppose any policy that will deny anyone within the country access to “public health care.” But health policy and immigration experts say there isn’t a evidence that she would offer medical health insurance without cost and have it paid for by other taxpayers. Immigrants without legal residency also pay taxes.

Harris has not explicitly advocated free, tax-funded medical health insurance for immigrants living illegally within the United States.

Trump's statement comprises a grain of truth, but ignores vital facts that will suggest otherwise. We rate this claim as mostly false.

---

©2024 KFF Health News. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Originally published: August 2, 2024 at 11:18 am

The rise of JD Vance to the vice presidential nomination on the Republican ticket, with ardent support from technology investor and major donor Peter Thiel, seems unlikely given the technology sector's longstanding role in Democratic Party fundraising.

But Thiel's support for Vance reflects a broader backlash against the ability of established technology corporations within the United States. As some tech-friendly Democrats bristle on the Biden administration's antitrust efforts and Republicans nominate a former Silicon Valley enterprise capitalist who has championed those self same efforts, it's clear that the tech sector is becoming more politically fragmented.

Vance's rise reflects the ability of deep-pocketed tech leaders who outspokenly espouse the principles of techno-libertarianism, the concept that tech corporations ought to be largely exempt from government interference. That view is gaining political power and influence within the Republican Party. Thiel got Vance a job at his Silicon Valley enterprise capital firm and gave Vance's successful Senate campaign in Ohio $15 million – the most important amount ever donated to a single Senate candidate, Politico reported in 2022. He also put Vance in contact with former President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, tech billionaire Elon Musk supports Trump financially through his America PAC.

Division in Silicon Valley

This represents a shift from the tech sector's fame as a bastion of the Democratic Party. Many startup founders are based on the progressive West Coast, particularly in California, and for years there was a revolving door of Democratic officials leaving Washington for high-level positions in Silicon Valley. Against this backdrop, the tech sector has largely promoted Democrats' interests – including by serving as campaign contributors, offering digital expertise and emerging as a significant donor.

But because the sector has grown, the backlash against Big Tech has grown, as have calls from voters and politicians on either side for regulation of the industry. Antitrust efforts, including those by current Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, have raised alarm bells for tech corporations trying to retain market share. For his part, Musk has blamed “overregulation” and the state's liberal policies, and announced this month that he would move the headquarters of X (formerly Twitter) and SpaceX from California to Texas, highlighting the growing divide between the techno-libertarian wing and the Democratic mainstream.

Complicating the image is Vance calling Khan “one of the few people in the Biden administration who I think is doing a pretty good job.” Khan has brought antitrust lawsuits against major corporations like Amazon, so it might sound that Vance supports regulation and oversight. More likely, though, his position reflects a pro-competition stance aimed toward maximizing the variety of corporations that may compete with the large guys. In fact, Thiel has argued that Google is a monopoly, and he donated to then-Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley across the time he launched an investigation into Google (though Hawley denied any connection between the campaign donations and his investigation of the tech giant).

The Techno-Libertarians

So evidently the Vance-Thiel alliance is aimed toward difficult those corporations which are seen as potential monopolies and now represent an institution that takes power away from emerging corporations that hope for minimal oversight (reminiscent of the startups Thiel is investing in and the electrical vehicle sector Musk desires to dominate). Thiel and Musk, as key figures within the techno-libertarian movement, expect their regulatory environment to be way more permissive under a second Trump administration. At the identical time, nonetheless, they’ve signaled that they’re open to policies that weaken the dominant corporations.

By electing Vance, Trump has successfully won the support of a number of the wealthiest politicians. But the brand new fault lines in Silicon Valley politics are harder to predict. If Trump gets his way, his administration could bypass or at the least roll back regulations – apart from those corporations and individuals that his and Vance's allies find too threatening.

Originally published: July 31, 2024 at 5:00 am