Could be important.
Colorado Privacy Act Amended To Include Biometric Data Provisions
On May 31, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed HB 1130 into law. This legislation amends the Colorado Privacy Act to add specific requirements for the processing of an individual’s biometric data. This law does not have a private right of action.
Similarly to the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), this law requires controllers to provide notice and obtain consent prior to the collection or processing of a biometric identifier. The law also prohibits controllers from selling or disclosing biometric identifiers unless the customer consents or unless disclosure is necessary to fulfill the purpose of collection, to complete a financial transaction, or is required by law.
How much data needs to be removed before reality drifts away?
https://www.bespacific.com/if-google-kills-news-media-who-will-feed-the-ai-beast/
If Google Kills News Media, Who Will Feed the AI Beast?
Vanity Fair [unpaywalled ] – “Summarization tools from OpenAI and Google offer a CliffsNotes version of journalism that may further dumb down public discourse and deliver a brutal blow to an already battered media business…we’re on the cusp of a similar phenomenon with the new wave of AI summarization tools being launched by OpenAI, Google, and Facebook. These tools, though impressive in their ability to distill information, are just a few steps away from creating an “Irtnog”-like reality, where the richness of human knowledge and depth of understanding are reduced to bite-size, and sometimes dangerously inaccurate, summaries for our little brains to consume on our tiny devices. Case in point, this month Google launched several new AI-powered features for its search engine. One of the most notable additions is the AI Overviews feature, which provides AI-generated summaries at the top of search results. Essentially, that’s a fancy way of saying AI will summarize search results for you, because apparently reading anything that is not a summary is just too much effort these days. For news publishers, this is—understandably!—quite worrisome. Over the past three decades, tech companies have systematically helped siphon off the advertising revenue that once supported robust journalism, as advertisers have flocked to the targeted offerings of social media and search platforms. At the same time, the proliferation of free news content aggregated by tech giants (ahem, Google News) has made it increasingly difficult for news outlets to attract and retain paying subscribers. As such, the publishing industry has been declining since the early 2000s, when the real tech companies were separated from the chaff of the dot-com bubble, with newspaper revenues falling by more than 50% over the past two decades…”
Perhaps the horror isn’t so horrible? (Will they ask the AI to take the stand?)
https://www.bespacific.com/11th-circuit-judge-admits-to-using-chatgpt-to-help-decide-a-case/
11th Circuit Judge Admits to Using ChatGPT to Help Decide a Case
e-discovery Team: Urges Other Judges and Lawyers to Follow Suit: “The Eleventh Circuit published a ground breaking Concurring Opinion on May 28, 2024 by Judge Kevin C. Newsom on the use of generative AI to help decide contract interpretation issues. Snell v. United Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 12733 *; _ F.4th _ (11th Cir., 05/28/24). The case in question centered around interpretation of an insurance policy. Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom not only admits to using ChatGPT to help him make his decision, but praises its utility and urges other judges and lawyers to do so too. His analysis is impeccable and his writing is superb. That is bold judicial leadership – Good News. I love his opinion and bet that you will too. The only way to do the Concurring Opinion justice is to quote all of it, all 6,485 words. I know that’s a lot of words, but unlike ChatGPT, which is a good writer, Judge Newsom is a great writer. Judge Kevin C. Newsom, a Harvard law graduate from Birmingham, Alabama, is creative in his wise and careful use of AI. Judge Newsom added photos to his opinion and, as I have been doing recently in my articles, quoted in full the transcripts of the ChatGPT sessions he relied upon. He leads by doing and his analysis is correct, including especially his commentary on AI and human hallucinations…”
Perspective. How to benefit from lies about you even if they are true.
The Liar’s Dividend: The Impact of Deepfakes and Fake News on Politician Support and Trust in Media
“This project, The Liar’s Dividend: Can Politicians Claim Misinformation to Evade Accountability? is joint work between the Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University. While previous work has addressed the direct effects of misinformation, we propose to study the phenomenon of misinformation about misinformation, or politicians “crying wolf” over fake news. We argue that strategic and false allegations of misinformation (i.e., fake news and deepfakes) benefit politicians by helping them maintain support in the face of information damaging to their reputation. This concept is known as the “liar’s dividend”(Chesney and Citron 2018) and suggests that some politicians profit from an informational environment saturated with misinformation. While previous scholarship has demonstrated that the direct effects of misinformation may be overstated (Lazer et al. 2018, Little 2018), the more subtle indirect effects of misinformation may be even more concerning. Therefore, we aim to assess the extent of the harms to political accountability and trust in media posed by the liar’s dividend. Importantly, our study will also evaluate which “protective factors,” such as media literacy, help to insulate against this form of misinformation. We posit that the payoffs from the liar’s dividend work through two theoretical channels. First, the allegation of a deepfake or fake news can produce informational uncertainty. After learning of a political scandal, a member of the public will be more likely to downgrade their evaluation of the politician or to think that the politician is a “bad type.” However, if the politician then issues a statement disclaiming the story and alleging foul play by the opposition in the form of a deepfake or fake news, then some members of the public may be more uncertain about what to believe. Compared to a counterfactual where the politician makes no so such allegation, we think claims of a deepfake or fake news will result in aunidirectional shift in average evaluations of the politician in the positive direction, along with an associated increased variance (a reflection of increased uncertainty). Second, an allegation of a deepfake or fake news can provide rhetorical cover. To avoid cognitive dissonance, core supporters or strong co-partisans may be looking for an “out” or a motivated reason (Taber and Lodge 2006) to maintain support for their preferred politician in the face of a damaging news story. This rhetorical strategy also employs a “devil shift”(Sabatier, Hunter and McLaughlin 1987) where politicians not only signal their own innocence, but also criticize political opponents and the media, prompting supporters to rally against the opposition. To evaluate these potential impacts of the liar’s dividend and the channels through which the liar’s dividend bestows its benefits, we use a survey experiment to randomly assign vignette treatments detailing embarrassing or scandalous information about American politicians to American citizens. Our study design, treatments, outcomes, covariates, estimands, and analysis strategy are described in more detail in our pre-analysis plan, which was pre-registered with EGAP/OSF.”
No comments:
Post a Comment