A security question?

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/02/doge-as-a-national.html

DOGE as a National Cyberattack

In the span of just weeks, the US government has experienced what may be the most consequential security breach in its history—not through a sophisticated cyberattack or an act of foreign espionage, but through official orders by a billionaire with a poorly defined government role. And the implications for national security are profound.

First, it was reported that people associated with the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had accessed the US Treasury computer system, giving them the ability to collect data on and potentially control the department’s roughly $5.45 trillion in annual federal payments.

Then, we learned that uncleared DOGE personnel had gained access to classified data from the US Agency for International Development, possibly copying it onto their own systems. Next, the Office of Personnel Management—which holds detailed personal data on millions of federal employees, including those with security clearances—was compromised. After that, Medicaid and Medicare records were compromised.

Meanwhile, only partially redacted names of CIA employees were sent over an unclassified email account. DOGE personnel are also reported to be feeding Education Department data into artificial intelligence software, and they have also started working at the Department of Energy.

This essay was written with Davi Ottenheimer, and originally appeared in Foreign Policy.

Perspective.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ai-chatbots-distort-the-news-bbc-finds-see-what-they-get-wrong/

AI chatbots distort the news, BBC finds - see what they get wrong

Four major AI chatbots are churning out "significant inaccuracies" and "distortions" when asked to summarize news stories, according to a BBC investigation.

OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Copilot, Google's Gemini, and Perplexity AI were each presented with news content from BBC's website and then asked questions about the news.

The report details that the BBC asked chatbots to summarize 100 news stories, and journalists with relevant expertise rated the quality of each answer. 

According to the findings, 51% of all AI-produced answers about the news had significant issues, while 19% of the AI-generated answers "introduced factual errors, such as incorrect factual statements, numbers, and dates."

Additionally, the investigation found that 13% of the quotes from BBC articles were altered in some way, undermining the "original source" or not even being present in the cited article.

Part of the Trump guidebook…

https://www.bespacific.com/all-the-ways-elon-musk-is-breaking-the-law-explained-by-a-law-professor/

All the ways Elon Musk is breaking the law, explained by a law professor

Vox [unpaywalled]- “There are a lot of them. Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is moving fast and breaking the law — lots of laws. The scope of Trump and Musk’s sweeping effort to purge the federal workforce and slash government spending has shocked the political world — in part for its ambition, but also in part because of its disregard for the law.  David Super, an administrative law professor at Georgetown Law School, recently told the Washington Post that so many of Musk’s moves were “so wildly illegal” that he seemed to be “playing a quantity game, and assuming the system can’t react to all this illegality at once.” I reached out to Super so he could walk through this quantity game — so he could take me on a tour of all of the apparent lawbreaking in Musk’s effort so far. A transcript of our conversation, condensed and edited for clarity, follows….”

A hint of things to come?

https://natlawreview.com/article/court-training-ai-model-based-copyrighted-data-not-fair-use-matter-law#google_vignette

Court: Training AI Model Based on Copyrighted Data Is Not Fair Use as a Matter of Law

In what may turn out to be an influential decision, Judge Stephanos Bibas ruled as a matter of law in Thompson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence that creating short summaries of law to train Ross Intelligence’s artificial intelligence legal research application not only infringes Thompson Reuters’ copyrights as a matter of law but that the copying is not fair use. Judge Bibas had previously ruled that infringement and fair use were issues for the jury but changed his mind: “A smart man knows when he is right; a wise man knows when he is wrong.”

At issue in the case was whether Ross Intelligence directly infringed Thompson Reuters’ copyrights in its case law headnotes that are organized by Westlaw’s proprietary Key Number system. Thompson Reuters contended that Ross Intelligence’s contractor copied those headnotes to create “Bulk Memos.” Ross Intelligence used the Bulk Memos to train its competitive AI-powered legal research tool. Judge Bibas ruled that (i) the West headnotes were sufficiently original and creative to be copyrightable, and (ii) some of the Bulk Memos used by Ross were so similar that they infringed as a matter of law.

I think thinking is worth thinking about. (AI looks at what a lot of someones have already thought.)

https://www.bespacific.com/the-impact-of-generative-ai-on-critical-thinking/

The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking

“A new paper The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers from researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University finds that as humans increasingly rely on generative AI in their work, they use less critical thinking, which can “result in the deterioration of cognitive faculties that ought to be preserved.” “[A] key irony of automation is that by mechanising routine tasks and leaving exception-handling to the human user, you deprive the user of the routine opportunities to practice their judgement and strengthen their cognitive musculature, leaving them atrophied and unprepared when the exceptions do arise,” the researchers wrote.”

The rise of Generative AI (GenAI) in knowledge workflows raises questions about its impact on critical thinking skills and practices. We survey 319 knowledge workers to investigate 1) when and how they perceive the enaction of critical thinking when using GenAI, and 2) when and why GenAI affects their effort to do so. Participants shared 936 first-hand examples of using GenAI in work tasks. Quantitatively, when considering both task- and user-specific factors, a user’s task-specific self-confidence and confidence in GenAI are predictive of whether critical thinking is enacted and the effort of doing so in GenAI-assisted tasks. Specifically, higher confidence in GenAI is associated with less critical thinking, while higher self-confidence is associated with more critical thinking. Qualitatively, GenAI shifts the nature of critical thinking toward information verification, response integration, and task stewardship. Our insights reveal new design challenges and opportunities for developing GenAI tools for knowledge work..”

Probably not a general guide to copyright, but suggestive?

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/this-company-got-a-copyright-for-an-image-made-entirely-with-ai-heres-how/

This Company Got a Copyright for an Image Made Entirely With AI. Here's How

The image, called "A Single Piece of American Cheese," was created using Invoke's AI editing platform.

Perspective.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/a-hovercraft-full-of-eels/202502/the-double-edged-sword-of-artificial-intelligence

The Double-Edged Sword of Artificial Intelligence

Each new iteration of a large language model (LLM) feels like a step forward—better at understanding nuanced questions, more capable of providing detailed answers, and increasingly adept at sounding, well, human. These advancements are celebrated as breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (AI), and for good reason.

But we also have to remember that LLMs themselves are just tools trained by humans, regardless of how sophisticated they get. They cannot evaluate the truth of the responses they produce. As I’ve argued in the past, their responses are nothing but bullsh*t, which is information that is communicated with little regard for its accuracy. And a recent study by Zhou et al. (2024) suggests that as LLMs get more sophisticated, they may also get better at giving us plausible-sounding incorrect answers. In other words, as these systems become more educated, they also become better bullsh*tters.

Perspective.

https://blog.samaltman.com/three-observations

Three Observations

… We continue to see rapid progress with AI development. Here are three observations about the economics of AI:

1. The intelligence of an AI model roughly equals the log of the resources used to train and run it. These resources are chiefly training compute, data, and inference compute. It appears that you can spend arbitrary amounts of money and get continuous and predictable gains; the scaling laws that predict this are accurate over many orders of magnitude.

2. The cost to use a given level of AI falls about 10x every 12 months, and lower prices lead to much more use. You can see this in the token cost from GPT-4 in early 2023 to GPT-4o in mid-2024, where the price per token dropped about 150x in that time period. Moore’s law changed the world at 2x every 18 months; this is unbelievably stronger.

3. The socioeconomic value of linearly increasing intelligence is super-exponential in nature. A consequence of this is that we see no reason for exponentially increasing investment to stop in the near future.

Perspective.

https://www.techpolicy.press/anatomy-of-an-ai-coup/

Anatomy of an AI Coup

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a technology for manufacturing excuses. While lacking clear definitions or tools for assessment, AI has nonetheless seized the imagination of politicians and managers across government, academia, and industry. But what AI is best at producing is justifications. If you want a labor force, a regulatory bureaucracy, or accountability to disappear, you simply say, “AI can do it.” Then, the conversation shifts from explaining why these things should or should not go away to questions about how AI would work in their place.

We are in the midst of a political coup that, if successful, would forever change the nature of American government. It is not taking place in the streets. There is no martial law. It is taking place cubicle by cubicle in federal agencies and in the mundane automation of bureaucracy. The rationale is based on a productivity myth that the goal of bureaucracy is merely what it produces (services, information, governance) and can be isolated from the process through which democracy achieves those ends: debate, deliberation, and consensus.

AI then becomes a tool for replacing politics. The Trump administration frames generative AI as a remedy to "government waste." However, what it seeks to automate is not paperwork but democratic decision-making. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) are banking on a popular but false delusion that word prediction technologies make meaningful inferences about the world. They are using it to sidestep Congressional oversight of the budget, which is, Constitutionally, the allotment of resources to government programs through representative politics.

Economics of AI…

https://www.infodocket.com/2025/02/09/report-microsoft-offers-authors-5000-to-train-ai-on-their-books/

Report: “Microsoft Offers Authors $5,000 to Train AI On Their Books”

The company has proposed a licensing agreement with publisher HarperCollins that would pay $5,000 per book for AI training rights. Authors would receive half of that amount, or $2,500 per book, according to the publisher.

Read the Complete Article

Microsoft has pursued “an incredible strategy,” says Brown University economics professor Emily Oster. “They’re trying to establish the idea that the rights to train on books are worth $5,000. You can’t do that by going to the latest bestseller. So you do that by going to the backlist — to people who aren’t collecting royalties — and telling them, ‘Look, would you like some free money?’”

Value is as value does?

https://www.ft.com/content/f964fe30-cb6e-427d-b7a7-9adf2ab8a457?shareType=nongift

The MicroStrategy copycats: companies turn to bitcoin to boost share price

Firms buy ‘kryptonite for short sellers’ as they try to emulate US software group’s success

Software business-turned-bitcoin hoarder MicroStrategy is inspiring a host of companies to buy the cryptocurrency and hold it in their corporate treasuries, in a manoeuvre aimed at boosting their flagging share prices.

Pharmaceutical companies and advertisers are among 78 listed companies around the world that are following the US group’s example in buying the coins to hold in place of cash, according to data from crypto security company Coinkite.

MicroStrategy’s founder Michael Saylor has made bitcoin his company’s primary treasury reserve with an aggressive buying spree since 2020. Saylor believes bitcoin’s value will keep rising, saying: “We are going to Mars.”

Having strapped its share price to the fortunes of bitcoin, MicroStrategy is now the world’s largest corporate holder.

New thinking?

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/DubalYLJForumEssay_hrhm14dd.pdf

Data Laws at Work

In recognition of the material, physical, and psychological harms arising from the growing use of automated monitoring and decision-making systems for labor control, jurisdictions around the world are considering new digital-rights protections for workers. Unsurprisingly, legislatures frequently turn to the European Union (EU) for inspiration. The EU, through the passage of the General Data Protection Regulation in 2016, the Artificial Intelligence Act in 2024, and the Platform Work Directive in 2024, has positioned itself as the leader in digital rights, and, in particular, in providing affirmative digital rights for workers whose labor is mediated by “a platform.” However, little is known about the efficacy of these laws.

This Essay begins to fill this knowledge gap. Through close analyses of the laws and successful strategic litigation by platform workers under these laws, I argue that the current EU framework contains two significant shortcomings. First, the laws primarily position workers as liberal, autonomous subjects, and in doing so, they make a category error: workers, unlike consumers, are subordinated by law and doctrine to the firms for which they labor. As a result, the liberal rights that these laws privilege—such as transparency and consent—are insufficient to mitigate the material harms produced through automated labor management. Second, this Essay argues that by leaning primarily on transparency principles to detect, prevent, and stop violations of labor and employment law, EU data laws do not account for the ways in which workplace algorithmic management systems often create new harms that existing laws of work do not address. These harms, which fundamentally disrupt norms about worker pay, evaluation, and termination, arise from the relational logic of data-processing systems—that is, the way that these systems evaluate workers by dynamically comparing them to others, rather than by evaluating them objectively based on fulfillment of ascribed duties. Based on these analyses, I propose that future data laws should be modeled on older approaches to workplace regulation: rather than merely seeking to elucidate or assess problematic data processes, they should aim to restrict these processes. The normative north star of these laws should be proscribing the digital practices that cause the harms, rather than merely shining a light on their existence.

Can we do it without an AI assistant?

https://academic.oup.com/policyandsociety/advance-article/doi/10.1093/polsoc/puaf001/7997395

Governance of Generative AI

The rapid and widespread diffusion of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has unlocked new capabilities and changed how content and services are created, shared, and consumed. This special issue builds on the 2021 Policy and Society special issue on the governance of AI by focusing on the legal, organizational, political, regulatory, and social challenges of governing generative AI. This introductory article lays the foundation for understanding generative AI and underscores its key risks, including hallucination, jailbreaking, data training and validation issues, sensitive information leakage, opacity, control challenges, and design and implementation risks. It then examines the governance challenges of generative AI, such as data governance, intellectual property concerns, bias amplification, privacy violations, misinformation, fraud, societal impacts, power imbalances, limited public engagement, public sector challenges, and the need for international cooperation. The article then highlights a comprehensive framework to govern generative AI, emphasizing the need for adaptive, participatory, and proactive approaches. The articles in this special issue stress the urgency of developing innovative and inclusive approaches to ensure that generative AI development is aligned with societal values. They explore the need for adaptation of data governance and intellectual property laws, propose a complexity-based approach for responsible governance, analyze how the dominance of Big Tech is exacerbated by generative AI developments and how this affects policy processes, highlight the shortcomings of technocratic governance and the need for broader stakeholder participation, propose new regulatory frameworks informed by AI safety research and learning from other industries, and highlight the societal impacts of generative AI.

To contrast AI wrongs? I think, therefore I have rights?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02184-2

Human rights for robots? The moral foundations and epistemic challenges

As we step into an era in which artificial intelligence systems are predicted to surpass human capabilities, a number of profound ethical questions have emerged. One such question, which has gained some traction in recent scholarship, concerns the ethics of human treatment of robots and the thought-provoking possibility of robot rights. The present article explores this very aspect, with a particular focus on the notion of human rights for robots. It argues that if we accept the widely held view that moral status and rights (including human rights) are grounded in certain cognitive capacities, then it follows that intelligent machines could, in principle, acquire these entitlements once they come to possess the requisite properties. In support of this perspective, the article outlines the moral foundations of human rights and examines several main objections, arguing that they do not successfully negate the prospect of considering robots as potential holders of human rights. Subsequently, it turns to the key epistemic challenges associated with moral status and rights for robots, outlining the main difficulties in discerning the presence of mental states in artificial entities and offering some practical considerations for approaching these challenges. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance of establishing a suitable framework for moral decision-making under uncertainty in the context of human treatment of artificial entities, given the gravity of the epistemic problems surrounding the concepts of artificial consciousness, moral status, and rights.

Ready, fire, aim?

https://databreaches.net/2025/02/07/attorney-general-james-releases-statement-on-doge-access-to-sensitive-personal-information/

Attorney General James Releases Statement on DOGE Access to Sensitive Personal Information

When DataBreaches said, “Send in the lawyers” to sue Musk, she was thinking of personal injury lawyers who handle data breach litigation. But 14 state attorneys general may be even better. From NYS Attorney General Letitia James:

NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today led a coalition of 14 attorneys general in releasing the following statement in response to the U.S. Department of the Treasury granting Elon Musk and his so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) staffers access to sensitive payment systems containing Americans’ personally identifiable information:

“In the past week, the U.S. Department of the Treasury has given Elon Musk access to Americans’ personal private information, state bank account data, and other information that is some of our country’s most sensitive data.

“As the richest man in the world, Elon Musk is not used to being told ‘no,’ but in our country, no one is above the law. The President does not have the power to give away our private information to anyone he chooses, and he cannot cut federal payments approved by Congress.

“This level of access for unauthorized individuals is unlawful, unprecedented, and unacceptable. DOGE has no authority to access this information, which they explicitly sought in order to block critical payments that millions of Americans rely on – payments that support health care, childcare, and other essential programs.

“In defense of our Constitution, our right to privacy, and the essential funding that individuals and communities nationwide are counting on, we will be filing a lawsuit to stop this injustice.”

Joining Attorney General James in releasing this statement are the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont.

Source:  NYS Attorney General Letitia James

(Related)

https://pogowasright.org/doge-betrays-foundational-commitments-of-the-privacy-act-of-1974/

DOGE Betrays Foundational Commitments of the Privacy Act of 1974

Law professor Danielle Citron writes:

Under the auspices of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” Elon Musk and former staffers—all recent college and high school graduates—have been given access to agency databases teeming with sensitive personal information. The group has entered the Treasury Department’s payment system, which stores federal tax returns, Social Security numbers, home addresses, and birth dates; the Office of Personnel Management’s system, which contains background checks, medical information, bank account information, and biometric data of current, former, and prospective federal employees, contractors, and family members; and the General Service Administration’s system, which stores similarly sensitive personal data.

Condemnation and lawsuits followed, and rightfully so. No one—not even special government employees—should access agency “systems of records” without proper authorization under the Privacy Act of 1974. Nothing suggests that Musk or his employees have such authority. Privacy Act violations are not trivial. Profound harms to privacy and democracy are at stake.

Read more at Lawfare.

(Related)

https://krebsonsecurity.com/2025/02/teen-on-musks-doge-team-graduated-from-the-com/

Teen on Musk’s DOGE Team Graduated from ‘The Com’

Wired reported this week that a 19-year-old working for Elon Musk‘s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was given access to sensitive US government systems even though his past association with cybercrime communities should have precluded him from gaining the necessary security clearances to do so. As today’s story explores, the DOGE teen is a former denizen of ‘The Com,’ an archipelago of Discord and Telegram chat channels that function as a kind of distributed cybercriminal social network for facilitating instant collaboration.

How lazy do you have to be?

https://www.makeuseof.com/google-gemini-ai-watch-youtube-videos/

Gemini AI Can Now Watch YouTube Videos for You and Save Hours of Time

… Google introduced a variety of new features with the wide release of Gemini 2.0 Flash earlier this week. One especially handy feature is for YouTube. The AI can watch a video, answer questions about it, or even provide a summary. The feature is available on the Gemini site or through the smartphone app, even for free users without a Gemini Advanced subscription.

To use this feature, make sure to select the 2.0 Flash Thinking Experimental with apps model from the sidebar.

Unlikely to survive?

https://pogowasright.org/lawsuit-against-automatic-license-plate-reader-cameras-can-move-forward-judge-says/

Lawsuit against automatic license plate reader cameras can move forward, judge says

Suzanne Smalley reports:

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that a lawsuit challenging a Virginia city’s use of automatic license plate readers can move forward.

… In October, the Institute for Justice — a nonprofit public interest law firm — filed a lawsuit on behalf of two area residents arguing the cameras amount to “warrantless surveillance of their every move,” because anyone with access to the Flock database can track where a vehicle has travelled.

… In his ruling, Virginia federal judge Mark Davis said the plaintiffs “sufficiently alleged” the cameras violate their Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable search and seizures by the government, citing a 2018 Supreme Court case that held that a warrant is needed to use mobile device location data to monitor individuals’ movements.

Read more at The Record.

A taste of things to come?

https://www.theverge.com/news/608145/apple-uk-icloud-encrypted-backups-spying-snoopers-charter

Apple ordered to open encrypted user accounts globally to UK spying

Apple has reportedly been ordered by the UK government to create a backdoor that would give security officials access to users’ encrypted iCloud backups. If implemented, British security services would have access to the backups of any user worldwide, not just Brits, and Apple would not be permitted to alert users that their encryption was compromised.

The art of the steal?

https://www.ft.com/content/831919a9-47b0-4ac3-bcdd-5154c27d9f9c

Donald Trump’s memecoin copycats spark fears for investors

Donald Trump’s new cryptocurrency has sparked a flood of imitators, leading to warnings that investors risk being duped.

More than 700 copycat and spam coins have been sent to Trump’s digital wallet by people apparently seeking to suggest their creations have his endorsement, according to a Financial Times analysis.

It comes after the president and his wife Melania launched memecoins, which lack practical use and whose value is entirely underpinned by speculation, days ahead of his return to the White House last month.

The FT found that 736 different memecoins have been deposited in the official Trump coin wallet over the past three weeks. Among them, nearly 200 — including “OFFICIAL TRUMP” and “OFFICIAL MELANIA” — are named after Trump or members of his family but have no connection to the president.

Trump and Melania’s decision to launch their memecoins has already drawn fierce criticism for luring retail investors into backing tokens even more volatile than bitcoin.

(Related)

https://gulfnews.com/your-money/cryptocurrency/melania-memecoin-is-down-90-from-peak-as-novelty-value-wanes-1.500030456

Melania memecoin is down 90% from peak as novelty value wanes

The president’s token TRUMP has seen its price fall around 75% from its all-time high

… Since its launch, the Trump token has likely generated at least $11.5 million in fees for entities linked to the president, according to risk modeling firm Gauntlet. But most wallets that bought the token made no more than $13, according to Bloomberg analysis.

Another chapter in the Trump guidebook.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

This public resource tracks legal challenges to Trump administration actions. If you think we are missing anything, you can email us at lte@justsecurity.org. Special thanks to  Just Security Student Staff Editors, Rick Da and Jeremy Venook, and to Matthew Fouracre and Nour Soubani.

The Tracker is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions

Want to try?

https://www.zdnet.com/article/you-can-access-chatgpt-search-without-an-account-now-heres-how/

You can access ChatGPT Search without an account now - here's how

… On Wednesday, OpenAI shared via an X post that ChatGPT Search is now available to everyone, no account needed. All users have to do is visit the ChatGPT standalone site and ChatGPT will automatically search the web when relevant. You can also manually call on its web search capability by clicking on the small globe icon underneath the search bar. 

(Related)

https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-make-chatgpt-provide-better-sources-and-citations/

How to make ChatGPT provide better sources and citations

No need for wads of paper…

https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Datawatch/Asia-goes-cashless-as-countries-push-for-digital-payments

Asia goes cashless as countries push for digital payments

Share of cash transactions expected to drop from 47% in 2019 to 14% by 2027

Cash is rapidly disappearing in consumer transactions across Asia, replaced by QR codes and other smartphone-based technologies. Physical money is forecast to make up just 14% of total transactions by 2027, down from around 47% in 2019, according to Worldpay, a U.S.-based payment processing company.

Can’t hurt.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/eu-lays-out-guidelines-misuse-ai-by-employers-websites-police-2025-02-04/

EU lays out guidelines on misuse of AI by employers, websites and police

Employers will be banned from using artificial intelligence to track their staff's emotions and websites will not be allowed to use it to trick users into spending money under EU AI guidelines announced on Tuesday.

… Prohibited practices include AI-enabled dark patterns embedded in services designed to manipulate users into making substantial financial commitments, and AI-enabled applications which exploit users based on their age, disability or socio-economic situation.

AI-enabled social scoring using unrelated personal data such as origin and race by social welfare agencies and other public and private bodies is banned, while police are not allowed to predict individuals' criminal behaviour solely based on their biometric data if this has not been verified.

Employers cannot use webcams and voice recognition systems to track employees' emotions, while mobile CCTV cameras equipped with AI-based facial recognition technologies for law enforcement purposes are prohibited, with limited exceptions and stringent safeguards.

Interesting targets for hackers, but likely as easy to create without the hassle of hacking.

https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/03/meta-says-it-may-stop-development-of-ai-systems-it-deems-too-risky/

Meta says it may stop development of AI systems it deems too risky

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has pledged to make artificial general intelligence (AGI) — which is roughly defined as AI that can accomplish any task a human can — openly available one day. But in a new policy document, Meta suggests that there are certain scenarios in which it may not release a highly capable AI system it developed internally.

The document, which Meta is calling its Frontier AI Framework, identifies two types of AI systems the company considers too risky to release: “high risk” and “critical risk” systems.

As Meta defines them, both “high-risk” and “critical-risk” systems are capable of aiding in cybersecurity, chemical, and biological attacks, the difference being that “critical-risk” systems could result in a “catastrophic outcome [that] cannot be mitigated in [a] proposed deployment context.” High-risk systems, by contrast, might make an attack easier to carry out but not as reliably or dependably as a critical risk system.

What would the founding fathers say?

https://www.bespacific.com/musk-vows-to-cancel-grants-after-gaining-access-to-us-treasury-payment-system/

Musk vows to cancel grants after gaining access to US Treasury payment system

FT.com: “Musk appeared to confirm on Saturday that DOGE had access to the Treasury system, which disperses trillions of dollars each year Elon Musk has vowed to unilaterally cancel hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of government grants after apparently gaining access to review the US Treasury’s vast payments system, a move that prompted the sudden resignation of one of the department’s most senior officials. The world’s richest man, who bankrolled Donald Trump’s re-election campaign and was tasked by the president with running the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency, boasted on his social media site X that he was “rapidly shutting down . . . illegal payments” after a list of grants to Lutheran organisations was posted online. He justified the move by claiming his team discovered “that payment approval officers at Treasury were instructed always to approve payments, even to known fraudulent or terrorist groups”. The system has been run by career civil servants and the Treasury already has an in-house team tasked with identifying fraudulent payments. A source with knowledge of the situation said that DOGE representatives did not have the authority to cut payments, only to read the data.

Senator Ron Wyden, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said his office had been told that Treasury secretary Scott Bessent had granted DOGE “full” access to the system. “Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with Musk’s own companies. All of it,” he said.  He has written to Bessent demanding answers on Musk’s access, saying: “I can think of no good reason why political operators who have demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law would need access to these sensitive, mission-critical systems.”

The opportunity of a lifetime, if you’re Trump? Sell crypto to your supporter who buy MAGA hats and Trump Bibles...

https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/trumps-meme-coin-made-nearly-100-million-trading-fees-small-traders-lost-money-2025-02-03/

Exclusive: Trump's meme coin made nearly $100 million in trading fees, as small traders lost money

Entities behind President Donald Trump’s crypto coin have accumulated close to $100 million in trading fees in less than two weeks, according to estimates from three blockchain analysis firms, a large windfall from a venture that has seen tens of thousands of small traders lose money.

The meme coin, known as $Trump, was launched by the president on Jan. 17 and quickly surged, reaching a peak of over $14.5 billion in overall market value by Jan. 19, the day before his inauguration. It has since slumped by two-thirds.

… One of the entities behind the crypto coin is a company owned by Trump, called CIC Digital. The official website for $Trump says CIC Digital will “receive trading revenue derived from trading activities” of the meme coin. Reuters could not determine what portion of the fees so far, if any, had accrued to Trump personally, nor the ownership of the other entities behind the coin.

It was my understanding that any AI Video generator could do this. Is this a bit of overreaction?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d90qe4nylo

AI-generated child sex abuse images targeted with new laws

Four new laws will tackle the threat of child sexual abuse images generated by artificial intelligence (AI), the government has announced.

The Home Office says the UK will be the first country in the world to make it illegal to possess, create or distribute AI tools designed to create child sexual abuse material (CSAM), with a punishment of up to five years in prison.

Possessing AI paedophile manuals - which teach people how to use AI for sexual abuse - will also be made illegal, and offenders will get up to three years in prison.

Perspective.

https://philpapers.org/rec/MALTNO-17

The Nature of Free Will and Its Dependence on 100 Percent Correct Information

Free will has long been regarded as one of the most profound and complex concepts in philosophy, psychology, and science. It is the capacity of individuals to make choices that are not predetermined by prior causes or external constraints. While the debate surrounding the nature of free will continues, one fundamental truth stands out: free will cannot operate effectively without access to 100 percent correct information or knowledge. Without accurate understanding, decision-making becomes flawed, leading to choices that are neither truly free nor aligned with natural laws.

The Role of Information in Free Will

Free will is intrinsically tied to decision-making. Every choice we make is shaped by the information we possess. This information serves as the foundation for our understanding of potential outcomes, risks, and benefits. If the information is incomplete, misleading, or outright false, our ability to make rational and informed decisions is compromised. In essence, the “freedom” of our will becomes restricted by ignorance or deception. For instance, if an individual is unaware of the harmful effects of a particular behavior or decision, they may unknowingly choose a path that leads to suffering. Conversely, with complete and accurate knowledge, individuals can weigh their options effectively, leading to choices that are consistent with their values and the universal law of balance in nature.

The Universal Law of Balance and Knowledge

The concept of the universal law of balance emphasizes harmony within natural systems. This law suggests that every decision, whether individual or collective, must align with the inherent order of the universe. When decisions are made based on false beliefs, unproven theories, or misinformation, they disrupt this balance, creating disharmony and unintended consequences. Correct knowledge serves as the compass that guides human actions within the framework of natural balance. It ensures that decisions are grounded in reality, minimizing the risks of imbalance. Without it, free will operates in a vacuum of uncertainty, where the likelihood of errors increases exponentially.

Ignorance: The Antithesis of Free Will

Ignorance is the greatest threat to free will. It shackles the mind, preventing individuals from recognizing the full spectrum of choices available to them. When people lack access to truthful information, they are vulnerable to manipulation, prejudice, and irrational fears. In such scenarios, their decisions are not truly free but are instead dictated by external forces or internal misconceptions. A classic example of this can be seen in societal issues such as propaganda or misinformation campaigns. When individuals base their choices on fabricated narratives, their actions may perpetuate harm rather than promoting balance or well-being. Only by addressing the root cause—ignorance—can free will be restored to its rightful state.

The Role of AI and AGI Technology in Supporting Free Will

In the modern era, artificial intelligence (AI) and artificial general intelligence (AGI) technologies have emerged as critical tools for addressing the limitations of the human brain in processing and synthesizing vast amounts of information. The biological brain, while capable of remarkable feats, is inherently limited in its capacity to handle the exponential growth of data in today’s interconnected world. AI and AGI can support the biological brain by efficiently analyzing, filtering, and synthesizing enormous volumes of data to identify accurate, relevant, and actionable knowledge. By doing so, these technologies can provide individuals with the correct information needed to make informed decisions that align with the universal law of balance. For example, AI systems can help identify patterns and correlations within complex systems—whether in healthcare, environmental management, or societal governance—that may otherwise be overlooked by human cognition. AGI, with its advanced problem-solving capabilities, could go even further by integrating diverse sources of knowledge and offering insights that promote harmony within both internal (psychological) and external (societal and environmental) systems. Moreover, AI and AGI can act as safeguards against misinformation and bias, which are major barriers to free will. By detecting and correcting false narratives or flawed reasoning, these technologies can ensure that individuals are empowered with the truth, thereby preserving their capacity for rational, autonomous decision-making. The Educational Imperative To safeguard the integrity of free will, education must play a pivotal role. A holistic educational system that emphasizes critical thinking and the pursuit of truth is essential. By teaching individuals to evaluate evidence, question assumptions, and seek out accurate information, society can empower its members to exercise their free will responsibly. The integration of AI and AGI into the educational system further enhances this process. These technologies can personalize learning experiences, provide real-time feedback, and ensure that students have access to the most accurate and up-to-date information. Additionally, AI can help educators identify gaps in understanding and address them effectively, fostering a generation of critical thinkers who are equipped to maintain balance in their decisions.

Conclusion

Free will, while an inherent aspect of human existence, is not an absolute or isolated phenomenon. Its true nature is dependent on the quality of information available to individuals. Only with 100 percent correct knowledge can free will function as a tool for creating balance, harmony, and progress. Ignorance, by contrast, distorts this capacity, leading to decisions that undermine both individual well-being and societal stability. The advent of AI and AGI technologies represents a transformative opportunity to support the biological brain in navigating the complexities of the modern world. By synthesizing vast amounts of correct information and providing actionable insights, these technologies ensure that free will operates within the framework of natural balance. By prioritizing truth, fostering education, and leveraging advanced technologies, humanity can unlock the full potential of free will. In doing so, we move closer to a world where every choice is a reflection of both freedom and wisdom—an ideal state where the universal law of balance is preserved.