Connect with us

Published

on

CbatGPT developer OpenAI announced last week that it had fired CEO Sam Altman due to a loss of confidence by the board — only to see him return to the company after 90% of OpenAI staffers threatened to resign. The firing caused a flurry of excitement from companies offering to match OpenAI salaries in an attempt to lure top-tier talent.

The debacle — and its associated lack of transparency — highlighted the need to regulate AI development, particularly when it comes to security and privacy. Companies are developing their artificial intelligence divisions rapidly and a reshuffling of talent could propel one company ahead of others and existing laws. While President Joe Biden has taken steps to that effect, he has been relying on executive orders, which do not require input from Congress. Instead, they rely on agency bureaucrats to interpret them — and could change when a new president is inaugurated.

Biden this year signed an executive order related to the “safe, secure, and trustworthy artificial intelligence.” It commanded AI companies to “protect” workers from ‘harm,’ presumably in reference to the potential loss of their jobs. It also tasked the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) with, in part, establishing governing structures within federal agencies. It also asked the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to self-evaluate and determine whether it has the authority “to ensure fair competition in the AI marketplace and to ensure that consumers and workers are protected from harms that may be enabled by the use of AI.”

Biden’s executive orders are not going to last long

The fundamental problem with an approach driven by executive fiat is its fragility and limited scope. As evident by the SEC and CFTC’s (largely unsuccessful) attempts to classify cryptocurrencies as securities, tasking agencies with promulgating laws can cause confusion and apprehension amongst investors, and are ultimately open to interpretation by the courts.

Related: WSJ debacle fueled US lawmakers’ ill-informed crusade against crypto

Policies developed by agencies without legislative support also lack permanence. While public input is necessary for the passing of agency-backed regulations, the legislative process allows consumers of artificial intelligence and digital assets to have a stronger voice and assist with the passage of laws that deal with actual problems users face — instead of problems invented by often ambitious bureaucrats.

Biden’s failure to address the complex ethical implications of AI implementation on a mass scale is dangerous; concerns such as bias in algorithms, surveillance and privacy invasion are barely being addressed. Those issues should be addressed by Congress, made up of officials elected by the people, rather than agencies composed of appointees.

Related: 3 theses that will drive Ethereum and Bitcoin in the next bull market

Without the rigorous debate required for Congress to pass a law, there is no guarantee of a law that promotes security and privacy for everyday users. Specifically, users of artificial intelligence need to have control over how this automated technology uses and stores personal data. This concern is particularly acute in the field of AI, where many users fail to understand the underlying technology and the severe security concerns that come with sharing personal information. Furthermore, we need laws that ensure companies are conducting risk assessments and maintaining their automated systems in a responsible manner.

Reliance on regulations enacted by federal agencies will ultimately lead to confusion — consumers distrusting artificial intelligence. This precise scenario played out with digital assets after the SEC’s lawsuits against Coinbase, Ripple Labs, and other crypto-involved institutions, which made some investors apprehensive about their involvement with crypto companies. A similar scenario could play out in the field of AI where the FTC and other agencies sue AI companies and tie vital issues up in the court system for years ahead.

It’s imperative that Biden engage Congress on these issues instead of hiding behind the executive  branch. Congress, in turn, must rise to the occasion, crafting legislation that encapsulates the concerns and aspirations of a diverse set of stakeholders. Without such collaborative efforts, the United States risks repeating the pitfalls experienced in the digital assets domain, potentially lagging behind other nations and driving innovation elsewhere. More importantly, the security and privacy of American citizens — as well as many around the globe — is in jeopardy.

John Cahill is an associate in national law firm Wilson Elser’s White Plains, N.Y., office. John focuses his practice on digital assets, and ensures that clients comply with current and developing laws and regulations. He received a B.A. from St. Louis University and a J.D. from New York Law School.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Continue Reading

Politics

Starmer and Reeves hint at tax rises to come ahead of unusual pre-budget speech today

Published

on

By

Starmer and Reeves hint at tax rises to come ahead of unusual pre-budget speech today

Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have hinted at tax rises to come when the chancellor delivers the budget later this month.

In a Downing Street speech this morning, Ms Reeves will address “speculation” that an increase in income tax will be announced during the highly-anticipated statement on 26 November.

Politics Hub: Follow chancellor’s speech live

Sky News political editor Beth Rigby said it was “highly unusual” for the chancellor to make such a speech, but the Treasury believes she must “try to prepare the ground and make the argument for another big tax-raising budget”.

“I will make the choices necessary to deliver strong foundations for our economy – for this year, and years to come,” Ms Reeves will say.

Last night, Sir Keir gave Labour MPs a taste of what’s to come by warning of the need for “tough but fair” decisions.

Speaking at a party meeting in Westminster, he said the budget “takes place against a difficult economic backdrop”.

“It’s becoming clearer the long-term impact of Tory austerity, their botched Brexit deal and the pandemic on Britain’s productivity is worse than even we feared,” the prime minister said.

“Faced with that, we will make the tough but fair decisions to renew our country and build it for the long term.”

Starmer and Reeves know how hard this is going to be

I don’t need to tell you how difficult and contested this is going to be.

Only a year ago, the chancellor unveiled the biggest tax-raising budget since 1993 and said it was a “once in a parliament event”.

MPs will be fearing a massive backlash should manifesto promises on not raising income tax (and VAT and national insurance) for working people be broken.

Government figures know how hard it’s going to be but argue the chancellor has to level with the public about the hard choices ahead and what is driving her decision-making.

It comes after Sir Keir refused to confirm at Prime Minister’s Questions last week that the budget would honour his party’s manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT.

Having raised taxes in last year’s budget, notably national insurance on employers, Ms Reeves has also previously promised not to “come back for more” during this parliament.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Will Labour raise taxes?

The PM and chancellor’s warnings come after reports suggested the Office for Budget Responsibility is expected to downgrade its productivity growth forecast for the UK by about 0.3 percentage points.

That would leave Ms Reeves with a larger than expected fiscal black hole to fill, possibly up to £30bn.

She is said to be considering a proposal from The Resolution Foundation, a left-leaning thinktank close to the government, to raise income tax by 2p but cut national insurance by the same amount.

The thinktank, which used to be headed by Torsten Bell, a Labour MP who is now a key aide to Ms Reeves and a pensions minister, said the move would raise vital cash while protecting working people.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

A promise-breaking budget?

Reeves to prioritise NHS and cost of living

Giving a further flavour of what to expect, Ms Reeves will this morning vow to make “important choices that will shape our economy for years to come”.

“It is important that people understand the circumstances we are facing, the principles guiding my choices – and why I believe they will be the right choices for the country,” she will add.

Ms Reeves will say her priorities are cutting national debt, easing the cost of living and protecting the NHS.

“It will be a budget led by this government’s values,” she’s set to say.

“Of fairness and opportunity and focused squarely on the priorities of the British people: protecting our NHS, reducing our national debt and improving the cost of living.”

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Vile and dangerous’ strangulation pornography to be banned

Published

on

By

'Vile and dangerous' strangulation pornography to be banned

Strangulation pornography will be banned following a review which found such images have helped to establish it as a sexual norm.

The possession and publication of images depicting strangulation and suffocation will be criminalised under the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently making its way through parliament.

Non-fatal strangulation is already an offence in its own right, but it is not currently illegal to show it online.

Conservative peer Baroness Bertin warned earlier this year that there has been a “total absence of government scrutiny” of the pornography industry.

Baroness Gabby Bertin carried out a review of the online pornography industry
Image:
Baroness Gabby Bertin carried out a review of the online pornography industry

Her independent review, published in February, referred to worrying anecdotal evidence from teachers about students asking how to choke girls during sex.

People acting out choking in their sex lives “may face devastating consequences”, she said in the review.

More from Politics

On Monday, the government confirmed it was putting forward amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, which is due to come back before peers in the House of Lords for further scrutiny next week.

As well as making strangulation or suffocation in pornography illegal, duties will be placed on online platforms to stop the spread of such images, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said.

Another amendment will extend the time limit for victims of intimate image abuse, which can include so-called “revenge porn”, to come forward to report such crimes.

Currently, victims have six months to do so, but this will be extended to three years.

Victims minister Alex Davies-Jones said the government “will not stand by while women are violated online and victimised by violent pornography which is allowed to normalise harm”.

She added: “We are sending a strong message that dangerous and sexist behaviour will not be tolerated.”

Of strangulation pornography, Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said: “Viewing and sharing this kind of material online is not only deeply distressing, it is vile and dangerous. Those who post or promote such content are contributing to a culture of violence and abuse that has no place in our society.

“We’re also holding tech companies to account and making sure they stop this content before it can spread. We are determined to make sure women and girls can go online without fear of violence or exploitation.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

From June: ‘He was going to kill me’

The government said if the amendments were accepted, possession or publication of strangulation or suffocation in pornography would become a priority offence under the Online Safety Act.

Technology firms would be legally required to take steps to stop such violent content reaching internet users, rather than simply waiting for it to be reported.

The government suggested this could be done through moderation tools, stricter content policies or automated systems being used to detect and hide images.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) welcomed the planned changes, but said they must “mark the beginning of broader reform to ensure parity between online and offline content standards”.

Its chief executive David Austin said: “Harmful depictions of non-consensual, violent and abusive activity continue to be readily accessible to UK users.”

The BBFC said it stands ready to take on “the formal role of auditing online pornography”, which would be “a natural extension of the role we have carried out offline for decades”.

Bernie Ryan, chief executive of the Institute For Addressing Strangulation, welcomed the proposed ban, saying the “serious risks posed by unregulated online content, especially to children and young people” must be recognised.

She added: “Strangulation is a serious form of violence, often used in domestic abuse to control, silence or terrify.

“When it’s portrayed in pornography, particularly without context, it can send confusing and harmful messages to young people about what is normal or acceptable in intimate relationships. Our research shows there is no safe way to strangle.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Coin Center files brief in Ethereum MEV trial, disputes ‘honest validation’ theory

Published

on

By

Coin Center files brief in Ethereum MEV trial, disputes ‘honest validation’ theory

Coin Center files brief in Ethereum MEV trial, disputes ‘honest validation’ theory

The advocacy organization filed a brief opposing prosecutors’ arguments that two brothers presented themselves as “honest validators” to allegedly pull off a $25-million exploit.

Continue Reading

Trending