Archived version

In speeches in Nevada and Arizona, former President Donald Trump continued to spread misinformation that undermines public confidence in state and federal elections:

• Trump claimed that Kari Lake lost the Arizona governor’s race in 2022 because Maricopa County “machines just happened to be broken” — falsely adding, “only the Republican machines.” Some printers produced ballots that were too light for on-site tabulators, but the ballots could be counted later. Lake’s court challenges failed, and an independent review found no evidence of wrongdoing.

• Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Abraham Hamadeh lost the 2022 attorney general’s race in Arizona because “his election was rigged.” A recount confirmed Hamadeh lost the election, and court challenges failed, too, due to a lack of evidence.

In Nevada, Trump — who was indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly conspiring to remain in office despite losing the 2020 presidential election — whitewashed the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, when his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol as Congress met to count the electoral votes that would declare Joe Biden the winner.

“All they were doing is protesting a rigged election. And then the police say, ‘Go in, go in’” to the Capitol, he said of his supporters. “What a setup that was.”

[...] nearly 140 law enforcement officers were injured trying to keep the protesters out of the U.S. Capitol that day, according to official reports. There’s also no evidence the 2020 election was “rigged” or that Trump supporters were the victims of an FBI “setup.”

[...]

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who was appointed by Trump, addressed that discredited theory at a congressional hearing in November 2022. “To the extent that there’s a suggestion, for example, that the FBI’s confidential human sources or FBI employees in some way instigated or orchestrated January 6 — that’s categorically false,” Wray told Congress.

The notion that the 2020 presidential election was “rigged” is equally without merit.

William Barr, who served as the U.S. attorney general under Trump, told a House committee in testimony released June 13, 2022: “In my opinion then, and my opinion now, is that the election was not stolen by fraud, and I haven’t seen anything since the election that changes my mind on that.”

After the election, top White House aides and other Justice Department officials also told Trump there was no evidence of widespread fraud, but that hasn’t prevented Trump from repeating false fraud claims then and now.

Archived link

"The Stanford Internet Observatory continues its important work following the departure of founding director Alex Stamos under the leadership of faculty director Jeff Hancock, whose research program focuses on areas of trust, deception and online harms; social media and well-being; and, AI in human communication," theorganization says on its website.

"Stanford has not shut down or dismantled SIO as a result of outside pressure. SIO does, however, face funding challenges as its founding grants will soon be exhausted."

As a result, SIO continues to actively seek support for its research and teaching programs under new leadership.

GeoGPT, a big-data artificial intelligence project aimed at geoscientists and researchers particularly in the global south and built by the Chinese tech company Alibaba, aims at helping develop their understanding of earth sciences by drawing on swaths of data and research on billions of years of the planet’s history.

Now, Professor Paul H Cleverley, Geologist and Computer Scientist at the Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen, Scotland, says that he has found "serious issues around a lack of transparency, state censorship, and potential copyright infringement" that may not "align with the UNESCO’s recommendations on the ethics of AI".

Professir Cleverly writes:

During my testing, I found that the answers to some of my geoscience questions were state censored, which wasn’t always made clear. DDE [Deep-time Digital Earth, the first big-data project recognised by the International Union of Geological Sciences] is an international consortium with a governing body that includes geologists from across the globe, and aims to serve an international audience, yet virtually all DDE technology is developed, hosted and funded by sources in China [...], and the China Academy of Sciences cites DDE as critical for enhancing China’s capabilities of detecting and securing global resources [...]

Ethically, I argue strongly that any tool developed in the name of and for the international geological community should never be based on AI that could be subject to any government censorship.

GeoGPT does not currently attribute the source or authors for its answers., Professor Cleverley adds. "To not recognise the research contribution of geoscientists is unethical."

In a response to Professor Cleverley , DDE said that they "recognise that there are challenges in communication and governance that we are working to solve."

[Edit typo.]

• Vital Metals to sell materials stockpile to Saskatchewan group
• Deal supersedes agreement with China’s Shenghe Resources

Canada’s government will buy stockpiled rare earth materials from Vital Metals Ltd. in a deal that prevents the company from selling its production to a Chinese buyer.

The small Australian firm, which mines rare earths in Canada’s Northwest Territories, will sell its stockpiled rare earth material to the Saskatchewan Research Council for C$3 million ($2.2 million). The arrangement, facilitated by Canada’s federal government, keeps Vital from moving forward on a plan it started in December to sell that same stockpile to China’s Shenghe Resources Holding Co. for C$2.4 million ($1.7 million).

Canada recognizes the rare earths mine as a “strategic asset that contributes to the country’s prosperity and critical mineral goals,” Vital Metals said Monday.

The intervention is part of a wider push to block Chinese firms from delving further into Canada’s critical minerals sector. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government has warned it will closely scrutinize transactions between domestic mining companies and Chinese government-linked firms and only approve deals “on an exceptional basis.” In 2022, it ordered three Chinese investors to sell their stakes in a trio of Canadian lithium firms.

In May, Canadian copper miner Solaris Resources Inc. dropped a financing deal with a Chinese firm after the arrangement was subject to a lengthy national security review from the federal government.

Vital’s stockpiled material will go toward a rare earths processing facility being built by the Saskatchewan Research Council, which has made similar purchases. The government-run council previously signed an agreement to import rare earth carbonate from Hung Thinh Group, a Vietnamese minerals producer.

Facial recognition startup Clearview AI reached a settlement Friday in an Illinois lawsuit alleging its massive photographic collection of faces violated the subjects’ privacy rights, a deal that attorneys estimate could be worth more than $50 million.

But the unique agreement gives plaintiffs in the federal suit a share of the company’s potential value, rather than a traditional payout. Attorneys’ fees estimated at $20 million also would come out of the settlement amount.

It’s unclear how many people would be eligible to join the settlement. The agreement language is sweeping, including anyone whose images or data are in the company’s database and who lived in the U.S. starting in July 1, 2017. A national campaign to notify potential plaintiffs is part of the agreement.

A national campaign to notify potential plaintiffs is part of the agreement.

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, of the Northern District of Illinois, gave preliminary approval to the agreement Friday.

The case consolidated lawsuits from around the U.S. filed against Clearview, which pulled photos from social media and elsewhere on the internet to create a database it sold to businesses, individuals and government entities.

The company settled a separate case alleging violation of privacy rights in Illinois in 2022, agreeing to stop selling access to its database to private businesses or individuals. That agreement still allowed Clearview to work with federal agencies and local law enforcement outside Illinois, which has a strict digital privacy law.

Clearview does not admit any liability as part of the latest settlement agreement.

"Clearview AI is pleased to have reached an agreement in this class action settlement,” James Thompson, an attorney representing the company in the suit, said in a written statement Friday.

The lead plaintiffs’ attorney Jon Loevy said the agreement was a “creative solution” necessitated by Clearview’s financial status.

“Clearview did not have anywhere near the cash to pay fair compensation to the class, so we needed to find a creative solution,” Loevy said in a statement. “Under the settlement, the victims whose privacy was breached now get to participate in any upside that is ultimately generated, thereby recapturing to the class to some extent the ownership of their biometrics.”

It’s not clear how many people would be eligible to join the settlement. The agreement language is sweeping, including anyone whose images or data are in the company’s database and who lived in the U.S. starting in July 1, 2017.

A national campaign to notify potential plaintiffs is part of the agreement.

The attorneys for Clearview and the plaintiffs worked with Wayne Andersen, a retired federal judge who now mediates legal cases, to develop the settlement. In court filings presenting the agreement, Andersen bluntly writes that the startup could not have paid any legal judgment if the suit went forward.

“Clearview did not have the funds to pay a multi-million-dollar judgment,” he is quoted in the filing. “Indeed, there was great uncertainty as to whether Clearview would even have enough money to make it through to the end of trial, much less fund a judgment.”

But some privacy advocates and people pursuing other legal action called the agreement a disappointment that won’t change the company’s operations.

Sejal Zota is an attorney and legal director for Just Futures Law, an organization representing plaintiffs in a California suit against the company. Zota said the agreement “legitimizes” Clearview.

“It does not address the root of the problem,” Zota said. “Clearview gets to continue its practice of harvesting and selling people’s faces without their consent, and using them to train its AI tech.”

TikTok says it offered the US government the power to shut the platform down in an attempt to address lawmakers' data protection and national security concerns.

It disclosed the "kill switch" offer, which it made in 2022, as it began its legal fight against legislation that will ban the app in America unless Chinese parent company ByteDance sells it.

The law has been introduced because of concerns TikTok might share US user data with the Chinese government - claims it and ByteDance have always denied.

TikTok and ByteDance are urging the courts to strike the legislation down.

"This law is a radical departure from this country’s tradition of championing an open Internet, and sets a dangerous precedent allowing the political branches to target a disfavored speech platform and force it to sell or be shut down," they argued in their legal submission.

They also claimed the US government refused to engage in any serious settlement talks after 2022, and pointed to the "kill switch" offer as evidence of the lengths they had been prepared to go.

TikTok says the mechanism would have allowed the government the "explicit authority to suspend the platform in the United States at the US government's sole discretion" if it did not follow certain rules.

A draft "National Security Agreement", proposed by TikTok in August 2022, would have seen the company having to follow rules such as properly funding its data protection units and making sure that ByteDance did not have access to US users' data.

The "kill switch" could have been triggered by the government if it broke this agreement, it claimed.

In a letter - first reported by the Washington Post - addressed to the US Department of Justice, TikTok's lawyer alleges that the government "ceased any substantive negotiations" after the proposal of the new rules.

The letter, dated 1 April 2024, says the US government ignored requests to meet for further negotiations.

It also alleges the government did not respond to TikTok's invitation to "visit and inspect its Dedicated Transparency Center in Maryland".

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hold oral arguments on lawsuits filed by TikTok and ByteDance, along with TikTok users, in September.

Legislation signed in April by President Joe Biden gives ByteDance until January next year to divest TikTok's US assets or face a ban.

It was born of concerns that data belonging to the platform's 170 million US users could be passed on to the Chinese government.

TikTok denies that it shares foreign users' data with China and called the legislation an "unconstitutional ban" and affront to the US right to free speech.

It insists that US data does not leave the country, and is overseen by American company Oracle, in a deal which is called Project Texas.

However, a Wall Street Journal investigation in January 2024 found that some data was still being shared between TikTok in the US and ByteDance in China.

In May, a US government official told the Washington Post that "the solution proposed by the parties at the time would be insufficient to address the serious national security risks presented."

They added: "While we have consistently engaged with the company about our concerns and potential solutions, it became clear that divestment from its foreign ownership was and remains necessary."

Scientists described their “detective work” in the forests of Uganda - observing animals that appeared injured or sick to work out whether they were self-medicating with plants.

When an injured animal sought out something specific from the forest to eat, the researchers collected samples of that plant and had it analysed. Most of the plants tested turned out to have antibacterial properties.

The scientists, who published their findings in the journal PLOS One, think the chimps could even help in the search for new medicines.

"We can't test everything in these forests for their medicinal properties, lead researcher Dr Elodie Freymann, from the University of Oxford, said. “So why not test the plants that we have this information about - plants the chimps are seeking out?”

Over the past four years, Dr Freymann has spent months at a time following and carefully observing two communities of wild chimpanzees in Budongo Central Forest Reserve.

As well as looking for signs of pain - an animal limping or holding its body in an unusual way - she and her colleagues collected samples of droppings and urine to check for illness and infection.

They paid particular attention when an injured or ill chimpanzee sought out something they do not normally eat - such as tree bark or fruit skin.

“We were looking for these behavioural clues that the plants might be medicinal,” Dr Freymann explained.

She described one particular chimp - a male - that had a badly wounded hand.

"He wasn't using the hand to walk, he was limping,” she recalled. While the rest of this animal’s group were sitting around eating, the injured chimp limped away looking for ferns. “He was the only chimp to seek out and eat these ferns.”

The researchers collected and analysed the fern - a plant called Christella parasitica, which turned out to have potent anti-inflammatory properties.

In total, the researchers collected 17 samples from 13 different plant species and sent them to be tested by Dr Fabien Schultz, at the Neubrandenburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany.

That revealed that almost 90% of the extracts inhibited bacterial growth, and a third had natural anti-inflammatory properties, meaning they could reduce pain and promote healing.

All the injured and ill chimps reported in this study fully recovered, Dr Freymann was happy to report. “The one who ate ferns was using his hand again within the next few days,” she explained.

“Of course, we can't 100% prove that any of these cases were a direct result of eating these resources,” she told BBC News.

“But it highlights the medicinal knowledge that can be gained from observing other species in the wild and underscores the urgent need to preserve these ‘forest pharmacies’ for future generations.”

Archived version

Apple has a long-running history of guarding their walled garden by not allowing much interoperability with other standards that are the current norm in the industry, while also going on to reinvent, giving features a novel-sounding name.

Of course, the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA) has been successful in making Apple do things that they wouldn't ever do, if it weren't the law to do so.

However, Apple still does its best to gate keep developers who aren't their own, and one such recent incident caught my attention that involves their typical “my way or the highway” approach to things.

Apple Loves to Gatekeep: When Will They Stop?

Posted on X by the UTM project, they revealed that Apple rejected their application for publishing the UTM SE app after a two-month-long review process, citing that “Rule 4.7” of their App Review Guidelines didn't apply to it.

That rule is meant to allow game emulators, mini apps, chatbots, plugins, etc. to be published on the App Store.

The developers of UTM mention that Apple even went the extra step, and disallowed the publishing of UTM SE on third-party marketplaces. They added that:

The App Store Review Board determined that “PC is not a console” regardless of the fact that there are retro Windows/DOS games for the PC that UTM SE can be useful in running.

If you are not familiar, UTM is a QEMU-powered open-source emulator/virtual machine host for iOS and macOS, a popular tool to run alternative operating systems (such as ones based on Linux, or even Windows) on Apple devices.

There's more information in the linked article.

On March 7, 2024, Google inexplicably downranked the website of Tuta Mail in its search results. While Tuta Mail is a prominent provider of encrypted email services, focusing on security and privacy, our website was deranked for terms like “secure email” and “encrypted email” completely. The search results for our website was limited exclusively to so called “branded” search terms, e.g. search terms that included our brand name like Tuta, Tutanota, or Tutamail. In consequence, only people who already knew that Tuta existed were able to find our website via Google Search – any new potential customers were not able to find our encrypted email solution.

Faced with this immense problem with Google Search and a drop in visibility of the Tuta website by ~90% in Google's search results, we tried to get in touch with Google, both through official channels and on social media, but in vain. So on April 24, we submitted a formal complaint to the EU so that the EU could investigate whether Google’s actions in downranking a direct competitor violates the newly issued Digital Markets Act (DMA). We welcome the fact that the EU has already started an investigation against Google, Apple, and Meta in regards to whether these big tech companies are sufficiently complying with the DMA regulation. Not being legal experts here, but what Google has been doing to our website and what Apple is doing with their new App store policy for app developers, seem like obvious examples of malicious compliance.

An artificial intelligence-powered chatbot created by New York City to help small business owners is under criticism for dispensing bizarre advice that misstates local policies and advises companies to violate the law.

But days after the issues were first reported last week by tech news outlet The Markup, the city has opted to leave the tool on its official government website. Mayor Eric Adams defended the decision this week even as he acknowledged the chatbot’s answers were “wrong in some areas.”

Launched in October as a “one-stop shop” for business owners, the chatbot offers users algorithmically generated text responses to questions about navigating the city’s bureaucratic maze.

It includes a disclaimer that it may “occasionally produce incorrect, harmful or biased” information and the caveat, since-strengthened, that its answers are not legal advice.

In responses to questions posed Wednesday, the chatbot falsely suggested it is legal for an employer to fire a worker who complains about sexual harassment, doesn’t disclose a pregnancy or refuses to cut their dreadlocks. Contradicting two of the city’s signature waste initiatives, it claimed that businesses can put their trash in black garbage bags and are not required to compost.

At times, the bot’s answers veered into the absurd. Asked if a restaurant could serve cheese nibbled on by a rodent, it responded: “Yes, you can still serve the cheese to customers if it has rat bites,” before adding that it was important to assess the “the extent of the damage caused by the rat” and to “inform customers about the situation.”

A spokesperson for Microsoft, which powers the bot through its Azure AI services, said the company was working with city employees “to improve the service and ensure the outputs are accurate and grounded on the city’s official documentation.”

At a press conference Tuesday, Adams, a Democrat, suggested that allowing users to find issues is just part of ironing out kinks in new technology.

“Anyone that knows technology knows this is how it’s done,” he said. “Only those who are fearful sit down and say, ‘Oh, it is not working the way we want, now we have to run away from it all together.’ I don’t live that way.”

Stoyanovich called that approach “reckless and irresponsible.”

Scientists have long voiced concerns about the drawbacks of these kinds of large language models, which are trained on troves of text pulled from the internet and prone to spitting out answers that are inaccurate and illogical.

But as the success of ChatGPT and other chatbots have captured the public attention, private companies have rolled out their own products, with mixed results. Earlier this month, a court ordered Air Canada to refund a customer after a company chatbot misstated the airline’s refund policy. Both TurboTax and H&R Block have faced recent criticism for deploying chatbots that give out bad tax-prep advice.

Jevin West, a professor at the University of Washington and co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public, said the stakes are especially high when the models are promoted by the public sector.

“There’s a different level of trust that’s given to government,” West said. “Public officials need to consider what kind of damage they can do if someone was to follow this advice and get themselves in trouble.”

Experts say other cities that use chatbots have typically confined them to a more limited set of inputs, cutting down on misinformation.

Ted Ross, the chief information officer in Los Angeles, said the city closely curated the content used by its chatbots, which do not rely on large language models.

The pitfalls of New York’s chatbot should serve as a cautionary tale for other cities, said Suresh Venkatasubramanian, the director of the Center for Technological Responsibility, Reimagination, and Redesign at Brown University.

“It should make cities think about why they want to use chatbots, and what problem they are trying to solve,” he wrote in an email. “If the chatbots are used to replace a person, then you lose accountability while not getting anything in return.”

NewsGuard audit finds that 32% of the time, leading AI chatbots spread Russian disinformation narratives created by John Mark Dougan, an American fugitive now operating from Moscow, citing his fake local news sites and fabricated claims on YouTube as reliable sources.

The audit tested 10 of the leading AI chatbots — OpenAI’s ChatGPT-4, You.com’s Smart Assistant, xAI’s Grok, Inflection’s Pi, Mistral’s le Chat, Microsoft’s Copilot, Meta AI, Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and Perplexity’s answer engine. The prompts were based on 19 significant false narratives that NewsGuard linked to the Russian disinformation network: 152 of the 570 responses contained explicit disinformation, 29 responses repeated the false claim with a disclaimer, and 389 responses contained no misinformation — either because the chatbot refused to respond (144) or it provided a debunk (245).

The findings come amid the first election year featuring widespread use of artificial intelligence, as bad actors are weaponizing new publicly available technology to generate deepfakes, AI-generated news sites, and fake robocalls. The results demonstrate how, despite efforts by AI companies to prevent the misuse of their chatbots ahead of worldwide elections, AI remains a potent tool for propagating disinformation.

Prenatal screening for neurological conditions has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past couple of decades. Technology including genetic analysis, neuroimaging, and high-resolution foetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are allowing doctors to peer into the nervous systems of developing foetuses and already diagnose them – earlier and more frequently – with any life-altering conditions they'll experience once born. But throughout this advancement, there hasn't been much doctors could do about those diagnoses until the child emerged from the womb. And a significant portion of crucial brain development happens long before a child is born.

Now, a new wave of pioneering in-utero neuroscience therapies are helping to change that. Several seminal trials are underway to test both surgical and medical treatments allowing doctors to reverse conditions in babies before they are born. And the field is "right on the precipice" of a whole new dimension of therapies, says Jeffrey Russ, a pediatric neurologist at Duke University who recently wrote an academic essay describing in-utero treatment as the "next frontier" in neurology.