SoylentNews

gznork26 writes:

From ScienceBlog: A comprehensive analysis of 24 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) has uncovered a significant left-of-center bias in their responses to politically charged questions. The study, published in PLOS ONE, sheds light on the potential political leanings embedded within AI systems that are increasingly shaping our digital landscape.

The underlying paper at PLOS One: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0306621

The researcher used a variety of tests of political alignment to assess the bias of some Large Language Models (LLMs) and found that they exhibited a left-of-center bias. To discover whether that bias can be affected by changing the training data, versions of LLMs were trained on selected sources, producing biases to order.

Here's a question for the community: Is the 'centerpoint' of political bias, as judged by these tests, arbitrary and reflective of the gamut of bias that is accepted as normal at this time? Is that centerpoint an absolute that can be used as a reference, or is it simply an artifact of how the political universe is currently understood? It seems to me that the phase space it exists in is limited by the kinds of political organizations which are preset in the world today, and that there might be valid solutions which have not yet been explored.

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The company’s latest Cost of a Data Breach report found that severe staffing shortages are linked to higher data breach costs, while AI is being used to significantly reduce the average cost of a breach.

[...] The company’s latest report found that the global average cost of a data breach from March 2023 to February 2024 was $4.88m, an increase of 10pc compared to the previous year. IBM attributed the cost spike to lost business as a result of a breach, along with post-breach customer and third-party response costs.

The latest Cost of a Data Breach report also shows that the impacts of data breaches are becoming more severe for businesses, as 70pc of breached organisations reported that a breach caused significant or very significant disruptions. The after-effects are also rising, as recovery takes more than 100 days for most of the breached organisations that were able to fully recover.

Nearly half of all breaches involved customer personal identifiable information, which can include tax identification numbers, emails, phone numbers and home addresses. Breaches involving stolen or compromised credentials took the longest to identify and contain of any attack vector, taking an average of 292 days.

Kevin Skapinetz, IBM Security VP of strategy and product design, said businesses are caught in a “continuous cycle of breaches, containment and fallout response”.

“This cycle now often includes investments in strengthening security defences and passing breach expenses on to consumers – making security the new cost of doing business,” Skapinetz said.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

An international team of scientists, including two researchers who now work in the Center for Advanced Sensor Technology (CAST) at UMBC, has shown that twisted carbon nanotubes can store three times more energy per unit mass than advanced lithium-ion batteries. The finding may advance carbon nanotubes as a promising solution for storing energy in devices that need to be lightweight, compact, and safe, such as medical implants and sensors. The research was published recently in the journal Nature Nanotechnology.

[...] The researchers studied single-walled carbon nanotubes, which are like straws made from pure carbon sheets only 1-atom thick. Carbon nanotubes are lightweight, relatively easy to manufacture, and about 100 times stronger than steel. Their amazing properties have led scientists to explore their potential use in a wide range of futuristic-sounding technology, including space elevators.

To investigate carbon nanotubes' potential for storing energy, the UMBC researchers and their colleagues manufactured carbon nanotube "ropes" from bundles of commercially available nanotubes. After pulling and twisting the tubes into a single thread, the researchers then coated them with different substances intended to increase the ropes' strength and flexibility.

The team tested how much energy the ropes could store by twisting them up and measuring the energy that was released as the ropes unwound. They found that the best-performing ropes could store 15,000 times more energy per unit mass than steel springs, and about three times more energy than lithium-ion batteries.

The stored energy remains consistent and accessible at temperatures ranging from -76 to +212 °F (-60 to +100 °C). The materials in the carbon nanotube ropes are also safer for the human body than those used in batteries.

"Humans have long stored energy in mechanical coil springs to power devices such as watches and toys," Kumar Ujjain says. "This research shows twisted carbon nanotubes have great potential for mechanical energy storage, and we are excited to share the news with the world."

Journal information: Nature Nanotechnology

Original Submission

Freeman writes:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/07/reddit-ceo-stands-by-change-that-blocks-most-non-google-search-engines/

Reddit CEO Steve Huffman is standing by Reddit's decision to block companies from scraping the site without an AI agreement.

Last week, 404 Media noticed that search engines that weren't Google were no longer listing recent Reddit posts in results. This was because Reddit updated its Robots Exclusion Protocol (txt file) to block bots from scraping the site. The file reads: "Reddit believes in an open Internet, but not the misuse of public content." Since the news broke, OpenAI announced SearchGPT, which can show recent Reddit results.
[...]
In an interview with The Verge today, Huffman stood by the changes that led to Google temporarily being the only search engine able to show recent discussions from Reddit. Reddit and Google signed an AI training deal in February said to be worth $60 million a year. It's unclear how much Reddit's OpenAI deal is worth.
[...]
Per The Verge, Huffman claimed that Microsoft, Anthropic, and Perplexity haven't been negotiating. The three companies haven't commented on Huffman's interview.

"[It's been] a real pain in the ass to block these companies," Huffman told The Verge.
[...]
A Microsoft spokesperson told me last week that "Microsoft respects the robots.txt standard and we honor the directions provided by websites that do not want content on their pages to be used with our generative AI models."
[...]
Huffman also reportedly made reference to a June CNBC interview where Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, said: "I think that with respect to content that is already on the open web, the social contract of that content since the '90s has been that it is fair use. Anyone can copy it, re-create with it, reproduce with it. That has been freeware, if you like. That's been the understanding." Suleyman added that his comment didn't refer to certain types of web content, like news organizations.

"We've had Microsoft, Anthropic, and Perplexity act as though all of the content on the internet is free for them to use. That's their real position," Huffman said.

Related stories on SoylentNews:
Reddit Faces New Reality After Cashing in on its IPO - 20240328
Reddit Aims for $6.4bn Valuation Ahead of Initial Public Offering - 20240313
Reddit Sells Training Data to Unnamed AI Company Ahead of IPO - 20240223
Reddit is Removing Ability to Opt Out of Ad Personalization Based on Your Activity on the Platform - 20231004
Reddit Beats Film Industry, Won't Have to Identify Users Who Admitted Torrenting - 20230803
No Apologies as Reddit Halfheartedly Tries to Repair Ties With Moderators - 20230722
Ongoing Reddit Woes: Blackout Explained, Threatened Hacker Leak, Creative Continuing Protests - 20230620
Reddit Rollup: IPO Dreams and Developer Discontent - 20230612

Original Submission

Subsentient writes:

CrowdStrike has sent a DMCA takedown notice to parody site ClownStrike, a clear abuse of United States copyright law, as the site in question is undoubtably covered by fair use in United States copyright law. Editor: See first link for more detail.

It is unfortunately well known that the DMCA is used by corporate cyberbullies to take down content that they disagree with; but, is otherwise legal. The Counternotice system is also hillariously ineffective. The DMCA requires service providers to "act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the infringing material;" yet, it gives those same "service providers" 14 days to restore access in the event of a counternotice! The DMCA, like much American legislation, is heavily biased towards corporations, instead of the actual, living, breathing, citizens of the country.

It's absolutely asinine and I would love absolutely nothing more than to have a lawsuit "win" against CrowdStrike. That would be absolutely amazing for marketing! Especially given the timing of such events...

Additionally, using the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to attempt to takedown a parody site for Trademark Infringement is absolutely hillarious.

There are several ways that anyone is allowed to use a trademark belonging to "others." This is considered "Fair Use." Fair Use is an important aspect of trademark and copyright law. It is a right to use trademarks and copyrighted works for parody, criticism, transformative works, news reporting / journalism, education, etc. Corporate cyberbullies don't like that anyone else has rights. Again, I don't care, because the only thing that matters is the law, and what a court thinks about it.

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

Motion at speeds beyond the speed of light is one of the most controversial issues in physics. Hypothetical particles that could move at superluminal speeds, called tachyons (from the Greek tachýs — fast, quick), are the ‘enfant terrible’ of modern physics. Until recently, they were widely regarded as creations that do not fit into the special theory of relativity.

At least three reasons for the non-existence of tachyons within quantum theory were known so far. The first: the ground state of the tachyon field was supposed to be unstable, which would mean that such superluminal particles would form `avalanches’. The second: a change in the inertial observer was supposed to lead to a change in the number of particles observed in his reference system, yet the existence of, say, seven particles cannot depend on who is looking at them. The third reason: the energy of the superluminal particles could take on negative values.

[...] It turned out that the ‘boundary conditions’ that determine the course of physical processes include not only the initial state but also the final state of the system. The results of the international team of researchers have just been published in the prestigious journal Physical Review D.

To put it simply: in order to calculate the probability of a quantum process involving tachyons, it is necessary to know not only its past initial state but also its future final state. Once this fact was incorporated into the theory, all the difficulties mentioned earlier completely disappeared and tachyon theory became mathematically consistent. “It’s a bit like internet advertising — one simple trick can solve your problems,” says Andrzej Dragan, chief inspirer of the whole research endeavor.

“The idea that the future can influence the present instead of the present determining the future is not new in physics. However, until now, this type of view has at best been an unorthodox interpretation of certain quantum phenomena, and this time we were forced to this conclusion by the theory itself. To ‘make room’ for tachyons we had to expand the state space,” concludes Dragan.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The AI Act is finally here and big changes are on the way. Here are the key details of the Act and the tips businesses should heed before its full arrival.

The EU’s AI Act – its landmark regulation to rein in the growing power of artificial intelligence – has officially entered into force today (1 August), heralding big changes for Big Tech.

The Act has been in development for years, being first discussed in 2021 and altered in recent years with the sudden rise of generative AI technology. The Act has also been put under heavy scrutiny – challenges from member states towards the end of 2023 made it seem like the Act could collapse before coming to fruition.

But after delays, adjustments and multiple landslide votes, the AI Act is finally here. The changes won’t be felt immediately – it will be years until all of the rules come into effect – but this will give businesses and member states time to prepare for the Act’s full arrival.

Simply put, the AI Act is an attempt to balance managing the risks of this technology while letting the EU benefit from its potential. It has been argued that this is the most robust and detailed form of AI regulation in the world, which could influence legislation in other parts of the world.

The Act is designed to regulate AI technology through a risk-based approach – the riskier an AI application is, the more rules that apply to it. Minimum risk systems such as spam filters and recommender systems do not face any obligations under the AI Act.

Meanwhile, high-risk applications such as AI systems used for recruitment, AI-based loan assessments or autonomous robots will face much stricter requirements, including human oversight, high-quality data sets and cybersecurity. Some systems are banned entirely, such as emotion recognition systems used at the workplace.

The AI Act also introduces rules for “general-purpose AI models”, which are highly capable AI models that are designed to perform a wide variety of tasks such as generating human-like text – think ChatGPT and similar chatbots.

Just to give you advance notice that the continual problem with the renewal of SSL certificates is due to occur on Monday 5 Aug.

Nobody in the new team has the necessary access nor knowledge of the current hardware configuration, and control remains with NCommander. The transfer of assets has been initiated but as one of the two members of the current Board is out of the country everything has temporarily ground to a halt. We cannot reconfigure the existing structure as legally we do not yet 'own' the database or existing hardware assets.

I have requested that NCommander assist by renewing the certificates but that depends upon his availability. He has been kind enough to help in the past. There is nothing more I can do at the moment.

I know that this is easily fixed - but until the formal exchange of the assets takes place we are on very shaky ground with regards to liabilities and responsibilities.

owl writes:

https://coldwar-ct.com/Home_Page_S1DO.html

The Cheshire ATT facility is an underground complex originally built in 1966. It was an underground terminal and repeater station for the hardened analog L4 carrier cable (coax) that went from Miami to New England carrying general toll circuits and critical military communication circuits. It reportedly housed an AUTOVON 4-wire switch as part of the switching fabric of that critical global military communications network. Cheshire also connected via terrestrial microwave to the major, semi-hardened AT&T Durham station which linked to many other sites including paths to New London (Navy Sub base) and to Green Hill, RI to meet a transatlantic cable to Europe.

Original Submission

Freeman writes:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/amazon-forced-to-recall-400k-products-that-could-kill-electrocute-people/

Amazon failed to adequately alert more than 300,000 customers to serious risks—including death and electrocution—that US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) testing found with more than 400,000 products that third parties sold on its platform.
[...]
Instead of recalling the products, which were sold between 2018 and 2021, Amazon sent messages to customers that the CPSC said "downplayed the severity" of hazards.

In these messages—"despite conclusive testing that the products were hazardous" by the CPSC—Amazon only warned customers that the products "may fail" to meet federal safety standards and only "potentially" posed risks of "burn injuries to children," "electric shock," or "exposure to potentially dangerous levels of carbon monoxide."

Typically, a distributor would be required to specifically use the word "recall" in the subject line of these kinds of messages, but Amazon dodged using that language entirely.
[...]
The CPSC has additional concerns about Amazon's "insufficient" remedies. It is particularly concerned that anyone who received the products as a gift or bought them on the secondary market likely was not informed of serious known hazards. The CPSC found that Amazon resold faulty hair dryers and carbon monoxide detectors, proving that secondary markets for these products exist.

"Amazon has made no direct attempt to reach consumers who obtained the hazardous products as gifts, hand-me-downs, donations, or on the secondary market," the CPSC said.
[...]
After the CPSC's testing, Amazon stopped allowing these products to be listed on its platform, but that and other remedies were deemed insufficient. So, over the next two months, to protect the public, Amazon must now make a plan to "provide notice of the product hazards to purchasers and the public" and "incentivize the removal of these hazardous products from consumers' homes," the CPSC ordered.
[...]
To make up for "significant deficiencies" in Amazon's initial messaging, mandatory recall notices will likely include "a description of the product (including a photograph), hazard, injuries, deaths, action being taken, and remedy," provide "relevant dates and number of units" sold, and specifically use "the word 'recall' in the heading and text," the CPSC said.

Amazon's spokesperson told Ars that "in the event of a product recall in our store, we remove impacted products promptly after receiving actionable information from recalling agencies, and we continue to seek ways to innovate on behalf of our customers."

"Our recalls alerts service also ensures our customers are notified of important product safety information fast, and the recalls process is effective and efficient," Amazon's spokesperson said.

Customers can keep up with Amazon recalls in a designated safety alert section of its website.

Original Submission

fliptop writes:

Automakers accelerating release of upgraded models, unlike typical 5-year cycle for gasoline cars; Hyundai introduces updated Ioniq 5, and BYD will soon unveil refreshed SEAL; how will this impact used car market?

In recent weeks, two refreshed car models have been launched: Hyundai's Ioniq 5 and BYD's SEAL. Both models, introduced in 2021 and 2022 respectively, are receiving significant updates ahead of the typical five-year facelift cycle. This global automotive industry standard generally involves cosmetic upgrades to keep cars relevant.

However, these updates are more than just aesthetic. The Hyundai Ioniq 5 now features a substantial battery upgrade, increasing from 72.6 kWh to 84 kWh. This enhancement boosts the top model's range from 480 km to over 550 km. Other upgrades include new wheel designs and interior materials, but the major improvements lie beneath the surface.

[...] These updates reflect a broader trend among electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers, who have announced major enhancements to existing models. Unlike mid-life upgrades in gasoline cars, which often focus on superficial enhancements like sound systems and wheel designs, EV upgrades are core technological improvements. This trend is driven by several factors.

[...] Recent trends in the used EV market show that the introduction of significantly upgraded models or superior competing models can deter buyers unless substantial discounts are offered. The new Ioniq 5's increased range and the SEAL's faster charging capabilities could negatively affect the resale value of older models.

Related:

• Auto Woes
• EU Battery Passport - Lifetime Record of BEV and Other Large Li Batteries
• "Corolla Killer:" BYD Launches $US15,000 EV in Direct Attack on Legacy Makers
• A Chinese EV Squeezed 650 Miles Of Range From Its 150 kWh Battery
• Why are All the EVs so Expensive?

Original Submission

canopic jug writes:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has has commented on the a draft of an International Convention on Countering the Use of Information and Communications Technologies for Criminal Purposes:

EFF's Key Concerns

The Title of the Draft Convention is Misleading and Problematic: Cybercrime is a real issue but equating it with any crime involving ICTs is conceptually and practically harmful. Recent efforts at the domestic level to broaden its definition have led to the criminalization of legitimate activities, such as online criticism, religious expression, or LGBTQ support. In the proposed treaty, it encourages expansive interpretations that could lead to human rights abuses and transnational repression. Recommendation: Restrict the definition to "core cybercrimes" like technical attacks on computers, devices, data, and communications systems. Exclude human rights-protected activities from the scope of the treaty to prevent misuse and ensure these rights are not unjustly targeted due to equating cybercrime with any crime using ICT.

Expansive Scope and Over-Criminalization Risks: The draft Convention's criminalization chapter dangerously broadens its scope by including crimes like "grooming" and CSAM, not just cybercrimes. Its CSAM definition risks criminalizing consensual conduct between minors. Even worse, a proposed Protocol could add two more Ad Hoc sessions to discuss even more crimes, further expanding its broad scope. Recommendation : Criminalization must be limited to Articles 7 to 11. Narrow the scope of the CSAM article to target only intentional, malicious actions, exclude from criminalization consensual activity between minors, make exemptions for self-generated content by minors mandatory, ensure financing provisions target only those knowingly involved in illegal activities, and exclude the public interest use of such materials, such as evidence in crime investigations, and scientific or artistic materials.

The organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) already weighed in back in January with similar concerns.

Original Submission

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

US border agents must obtain a warrant, in New York at least, to search anyone's phone and other electronic device when traveling in or out of the country, another federal judge has ruled.

Judge Nina Morrison of the Eastern District of New York issued a decision [PDF] last week that Customs and Border Patrol ([CBP]) officials need a warrant to search citizens and non-citizens' electronics in all but the most exceptional of circumstances. 

"It is one thing for courts to give border officials the authority to briefly detain and question air travelers and search their physical belongings," Judge Morrison opined. "But it is an entirely different matter for courts to exempt those agents from the Fourth Amendment's probable cause and warrant requirements in the vastly more intrusive context of a cellphone search."

The case in question involved the detention and questioning of naturalized US citizen Kurbonali Sultanov at New York's John F. Kennedy airport in March 2022 on suspicion he was in possession of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). After being told by CBP officers that he had no choice but to give them access to his phone, Sultanov provided his password and allowed officers to search his device. 

Based on a cursory search, and comments Sultanov made to CBP, officers obtained a warrant to search two additional phones found in his possession, leading to his indictment on alleged possession of CSAM.

The judge's decision last week pertained to Sultanov's request to suppress both the contents of his phones found in the search and his comments to CBP. The former was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, Sultanov argued, while entering his statements into evidence violated his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. 

Morrison decided that, while the government was wrong to perform its initial search of Sultanov's phone without a warrant, the evidence would be allowed to stand "because the search warrant was issued and executed in good faith." 

Because Sultanov is not a native English speaker who was unable to be properly informed of his Miranda rights, Morrison decided to strike his comments from evidence. 

hubie writes:

Elimination of most Next Generation Internet funding 'incomprehensible,' says OW2 CEO Pierre-Yves Gibello:

Funding for free and open source software (FOSS) initiatives under the EU's Horizon program has mostly vanished from next year's proposal, claim advocates who are worried for the future of many ongoing projects.

Pierre-Yves Gibello, CEO of open-source consortium OW2, urged EU officials to re-evaluate the elimination of funding for the Next Generation Internet (NGI) initiative from its draft of 2025 Horizon funding programs in a recently published open letter. Gibello said the EU's focus on enterprise-level FOSS is essential as the US, China and Russia mobilize "huge public and private resources" toward capturing the personal data of consumers, which the EU's regulatory regime has decided isn't going to fly in its territory.

FOSS software, Gibello argued, is key to protecting European interests from the data-guzzling economy that's grown up elsewhere, which is why he's perplexed at the decision not to fund NGI.

"We find this transformation incomprehensible, moreover when NGI has proven efficient and economical to support free software as a whole, from the smallest to the most established initiative," Gibello said.

"Contrary to common perception, technical innovations often originate from European rather than North American programming communities, and are mostly initiated by small-scaled organizations," he added.

The NGI initiative has taken to its own defense as well, releasing an impact report on the program last week which aligns with Gibello's claims.

[...] The funding that Gibello is concerned about losing comes from the EU's massive Horizon program that kicked off in 2020 to fund technological and scientific research in the bloc, of which NGI is just a small portion.

Horizon funding has been doled out multiple times since the program began. NGI has received tens of millions of euros over the past few years under Cluster 4 of the program, which doles out cash for digital, industry and space projects.

Gibello told us that NGI is mentioned in two sections of the 2025 Horizon Europe Maine Work Programme, which is still being hammered out and isn't publicly available: Driving the evolution of the internet toward "open and interoperable Web 4.0 and virtual worlds," and support for the Virtual Worlds Partnership and Web 4.0 initiative.

"The new proposal says nothing about community building, commons, and civil rights. And has no ambition with regards to the overall internet infrastructure," Gibello said in an emailed statement. "It is just 'Horizon as usual,' with always the same large academics and companies obtaining grants - then pouring a few nuts to feed the ecosystem monkeys."

Those monkeys being "the ones who provide them their infrastructure software and collaboration tools," Gibello added.

[...] "Our French [Horizon national contact point] was told - as an unofficial answer - that because lots of budget are allocated to AI, there is not much left for Internet infrastructure," Gibello said.

Original Submission

Freeman writes:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/07/logitech-has-an-idea-for-a-forever-mouse-thatrequires-a-subscription/

Logitech CEO Hanneke Faber recently discussed the possibility of one day selling a mouse that customers can use "forever." The executive said such a mouse isn't "necessarily super far away" and will rely on software updates, likely delivered through a subscription model.

Speaking on a July 29 episode of The Verge's Decoder podcast, Faber, who Logitech appointed as CEO in October, said that members of a "Logitech innovation center" showed her "a forever mouse" and compared it to a nice but not "super expensive" watch.
[...]
Speaking with Faber, Decoder host and Verge Editor-in-Chief Nilay Patel suggested that a "forever mouse" could cost $200. While that would be expensive compared to the typical mouse, such a product wouldn't be the first software-heavy, three-figure-price computer mouse. Still, a price tag of around $200 would limit the audience to professionals or enthusiasts.
[...]
Alternatively, the price of the mouse's hardware could be subsidized by subscription payments.

In any case, pushing out software updates would require Logitech to convince its customers to use an app to control their mouse. Such software can offer a lot of programmability and macro support, but the need to constantly run peripheral software could be a nuisance that eats up computer resources. Earlier this year, users complained when Logitech added a ChatGPT launcher to its peripherals.
[...]
Faber said subscription software updates would mean that people wouldn't need to worry about their mouse.
[...]
Having to pay a regular fee for full use of a peripheral could deter customers, though. HP is trying a similar idea with rentable printers that require a monthly fee.
[...]
Logitech already sells parts for self-repairs of some of its mice and other gadgets through iFixit. This shop could be expanded to feature more parts, offer more guides, and support more products.

A "forever mouse" would also benefit from a design with self-repairability in mind. Features like hot-swappability for mouse button switches for upgrades/repairs; easily replaceable shells, wheels, and feet; detachable cables; and customization options—all accompanied by readily available parts and guides—could go a long way toward making a mouse that fits users' long-term needs.

Original Submission