Mediaboss Marketing

ADA, Okla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--PPLSI, the parent company of LegalShield and IDShield, protects and empowers people with the tools and services needed to affordably live a just and secure life, announces the acquisition of yourself.online, an industry-leading AI based service providing privacy and reputation management tools for social media and online accounts.

Austin headquartered technology company, yourself.online was founded in 2018 by two former Google employees, James Chance and Dimitrios Mistriotis, after recognizing how old social media posts and online accounts can damage an individuals reputation and negatively impact opportunities in life.

Yourself.online began partnering with IDShield in 2020 by offering online reputation management and social media monitoring to IDShields more than a million members.

The sophisticated technological approach to social media monitoring that yourself.online created perfectly complements the services we provide our members, said Jeff Bell, CEO of PPLSI. We want people to feel empowered using the internet and to trust their privacy and personas are constantly monitored and protected. The benefit of this tool is the best of both worlds, it keeps you safe and gives you awareness about the perception of your online profile.

The acquisition provides IDShield the opportunity to continue expanding the brands identity, privacy, security and reputation management capabilities, strengthened by yourself.onlines founders, engineering and business teams which will join PPLSI.

After partnering with PPLSI, we found both companies shared a strong common purpose of empowering individuals to have greater control and understanding of the information they share online, ensuring equal access to opportunities. My team and I are excited to continue innovating to help people with their reputation and broader online life, said James Chance, founder of yourself.online.

Yourself.onlines technology scans social media platforms and helps people automatically find and delete old social media posts, photos and videos that can damage their online reputation. Posts and images are reviewed using AI based technologies and flagged for review, along with recommendations and proactive steps to improve and manage profiles, reputation, and privacy settings. The service continues to scan accounts and notifies the person of any changes to their online reputation.

The reputation management services offered by IDShield and yourself.online are essential for todays digital age, especially those seeking employment, business networking, applying to colleges and universities and online dating.

A survey by CareerBuilder found 70 percent of employers use social media to screen candidates before hiring, and 54 percent of employers surveyed chose not to hire a candidate based on content found on their social media profiles. Additionally, a 2020 survey by Kaplan revealed 36 percent of nearly 300 college admissions officers polled visit the applicants social media profiles to learn more about them.

IDShields Family Plan allows you to monitor the social media accounts for a member, spouse or partner and dependent children under the age of 18. The plan monitors up to 10 accounts for covered minors. Visit IDShield Plans and Pricing to see a full list of privacy, security, and monitoring benefits for individuals, families, and businesses.

About IDShieldIDShield, a PPLSI cybersecurity brand, exists to empower a better tomorrow with identity theft solutions, privacy, and reputation management services for individuals and families. Named Best for Families and Best Overall by Forbes (2021), Best for Restoration by Money.com (2021), and recipient of the Cyber Security Excellence Gold Award (2021), were making protection personal by offering plans customized to meet your online security needs with one-on-one consultation by professionals at your fingertips. Today, were helping over a million members navigate the conveniences and challenges of modern life without giving up their privacy. To learn more about our platform, plans and benefits, visit IDShield.com and PPLSI.com.

About PPLSIA champion of equal access to justice and security, PPLSI has provided individuals, families, businesses, and employers with the tools and services needed to live a just and secure life for 49 years. Under PPLSI, our consumer brand, LegalShield, is disrupting the legal services industry by giving everyone the resources and tools to affordably find their justice. We are transforming the traditional way of receiving legal guidance and services and providing qualified, trusted attorneys and law firms in the palm of your hands. Our security brand, IDShield, specializes in privacy and reputation management and protects your online data and information. To learn more about PPLSI and our brands and products that currently improve and empower 4.5 million individuals and 140,000 businesses across North America, visit PPLSI.com, LegalShield.com and IDShield.com.

View post:
PPLSI Acquires Austin-Based Tech Company yourself.online to Expand Social Media, Privacy and Reputation Management Capabilities - Business Wire

The Tim logo is seen at its headquarters in Rome, Italy November 22, 2021. REUTERS/Yara Nardi

Register

MILAN, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Telecom Italia's (TIM) top shareholder Vivendi (VIV.PA) is open to discussing the possibility that the Italian government wins control of TIM's fixed-line network, a spokesperson for the French company said on Sunday.

The statement marks a shift in the stance of the French media group as TIM's investors get ready to evaluate a 10.8 billion euro ($12.2 billion) takeover plan presented by U.S. fund KKR (KKR.N) for TIM.

Until now the French group has dragged its feet on the possibility that Rome gains control over TIM's fixed network.

Register

A spokesperson for the French media group told Reuters that Vivendi was interested in any solution that "promoted the efficiency and modernity of the network, while preserving the value of its investment".

"In this perspective, the hypothesis of a state control of the network, if it could lead to an institutionally guided strategic project, will certainly be evaluated with openness," the spokesperson added.

TIM's fixed line business provides Italy's main telecoms infrastructure and plays a major role in broadband rollout efforts on which Rome plans to spend billions of euros of European Union funds to improve coverage.

State investor CDP has taken a 10% stake in TIM to oversee the network and is expected to play a key role in any plans to carve out the grid.

($1 = 0.8839 euros)

Register

Reporting by Elvira Pollina and Francesca Landini; writing by Francesca Landini; editing by David Evans

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

See original here:
Vivendi is open to discuss with Rome over state control on TIM's network - Reuters

New twists in the timeline

Digital World, the special purpose acquisition company that struck a deal to merge with former President Donald Trumps media venture, revealed yesterday that it was under investigation by the S.E.C. The disclosure came as the SPAC filed to raise as much as $1 billion in a deal that would be completed shortly after it combined with Trump Media & Technology Group.

The Timess Matthew Goldstein, David Enrich and Michael Schwirtz have uncovered other details about Trump Medias SPAC deal, which could explain the scrutiny that it faces.

Digital Worlds C.E.O. met with Trumps representatives to talk about a deal in April, five months before the SPAC sold shares to investors. Patrick Orlando, the Digital World chief, was also running other SPACs at the time, and its unclear which he was representing on the videoconference, which The Times was first to report. The chief legal officer for Trump Media said that the call was strictly discussions between the company and Benessere, another SPAC that Orlando ran.

SPACs are allowed to sell their shares to the public with limited disclosures, as long as they dont have any acquisitions already in the works. In a September filing, Digital World stated that the company and its executives had not engaged in any substantive discussions, directly or indirectly, with a target company.

The S.E.C. is asking questions about the Trump Media merger. Digital World said that the agency had requested information on investors in the deal and communications it had with representatives of Trumps company. The S.E.C. has voiced concerns about SPACs in general, but it hasnt been very active in policing them, said Thomas Gorman, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney who spent seven years at the agency.

The regulator has never charged a SPAC for planning a deal before selling shares, Gorman told DealBook, but the punishment for doing so could be harsh. The deal will likely collapse if the S.E.C. sues, Gorman said.

A financier behind Digital World could also face scrutiny. ARC Group, a Shanghai-based firm that tried its hand at several businesses before settling on SPACs, is a main backer of Digital World and also participated in the April videoconference call. ARC initially favored a merger with Benessere, but executives at that SPAC didnt want to do business with Trump. ARC then turned to Digital World, where it had recently installed Orlando as C.E.O.

ARC has had run-ins with the S.E.C. before: The agency prevented it from listing three companies in 2017, citing material misstatements.

Trump Media is pushing ahead. Last night, Representative Devin Nunes, a California Republican and prominent Trump supporter, said he was quitting Congress to lead the venture. On Monday, the company projected it would have 81 million users by 2026 for its social media network, named Truth Social, and another 40 million paid users for a proposed streaming service.

Evergrande is on the brink of default. Bondholders of the embattled Chinese real estate developer said they havent been paid after a deadline for $82 million in debt passed yesterday. Chinese regulators, who have stepped up their involvement in Evergrandes business, must decide whether to intervene to prop up the lender or stand back and risk the economic upheaval of a restructuring.

Instagram unveils new parental controls ahead of a big day before Congress. The Meta-owned social network will let parents see how much time their teens have spent on the service and set limits. The move comes as Adam Mosseri, Instagrams chief, is set to testify before the Senate tomorrow about whether social media harms children and teens.

BuzzFeeds market debut fizzles. Shares in the digital media publisher fell 11 percent yesterday after the company went public by merging with a SPAC. That, coupled with the deal raising less money than expected, may foreshadow trouble for other digital publishers looking to go public.

Exxon Mobil sets a net-zero goal for its Permian Basin operations. The oil giant is aiming to cease all emissions from its fields in West Texas and New Mexico, a major area of operations, by 2030, with measures like electrifying facilities and stopping the burning of waste gas from wells.

The N.Y.S.E. and Samsung shake up their leadership ranks. The Big Board said that Lynn Martin would replace Stacey Cunningham as its president, while Jeffrey Sprecher, who led Intercontinental Exchanges takeover of the exchange, will step down as chairman. Meanwhile, Samsung named new leaders for its computer chip division and a unit that combines its mobile and consumer electronics operations.

The Omicron variant of the coronavirus has raised concerns that the pandemic could continue to weigh on the global economy, and these fears are reflected in the stock market. But financial markets appear to have taken the latest virus news in stride relative to earlier outbreaks.

Dec. 8, 2021, 11:46 a.m. ET

Each bout of pandemic-driven volatility in stocks has been shorter and milder than the one before, followed by a recovery to a new high (check out the charts here). Yesterday, the S&P 500 had recovered nearly all of its losses since the Omicron variant was flagged by health officials in late November. And futures are trading up today, suggesting that the Omicron downturn may nearly be over.

More coronavirus news:

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan yesterday announced the first lifetime ban on collecting antiquities, imposed on one of the worlds most active collectors of ancient art, the hedge fund billionaire Michael Steinhardt. The ban is part of an agreement not to file criminal charges against Steinhardt in exchange for the surrender of 180 stolen objects valued at $70 million.

Steinhardt had a rapacious appetite for plundered artifacts that relied on a sprawling underworld of antiquities traffickers, crime bosses, money launderers and tomb raiders, Cyrus Vance, the Manhattan district attorney, said. His office said it opted for this resolution rather than a long trial to allow for the quick return of the relics.

Steinhardt put the evidence on display. In 2017, authorities began investigating the prolific collector after he lent a marble bulls head statue to the Metropolitan Museum of Art that had been stolen from a temple in Lebanon during the civil war there. This probe led them to more ancient works in Steinhardts homes and offices (here is a rundown of some of the pieces). An investigation looked into the origins of more than 1,000 pieces he had traded since 1987.

Steinhardts lawyers told Artnet that he is pleased wrongfully taken items will be returned and has reserved his rights to seek recompense from the dealers involved, noting that many of them claimed to have obtained the items lawfully.

Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York has announced a sweeping coronavirus vaccine mandate for all private companies in the city. Starting Dec. 27, all employees who work in-person are required to have at least one shot of the vaccine, with no option to undergo weekly testing instead of being vaccinated.

It could be the broadest corporate vaccine mandate yet: A federal mandate for large private companies, first announced by President Biden in September, has been stalled by legal challenges. New York Citys mandate would apply to around 184,000 businesses.

The impact of the new rule will depend on answers to these questions:

Is it legal? The citys mandate is based on different legal considerations than the federal mandate, Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown law professor who specializes in public health, told DealBook. New York City has considerable home rule and very broad public health powers, he said. But De Blasio did not get specific authorization from the City Council to enact the mandate, Gostin said, and an inevitable avalanche of legal challenges could argue that the mayor is overstepping.

What happens when De Blasios term ends? His successor, Eric Adams, will take office on Jan. 1 about a week after the vaccine mandate is set to go into effect. His spokesman told The Times that the mayor-elect would evaluate the measure once he takes office.

What is required of companies, exactly? Kathryn Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, said businesses were blindsided by the mandate. In an interview with DealBook, she asked: How is it supposed to be enforced? Whats going to be the compliance procedure? What kind of records do they have to keep? City Hall plans to release further guidelines on Dec. 15.

What about labor shortages? Many of the unvaccinated workers in the city, where nearly 90 percent of adults have received at least one shot, dont trust the system, Wylde said, and its just very hard for employers to come down on them with an inflexible policy. A group of retailers pushing back against the mandate cited labor shortages in their opposition. But others argue that mandates may make retaining employees easier. The vast majority of employees and customers want to work or shop in a safe environment, Gostin said. A survey of employers last month found that 3 percent of respondents with vaccine mandates had seen a spike in resignations.

Deals

Intel is planning a public offering for MobileEye, a maker of autonomous vehicle technologies, at a potential valuation of over $50 billion. (NYT)

The E.U.s antitrust regulator is scrutinizing Microsofts $16 billion acquisition of Nuance, after the U.S. declined to contest the deal. (Reuters)

The software-focused buyout firm Thoma Bravo reportedly plans to raise up to $35 billion for its next fund. (FT)

Jack in the Box is buying Del Taco in a $575 million deal. (CNBC)

Policy

The Bank for International Settlements called for greater regulation of so-called decentralized finance. (FT)

The S.E.C. is investigating Tesla over a whistle-blowers allegations that the company didnt notify shareholders about fire risks associated with its solar panels. (Reuters)

Rohingya refugees sued Facebook for $150 million, accusing the social network of amplifying hate speech against them in Myanmar. (Axios)

Best of the rest

Americans Pandemic-Era Excess Savings Are Dwindling for Many (NYT)

Disney plans to announce that it has hired Geoff Morrell, the top communications executive at BP, to oversee P.R. and government policy.

A U.S. jury ordered a man who claims to have created Bitcoin to pay $100 million in damages in a business dispute, but didnt settle who invented the cryptocurrency. (Bloomberg)

Over the course of their careers, female doctors earn at least $2 million less than their male counterparts. (NYT)

The pandemic has driven more millennials to write wills. (WSJ)

Wed like your feedback! Please email thoughts and suggestions to dealbook@nytimes.com.

Read the rest here:
Trump's Big SPAC Deal Is Under Investigation by the S.E.C. - The New York Times

With the development of ever more advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems, some of the worlds leading scientists, AI engineers and businesspeople have expressed concerns that humanity may lose control over its creations, giving rise to what has come to be called the AI Control Problem. The underlying premise is that our human intelligence may be outmatched by artificial intelligence at some point and that we may not be able to maintain meaningful control over them. If we fail to do so, they may act contrary to human interests, with consequences that become increasingly severe as the sophistication of AI systems rises. Indeed, recent revelations in the so-called Facebook Files provide a range of examples of one of the most advanced AI systems on our planet acting in opposition to our societys interests.

In this article, I lay out what we can learn about the AI Control Problem using the lessons learned from the Facebook Files. I observe that the challenges we are facing can be distinguished into two categories: the technical problem of direct control of AI, i.e. of ensuring that an advanced AI system does what the company operating it wants it to do, and the governance problem of social control of AI, i.e. of ensuring that the objectives that companies program into advanced AI systems are consistent with societys objectives. I analyze the scope for our existing regulatory system to address the problem of social control in the context of Facebook but observe that it suffers from two shortcomings. First, it leaves regulatory gaps; second, it focuses excessively on after-the-fact solutions. To pursue a broader and more pre-emptive approach, I argue the case for a new regulatory bodyan AI Control Councilthat has the power to both dedicate resources to conduct research on the direct AI control problem and to address the social AI control problem by proactively overseeing, auditing, and regulating advanced AI systems.

A fundamental insight from control theory1 is that if you are not careful about specifying your objectives in their full breadth, you risk generating unintended side effects. For example, if you optimize just on a single objective, it comes at the expense of all the other objectives that you may care about. The general principle has been known for eons. It is reflected for example in the legend of King Midas, who was granted a wish by a Greek god and, in his greed, specified a single objective: that everything he touched turn into gold. He realized too late that he had failed to specify the objectives that he cared about in their full breadth when his food and his daughter turned into gold upon his touch.

The same principle applies to advanced AI systems that pursue the objectives that we program into them. And as we let our AI systems determine a growing range of decisions and actions and as they become more and more effective at optimizing their objectives, the risk and magnitude of potential side effects grow.

The revelations from the Facebook Files are a case in point: Facebook, which recently changed its name to Meta, operates two of the worlds largest social networks, the eponymous Facebook as well as Instagram. The company employs an advanced AI systema Deep Learning Recommendation Model (DLRM)to decide which posts to present in the news feeds of Facebook and Instagram. This recommendation model aims to predict which posts a user is most likely to engage with, based on thousands of data points that the company has collected about each of its billions of individual users and trillions of posts.

Facebooks AI system is very effective in maximizing user engagement, but at the expense of other objectives that our society values. As revealed by whistleblower Frances Haugen via a series of articles in the Wall Street Journal in September 2021, the company repeatedly prioritized user engagement over everything else. For example, according to Haugen, the company knew from internal research that the use of Instagram was associated with serious increases in mental health problems related to body image among female teenagers but did not adequately address them. The company attempted to boost meaningful social interaction on its platform in 2018 but instead exacerbated the promotion of outrage, which contributed to the rise of echo chambers that risk undermining the health of our democracy. Many of the platforms problems are even starker outside of the U.S., where drug cartels and human traffickers employed Facebook to do their business, and Facebooks attempts to thwart them were insufficient. These examples illustrate how detrimental it can be to our society when we program an advanced AI system that affects many different areas of our lives to pursue a single objective at the expense of all others.

The Facebook Files are also instructive for another reason: They demonstrate the growing difficulty of exerting control over advanced AI systems. Facebooks recommendation model is powered by an artificial neural network with some 12 trillion parameters, which currently makes it the largest artificial neural network in the world. The system accomplishes the job of predicting which posts a user is most likely to engage with better than a team of human experts ever could. It therefore joins a growing list of AI systems that can accomplish tasks that were previously reserved for humans at super-human levels. Some researchers refer to such systems as domain-specific, or narrow, superintelligences, i.e. AI systems that outperform humans within a narrow domain of application. Humans still lead when it comes to general intelligencethe ability to solve a wide range of problems in many different domains. However, the club of narrow superintelligences has been growing rapidly in recent years. It includes AlphaGo and AlphaFold, creations of Google subsidiary DeepMind that can play Go and predict how proteins fold at super-human levels, as well as speech recognition and image classification systems that can perform their tasks better than humans. As these systems acquire super-human capabilities, their complexity makes it increasingly difficult for humans to understand how they arrive at solutions. As a result, an AIs creator may lose control of the AIs output.

There are two dimensions of AI control that are useful to distinguish because they call for different solutions: The direct control problem captures the difficulty of the company or entity operating an AI system to exert sufficient control, i.e. to make sure the system does what the operator wants it to do. The social control problem reflects the difficulty of ensuring that an AI system acts in accordance with social norms.

Direct AI control is a technical challenge that companies operating advanced AI systems face. All the big tech companies have experienced failures of direct control over their AI systemsfor example, Amazon employed a resume-screening system that was biased against women; Google developed a photo categorization system that labeled black men as gorillas; Microsoft operated a chatbot that quickly began to post inflammatory and offensive tweets. At Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg launched a campaign to promote COVID-19 vaccines in March 2021, but one of the articles in the Facebook Files documents that Facebook instead turned into a source of rampant misinformation, concluding that [e]ven when he set a goal, the chief executive couldnt steer the platform as he wanted.

One of the fundamental problems of advanced AI systems is that the underlying algorithms are, at some level, black boxes. Their complexity makes them opaque and makes their workings difficult to fully understand for humans. Although there have been some advances in making deep neural networks explainable, these are innately limited by the architecture of such networks. For example, with sufficient effort, it is possible to explain how one particular decision was made (called local interpretability), but it is impossible to foresee all possible decisions and their implications. This exacerbates the difficulty of controlling what our AI systems do.

Frequently, we only detect AI control problems after they have occurredas was the case in all the examples from big tech discussed above. However, this is a risky path with potentially catastrophic outcomes. As AI systems acquire greater capabilities and we delegate more decisions to them, relying on after-the-fact course corrections exposes our society to large potential costs. For example, if a social networking site contributes to encouraging riots and deaths, a course correction cannot undo the loss of life. The problem is of even greater relevance in AI systems for military use. This creates an urgent case for proactive work on the direct control problem and public policy measures to support and mandate such work, which I will discuss shortly below.

In contrast to the technical challenge of the direct control problem, the social AI control problem is a governance challenge. It is about ensuring that AI systemsincluding those that do precisely what their operators want them to doare not imposing externalities on the rest of society. Most of the problems identified in the Facebook Files are examples of this, as Zuckerberg seems to have prioritized user engagementand by extension the profits and market share of his companyover the common good.

The problem of social control of AI systems that are operated by corporations is exacerbated by market forces. It is frequently observed that unfettered market forces may provide corporations with incentives to pursue a singular objective, profit maximization, at the expense of all other objectives that humanity may care about. As we already discussed in the context of AI systems, pursuing a single objective in a multi-faceted world is bound to lead to harmful side effects on some or all members of society. Our society has created a rich set of norms and regulations in which markets are embedded so that we can reap the benefits of market forces while curtailing their downsides.

Advanced AI systems have led to a shift in the balance of power between corporations and societythey have given corporations the ability to pursue single-minded objectives like user engagement in hyper-efficient ways that used to be impossible before such technologies were available. The resulting potential harms for society are therefore larger and call for more proactive and targeted regulatory solutions.

Throughout our history, whenever we developed new technologies that posed new hazards for society, our nation has made it a habit to establish new regulatory bodies and independent agencies endowed with world-class expertise to oversee and investigate the new technologies. For example, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) were established at the onset of the age of aviation; or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was established at the onset of the nuclear age. By many measures, advanced artificial intelligence has the potential to be an even more powerful technology that may impose new types of hazards on society, as exemplified by the Facebook Files.

Given the rise of artificial intelligence, it is now time to establish a federal agency to oversee advanced artificial intelligencean AI Control Council that is explicitly designed to address the AI Control Problem, i.e. to ensure that the ever more powerful AI systems we are creating act in societys interest. To be effective in meeting this objective, such a council would need to have the ability to (i) pursue solutions to the direct AI control problem and (ii) to oversee and when necessary regulate the way AI is used across the U.S. economy to address the social control problem, all while ensuring that it does not handicap advances in AI. (See also here for a complementary proposal by Ryan Calo for a federal agency to oversee advances in robotics.) In what follows I first propose the role and duties of an AI Control Council and then discuss some of the tradeoffs and design issues inherent in the creation of a new federal agency.

First, there are many difficult technical questions related to direct AI controland even some philosophical questionsthat require significant fundamental research. Such work has broad public benefits but is hampered by the fact that the most powerful computing infrastructure, the most advanced AI systems, and increasingly the vast majority of AI researchers are located within private corporations which do not have sufficient incentive to invest in broader public goods. The AI Control Council should have the ability to direct resources to addressing these questions. Since the U.S. is one of the leading AI superpowers, this would have the potential to steer the direction of AI advancement in a more desirable direction at a worldwide level.

Second, to be truly effective, the council would need to have a range of powers to oversee AI development by private and public actors to meet the challenge of social control of AI:

Since talent shortages in the AI sector are severe, the Council needs to be designed with an eye towards making it attractive for the worlds top experts on AI and AI control to join. Many of the leading experts on AI recognize the high stakes involved in AI control. If the design of the Council carries the promise to make progress in addressing the AI control problem, highly talented individuals may be eager to serve and contribute to meeting one of the greatest technological challenges of our time.

One of the questions that the Council will need to address is how to ensure that its actions steer advances in AI in a desirable direction without holding back technological progress and U.S. leadership in the field. The Councils work on the direct control problem as well as the lessons learned from impact assessments will benefit AI advancement broadly because they will allow private sector actors to build on the findings of the Council and of other AI researchers. Moreover, if well-designed, even the oversight and regulation required to address the social control problem can in fact spur technological progress by providing certainty about the regulatory environment and by forestalling a race to the bottom by competing companies.

Another important question in designing the Council is resolution of domain issues when AI systems are deployed in areas that are already regulated by an existing agency. In that case, it would be most useful for the Council to play an advisory role and assist with expertise as needed. For example, car accidents produced by autonomous vehicles would fall squarely into the domain of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), but the new AI Control Council could assist with its expertise on advanced AI.

By contrast, when an advanced AI system gives rise to (i) effects in a new domain or (ii) emergent effects that cut across domains covered by individual agencies, then it would fall within the powers of the AI Control Council to intervene. For example, the mental health effects of the recommendation models of social networks would be a new domain that is not covered by existing regulations and that calls for impact assessments, transparency, and potentially for regulation. Conversely, if for example a social network targets stockbrokers with downbeat content to affect their mood and by extension stock markets to benefit financially in a way that is not covered by existing regulations on market manipulation, it would be a cross-domain case that the council should investigate alongside the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

From a longer-term perspective, the problems revealed in the Facebook Files are only the beginning of humanitys struggle to control our ever more advanced AI systems. As the amount of computing power available to the leading AI systems and the human and financial resources invested in AI development grow exponentially, the capabilities of AI systems are rising alongside. If we cannot successfully address the AI control problems we face now, how can we hope to do so in the future when the powers of our AI systems have advanced by another order of magnitude? Creating the right institutions to address the AI control problem is therefore one of the most urgent challenges of our time. We need a carefully crafted federal AI Control Council to meet the challenge.

The Brookings Institution is financed through the support of a diverse array of foundations, corporations, governments, individuals, as well as an endowment. A list of donors can be found in our annual reports published onlinehere. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of its author(s) and are not influenced by any donation.

View original post here:
Why we need a new agency to regulate advanced artificial intelligence: Lessons on AI control from the Facebook Files - Brookings Institution

LONGVIEW, Texas, Dec. 8, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- BuySTARcase.coma leading innovator in mobile phone accessories -- has been named a CES 2022 Innovation Awards Honoree for its revolutionary STARcase.

The STARcase is an innovative, app-controlled smartphone case with automatic charge technology that displays customized notifications on a LED screen for calls, texts, emails, and third-party apps. The STARcase syncs with the user's contacts and apps, allowing the user to choose from hundreds of light shows, animated icons, and customizable scrolling text to view messages and notifications on the back of the phone. It also provides industry-first "smart charging" capability, allowing the user to customize whenand how muchto charge the phone from the case, reducing the prospects of ever being caught with a dead phone battery.

"We are thrilled to be named a CES 2022 Innovation Award Honoree," says Tom Coverstone, Chief Innovation Officer, at BuySTARase.com. "We have spent years engineering, modifying, and perfecting the STARcase. It is an honor to be recognized with the prestigious CES Innovation Award as recognition for the team'sexceptional efforts."

The CES Innovation Awardsare an annual competition honoring outstanding design and engineering in consumer technology products across 28 product categories. This year's CES Innovation Awards program received a record-high number of over 1800 submissions, and the STARcase prevailed in the Mobile Phone and Accessories Category. The honorees of this highly anticipated competition receive global recognition from industry leaders and media who use the CES Innovation Awards to identify outstanding products, upcoming trends, and how companies are using technology to change lives for the better.

An elite panel of industry expert judges, including members of the media, designers, engineers, and more, reviewed submissions based on innovation, engineering and functionality, aesthetics and design.

About BuySTARcase.com

The history of BuySTARcase.com parallels the story of American innovationthat with hard work, collaboration, and persistence, an idea can become a reality. The STARcase was invented, designed, and is assembled in the USA. The STARcase team is committed to utilizing the highest quality parts available that are hand-selected and tested for quality and durability. Their extensive patent and trademark portfolio reflects and validates a commitment to innovation. The STARcase mission extends to the global community. It is their genuine hope that the STARcase connects and brightens the lives of people across our globe. For more information visit: https://buySTARcase.com/.

About CES

Join BuySTARcase.com at CES 2022, the world's most influential technology event, happening Jan. 5-8 in Las Vegas, NV, in person and digitally.

Owned and produced by CTA, CES 2022, the global stage for innovation, will convene the tech industry giving global audiences access to the latest technology as well as the world's most-influential tech leaders and industry advocates.

To schedule a meeting or for media or business inquires with BuySTARcase.com at the upcoming conference, please contact Business Development at: sales@buystarcase.com.

View original content to download multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/buystarcasecom-named-ces-2022-innovation-awards-honoree-for-first-ever-app-controlled-smart-battery-case-for-smart-phones-301440384.html

SOURCE BuySTARcase.com

Read this article:
BuySTARcase.com Named CES 2022 Innovation Awards Honoree for First-ever App Controlled Smart Battery Case for Smart Phones - Star Local Media