Stacey Abrams on her new book and the ethical questions of AI
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
19 minutes ago
- The Independent
Renaming Kennedy Center for Trumps would violate law that created it, insiders say as JFK niece weighs in
House Republicans have proposed renaming the Kennedy Center and opera house after President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump — but the change would violate the law that created the center, according to a new report. Last week, Republicans passed an amendment in committee that would rename the opera house after the first lady. The measure is now part of legislation funding the interior department, but the legislation would have to be voted through the full House and Senate before becoming law. Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Simpson sponsored the legislation. The following day, Missouri Republican Rep. Bob Onder put forward the Make Entertainment Great Again Act, which would rename the center 'the Donald J. Trump Center for Performing Arts.' The House hasn't moved on the legislation as of yet. However, three former Kennedy Center board members told NBC News that the legislation that established the center prohibits any of the facilities from being renamed, apart from the Eisenhower Theater, which was named after President Dwight Eisenhower after his administration approved its construction in 1958. But the project was delayed and later revived during the administration of President John F. Kennedy. It was named after Kennedy following his assassination. 'After December 2, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts,' the U.S. code states. Maine Democratic Rep. Chellie Pingree is the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on the interior. 'Legally, they can't just slap her name on it without congressional action,' a spokesperson for Pingree told NBC News. 'If Republicans can't pass their budget — which they usually can't — the Melania Trump renaming provision dies,' the spokesperson added. 'The only real wildcard is whether Trump or his allies ignore the law entirely and try to do it unilaterally. But that would have no legal basis — and would almost certainly trigger a court fight.' A Simpson spokesperson told the network that the White House and the office of the first lady were not made aware of the amendment before he proposed it. The spokesperson noted that the office of the first lady called Simpson's office to thank the congressman afterwards. The spokesperson added that Simpson put forward the amendment because 'he understands that the first lady has always been a very avid supporter of the arts as well. She's had a long-standing commitment to the arts. ... It really did come from his heart.' As is tradition, the first lady is the honorary chair of the center. However, unlike in his first term, Trump has shown great interest in the arts and the center. Trump named himself the chair of the center and removed the previous bipartisan Board of Trustees, as well as the previous president and chair. Trump made his White House special envoy, former Ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, the president of the center. The president took to social media to write that Grenell 'shares my Vision for a GOLDEN AGE of American Arts and Culture.' He added that Grenell would make sure there would be no 'ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA.' Maria Shriver, Kennedy's niece, blasted the effort to rename the center on X on Monday night. 'This is insane. It makes my blood boil. It's so ridiculous, so petty, so small minded,' she wrote. 'Truly, what is this about? It's always about something. 'Let's get rid of the Rose Garden. Let's rename the Kennedy Center.' What's next?' Kennedy's grandson, Jack Schlossberg, also took to social media to criticize Republicans for the motion to rename the opera house after the first lady. 'The Trump Administration stands for freedom of oppression, not expression. He uses his awesome powers to suppress free expression and instill fear. But this isn't about the arts,' he said on Instagram. 'Trump is obsessed with being bigger than JFK, with minimizing the many heroes of our past, as if that elevates him. It doesn't,' he added.
The Sun
4 days ago
- The Sun
Much-missed app loved by 200 million to RETURN eight years after shock closure – but with very mysterious change
FANS of a certain 2010s app that was loved by millions will be excited to learn it's making a comeback - but there's a twist. Tech billionaire Elon Musk has announced his plans on Thursday to bring back Vine. 4 Musk brings back Vine Musk took to X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter which he bought in 2022, to share the news which has divided Vine-nostalgics and creatives. In his post on Thursday, he simply wrote: "we're bringing back Vine, but in AI form." This is not the first time Musk has spoken about his desire to bring back the nostalgic 2010s app, asking X users in 2022 whether they would want to see it return. While he shared little detail on what the new Vine could look like, he was clear that it would be different from its predecessor, namely due to the use of AI. 4 Fan backlash Since the announcement on X, fans have been divided by the news. The post, within the first 24 hours, received more than 150,000 likes and over 15,000 comments, with X users debating whether they were happy with the billionaire's latest venture. One X user commented: "AI + short-form video = future of content." Another said: "Vine isn't Vine without human creativity. AI doesn't create anything new." While another revealed their concerns: "So a bunch of short AI-generated clips to keep people sucked into their phones even more." The use of AI in social media is not unheard of, with TikTok users already able to watch content created with artificial intelligence. X also implemented AI through its Grok chatbot, but last month, Musk received backlash after it had been seen to praise Hitler. 4 The reason Vine closed Vine was a fan favourite amongst short-form content lovers in the 2010s, after it opened in 2012. The creators of the app, Dom Hofmann, Rus Yusupov, and Colin Kroll, quickly sold the product to then-Twitter owner Jack Dorsey for a reported $30 million, It was an instant hit and quickly garnered over 200 million active users after Twitter allowed users to share Vine content with their followers. However, in 2017, the app was shut down after internal struggles, including pay for creators and a lack of investments, leading to all the videos on the platform being archived and becoming inaccessible. In its time, Vine saw the birth of careers from stars still present in popular culture, including singer-songwriter Shawn Mendes, internet personality Jake Paul and actor Andrew King Bachelor. 4 While TikTok has had the similar effect with stars like Addison Rae and Charli D'Amelio, many have been calling for a return of the good old Vine days.
Reuters
5 days ago
- Reuters
Managing reputation in the age of synthetic content
July 18, 2025 - The introduction and increased usage of generative artificial intelligence (AI) have been influential throughout the legal industry, offering unprecedented opportunities for efficiency while introducing significant risks to law firm brands. Tools such as ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and proprietary large language models (LLMs) can pop out client memos, legal alerts, and thought leadership articles at record speed. However, as law firms embrace these technologies, they face an urgent imperative: using the power of generative AI in a way that does not compromise the integrity of their brand. Generative AI offers law firms a range of amazing efficiencies such as the ability to produce first drafts of documents, analyze vast amounts of data, and generate commentary on case law in minutes. These functions save time and are extremely valuable, particularly in fast-moving regulatory and litigation environments. As an example, AI tools can quickly draft breaking news client alerts on recently introduced legislation and summarize complex case law. This can free up an attorney's time for more strategic work as well as enhance a firm's responsiveness, positioning it as a leader in a competitive market. Yet, speed could come at a cost. AI lacks an inherent understanding of legal nuance and most importantly, ethical obligations, or jurisdictional differences that a human understands. It can operate without accountability, increasing the risk of producing inaccurate, overly generalized, or fabricated content. A notable example is a syndicated article published in the Chicago Sun-Times and Philadelphia Inquirer in summer 2025, which included a reading list featuring nonexistent books in the summer 2025 reading list article. As reported in The Washington Post, ("Major newspapers ran a summer reading list. AI made up book titles." May 20, 2025) the author admitted to using AI tools without human editing, leading to factual errors and reputational damage for both the media outlets and the author. For law firms, similar missteps could erode client trust and tarnish a brand built over decades. The Wall Street Journal certainly could have been thinking of brand awareness when they issued their own recommendations of 14 books to read. The adoption of generative AI introduces several risks that can undermine a law firm's reputation: (1) Accuracy and misinformation: AI-generated content is prone to "hallucinations," which are confidently stated but factually incorrect information. In the legal context, publishing flawed analyses, outdated citations, or incorrect interpretations of case law could have disastrous consequences, particularly if the firm's name is attached. (2) Plagiarism and intellectual property infringement: Many AI models are trained on datasets scraped from the internet. This raises the risk that outputs may inadvertently replicate existing work without proper attribution, which could expose firms to copyright infringement claims or ethical violations, both of which carry significant reputational and legal consequences. (3) Dilution of expertise and thought leadership: Overreliance on AI for client alerts, bylined articles, or white papers risks diluting a firm's unique voice and eroding its authority. We see too many headlines using the word navigating, do we not? Clients hire lawyers for their cultivated expertise, unique insight, and judgment, not for generic, machine-generated summaries that lack depth or context. (4) Reputational fallout from internal use: Even internally circulated AI-generated content, such as draft memos or research notes, can create liabilities if leaked or misused. A poorly written or inaccurate draft that reaches the public eye, whether through a data breach or accidental disclosure, can damage a firm's credibility. From a public relations perspective, generative AI requires a new framework for content governance. Law firms must move beyond enthusiasm for efficiency and embrace disciplined oversight. Here are five essential steps: •Establish a human touch policy: All AI-generated legal content should be reviewed and ideally co-authored by a licensed attorney. Firms must make it clear that no AI-generated output goes client-facing without human verification. •Implement AI disclosures and transparency protocols: Whether, in client alerts or public-facing articles, firms should consider disclosing when AI has been used in content creation. This transparency not only builds trust but protects against future claims of misrepresentation or malpractice. •Train attorneys and comms teams in AI literacy: Educate your lawyers, marketers, and PR professionals on the wonders, capabilities, and also the limitations of generative AI. Understanding how these tools work and where they can fail is critical to mitigating brand risk. •Audit for originality and attribution: Use plagiarism detection software such as Grammarly and internal checks to ensure content is original and appropriately sourced. This applies even to internal research memos and pitch materials. •Define your firm's brand voice and reinforce it: AI can write in any voice. Law firms have a tone of voice. The challenge is ensuring it consistently writes in your voice. Set clear tone, style, and messaging guidelines so that AI-generated drafts align with your firm's brand identity. Used thoughtfully, generative AI can elevate a firm's ability to communicate, respond, and engage with clients and the media. But it must never replace human insight, editorial judgment, or the firm's hard-earned reputation. Your brand is your most valuable asset, so guard it accordingly, even when the content comes from a machine. AI should serve as an enhancer, not a substitute, for the qualities that make your firm unique. Thoughtful implementation requires rigorous oversight, ethical considerations, and a steadfast commitment to authenticity.
