Latest news with #AlexChan
RTHK
6 days ago
- RTHK
New fines system 'may be just the ticket for scammers'
New fines system 'may be just the ticket for scammers' HKCERT reported receiving 4,029 cybersecurity incident cases in the first quarter of this year. Photo: RTHK The Hong Kong Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT) is urging the public to remain vigilant against fraudulent SMS messages and emails, warning that scammers are likely to exploit the upcoming launch of the police's new electronic ticketing system. HKCERT received 4,029 reports of cybersecurity incidents in the first quarter of this year – a 67 percent increase compared to the same period last year. Of these, phishing scams saw a jump of 23 percent in case numbers. Centre spokesman Alex Chan warned on Tuesday that scammers may create fake payment apps and send out phishing links via SMS messages or emails to steal personal information once the new system comes into effect on June 15. He stressed the importance of verifying the authenticity of message senders and advised the public to make payments only through official apps or websites. "For those scams, they always have some similar characteristics," Chan said. "The URLs [may come] with some spelling mistakes because they cannot occupy the official website domain name. "For example, they may leverage similar looking characters, for example, "I", "L", "1", or "O" and "0". "They will play the tricks [through the] similar appearance of characters. "They will put you in a pressure mode so that you need to settle the transaction in a short period of time or you need to provide your personal information such as your ID card or even the photo or images of your HKID." Chan also cautioned that scams are expected to rise with increasing use of artificial intelligence tools. He said people can stay informed about emerging cyber threats by following HKCERT for notifications regarding high-risk cybersecurity issues or the police's "Scameter+" app.
RTHK
6 days ago
- RTHK
New fines system 'may be just the ticket for scammers'
New fines system 'may be just the ticket for scammers' HKCERT reported receiving 4,029 cybersecurity incident cases in the first quarter of this year. Photo: RTHK The Hong Kong Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT) is urging the public to remain vigilant against fraudulent SMS messages and emails, warning that scammers are likely to exploit the upcoming launch of the police's new electronic ticketing system. HKCERT received 4,029 reports of cybersecurity incidents in the first quarter of this year – a 67 percent increase compared to the same period last year. Of these, phishing scams saw a jump of 23 percent in case numbers. Centre spokesman Alex Chan warned on Tuesday that scammers may create fake payment apps and send out phishing links via SMS messages or emails to steal personal information once the new system comes into effect on June 15. He stressed the importance of verifying the authenticity of message senders and advised the public to make payments only through official apps or websites. "For those scams, they always have some similar characteristics," Chan said. "The URLs [may come] with some spelling mistakes because they cannot occupy the official website domain name. "For example, they may leverage similar looking characters, for example, "I", "L", "1", or "O" and "0". "They will play the tricks [through the] similar appearance of characters. "They will put you in a pressure mode so that you need to settle the transaction in a short period of time or you need to provide your personal information such as your ID card or even the photo or images of your HKID." Chan also cautioned that scams are expected to rise with increasing use of artificial intelligence tools. He said people can stay informed about emerging cyber threats by following HKCERT for notifications regarding high-risk cybersecurity issues or the police's "Scameter+" app.
Los Angeles Times
24-04-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
California Supreme Court demands State Bar answer questions on AI exam controversy
The California Supreme Court urged the State Bar of California Thursday to explain how and why it utilized artificial intelligence to develop multiple-choice questions for its botched February bar exams. California's highest court, which is responsible for overseeing the State Bar, disclosed Tuesday that its justices were not informed before the exam that the State Bar had allowed its independent psychometrician to use AI to develop some questions. The Court demanded the State Bar to explain how it used AI to develop questions — and what actions it took to ensure the reliability of the questions. The demand comes as the State Bar petitions the court to adjust test scores for hundreds of prospective California lawyers who complained of multiple technical problems and irregularities during the February exams. The controversy is about more than the State Bar's use of artificial intelligence per se. It's about how the State Bar used AI to develop questions — and how rigorous its vetting process was — for a high stakes exam that determines whether hundreds of aspiring attorneys can practice law in California. It also raises questions about how transparent State Bar officials were as they sought to ditch the National Conference of Bar Examiners' Multistate Bar Examination — a system used by most states — and roll out a new hybrid model of in-person and remote testing in an effort to cut costs. In a statement Thursday, the court said it was seeking answers as to 'how and why AI was used to draft, revise, or otherwise develop certain multiple-choice questions, efforts taken to ensure the reliability of the AI-assisted multiple-choice questions before they were administered, the reliability of the AI-assisted multiple-choice questions, whether any multiple-choice questions were removed from scoring because they were determined to be unreliable, and the reliability of the remaining multiple-choice questions used for scoring.' Last year, the Supreme Court approved the State Bar's plan to forge an $8.25 million, five-year deal with Kaplan to create 200 test questions for a new exam. The State Bar also hired a separate company, Meazure Learning, to administer the exam. It was not until this week — nearly two months after the exam — that the State Bar revealed in a news release that it had deviated from its plan to use Kaplan Exam Services to write all the multiple-choice questions. In a presentation, the State Bar revealed that 100 of the 171 scored multiple-choice questions were made by Kaplan and 48 were drawn from a first-year law students exam. A smaller subset of 23 scored questions were made by ACS Ventures, the State Bar's psychometrician, and developed with artificial intelligence. 'We have confidence in the validity of the [multiple-choice questions] to accurately and fairly assess the legal competence of test-takers,' Leah Wilson, the State Bar's executive director, said in a statement. Alex Chan, Chair of the Committee of Bar Examiners, which exercises oversight over the California Bar Examination, initially played down the controversy, telling the Times that only a small subset of questions used AI — and not necessarily to create the questions. Chan also noted that the California Supreme Court urged the State Bar in October to review 'the availability of any new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that might innovate and improve upon the reliability and cost-effectiveness of such testing.' 'The court has given its guidance to consider the use of AI, and that's exactly what we're going to do,' Chan said. But on Thursday Chan revealed to The Times that State Bar officials had not told the Committee of Bar Examiners ahead of the exams that it planned to use AI. 'The Committee was never informed about the use of AI before the exam took place, so it could not have considered, much less endorsed, its use,' Chan said. Katie Moran, an associate professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law who specializes in bar exam preparation, said this begged a series of questions. 'Who at the State Bar directed ACS Ventures, a psychometric company with no background in writing bar exam questions, to author multiple-choice questions that would appear on the bar exam?' she said on LinkedIn. 'What guidelines, if any, did the State Bar provide?' Mary Basick, assistant dean of academic skills at UC Irvine Law School, said it was a big deal that the changes in how the State Bar drafted its questions were not approved by the Committee of Bar Examiners or the California Supreme Court. 'What they approved was a multiple-choice exam with Kaplan-drafted questions,' she said. 'Kaplan is a bar prep company, so of course, has knowledge about the legal concepts being tested, the bar exam itself, how the questions should be structured. So the thinking was that it wouldn't be a big change.' Any major change that could impact how test-takers prepare for the exam, she noted, requires a two-year notice under California's Business and Professions Code. 'Typically, these types of questions take years to develop to make sure they're valid and reliable and there's multiple steps of review,' Basick said. 'There was simply not enough time to do that.' Basick and other professors have also raised concerns that hiring a non-legally trained psychometrist to develop questions with AI, as well as determine whether the questions are valid and reliable, represents a conflict of interest. The State Bar has disputed that idea: 'The process to validate questions and test for reliability is not a subjective one, and the statistical parameters used by the psychometrician remain the same regardless of the source of the question,' it said in a statement. On Tuesday, the State Bar told The Times that all questions were reviewed by content validation panels and subject matter experts ahead of the exam for factors including legal accuracy, minimum competence and potential bias. The State Bar has yet to answer questions about why it deviated from its plan for Kaplan to draft all the exam multiple-choice questions. It has also not elaborated on how ACS Ventures used AI to develop its questions.
