Latest news with #DanMilmo
The Guardian
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Thursday briefing: Everything you need to know about the new internet safety rules
Good morning. From tomorrow social media companies must introduce child safety measures under the Online Safety Act. It is a key moment for a British government attempting, like so many others, to rein in tech firms and prevent children encountering harmful content on the internet. Passed by parliament in 2023, the landmark legislation significantly empowers the regulator Ofcom. Peter Kyle, the science and technology secretary, described the new codes as a 'watershed moment' that turned the tide on 'toxic experiences on these platforms'. Social media companies operating in the UK now risk hefty fines if they fail to take strong action against content that is harmful to children such as pornography or material that encourages self-harm. Another substantial change is the requirement for pornography websites to verify that users are aged 18 or older, using methods such as photo-ID matching, facial age estimation, credit and debit card checks, mobile operator verification, open banking and digital ID wallets. You may never have heard of it, but the act represents a significant step up in internet safety regulation – and overhaul of how we live online – in the UK. To explore why it was introduced, whether it goes far enough, and whether it will even work, I spoke to Dan Milmo, the Guardian's global technology editor. That's after the headlines. Israel-Gaza war | More than 100 aid agencies issued a dire warning that 'mass starvation' was spreading across Gaza and urged Israel to let humanitarian aid in. Environment | A 'clean, healthy and sustainable environment' is a human right, according to judges at the top court of the United Nations, in a landmark advisory opinion about countries' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they do not. US news | Microsoft says Chinese 'threat actors', including state-sponsored hackers, have exploited security vulnerabilities in its SharePoint document-sharing servers, with research indicating that several hundred government agencies and organisations have been breached. UK politics | Reform UK footed the bill for a £350 bottle of champagne at a luxury lunch and a £989-a-night hotel with hundreds of pounds in room service, its election campaign spending data shows. Media | The BBC is to broadcast a series of MasterChef featuring Gregg Wallace and John Torode, filmed before the presenters were dropped after facing upheld allegations over their behaviour. This legislation, which applies to more than 100,000 companies – including major platforms like Facebook, Google, X, Reddit, and OnlyFans – came to be following impassioned campaigning by online safety advocates, Dan Milmo told me. 'Longstanding concerns about the impact of social media on children's mental health is a key driver. But there's also significant worry about social media's effect on adult mental health, including online hate like racial hatred and general abuse,' he says. 'This attempts to regulate social media companies and large search engines, which previously lacked formal oversight.' Crucial figures pushing for the government to act on online safety include Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, a teenager who took her own life in 2017 after viewing harmful content online, Dan added. Other influential voices include Baroness Kidron, who has tirelessly advocated for higher standards of children's online safety. There have also been advocates for other aspects of the act, which came into force in 2023 but has taken some time to get up and running, including the footballer Rio Ferdinand, who has spoken powerfully about the mental health impacts of online hate, and the reality TV star Georgia Harrison, a victim of intimate image abuse (sometimes known as revenge porn). How will it work? Ofcom has been given significant new powers to enforce the new rules. 'There's a lot of literature that's already been issued by Ofcom that underpins the act,' Dan said. 'I think that reflects the difficulty in regulating the massive, amorphous thing which is the online world. This isn't like telling the BBC to not show nudity before 9pm. This is about 100,000 companies. While it's obvious that people are still going to see harmful content, this is at least attempting to make a start on that.' Dan explained the new rules don't focus on individual pieces of content but instead mandate robust systems and procedures within companies to tackle harmful content effectively. They also loop in previous legislation on malicious communication online, beefing up hate speech laws and giving regulators greater powers to hold tech platforms accountable for failing to act on abusive or threatening content. He added: 'If companies don't comply, they risk punishments ranging from fines and formal warnings to criminal charges against executives or even being blocked entirely in the UK.' Are these companies ready to comply? Time will tell, Dan said – but the big tech firms do have the money to be able to do so. What about age verification? One of the most controversial elements is the implementation of age verification checks to ensure people who want to access pornography sites are over 18. These age verification requirements will come into force tomorrow, with major pornography providers like Pornhub already committing to putting in place 'highly effective' age-checking measures. 'There has been some backlash over privacy concerns, as confirming one's age implicitly reveals one's consumption of specific content,' Dan said. 'It's worth pointing out that verification methods must comply with UK GDPR standards. A new industry of age-assurance providers, like Yoti, has emerged to facilitate this securely.' Social media companies could also be required to implement age checks if their sites contain harmful content like pornography that can be accessed by under-18s. Social media platforms have to convince Ofcom that whatever measures they put in place to shield children from harmful material are highly effective - and those measures could include stringent age checks. Oliver Griffiths, Ofcom's group director of online safety, said in a statement that 'society has long protected youngsters from products that aren't suitable for them, from alcohol to smoking or gambling … For too long children have been only a click away from harmful pornography online.' Does it go far enough? Campaigners generally feel the act could be stronger. In April, the children's commissioner for England, Rachel de Souza, told Dan that Ofcom was backing big tech over the safety of under-18s, warning that the proposals were too weak. The Molly Rose Foundation, a charity established by the family of Molly Russell, also criticised the measures (pdf) as 'overly cautious'. 'There's definitely a desire to have stronger measures. Peter Kyle, the tech secretary, was speaking this week about putting in a two-hour social media cap to crack down on 'compulsive' screentime. So the government is definitely considering stronger measures to keep children safe online,' Dan explained. The UK isn't alone: Australia is moving to ban social media for all under-16s. 'Many campaigners continue to push for stronger protections, particularly regarding the addictive nature of social media and protections for women's rights and children's safety,' Dan said. There were fears the act would get watered down as part of an effort to get a trade deal with the US. 'But the government comes back every time and says very strongly, 'we will not water down protection of children'. They point out that the act's primary focus is stopping children from being harmed online,' Dan said. Across the Atlantic, where many of the tech giants who will need to comply are based, some in Donald's Trump administration have grumbled about what they see to be far-reaching implications for free speech. However, Dan doesn't believe they will lobby heavily to get it changed. 'It just wouldn't play very well. It would be pretty damaging politically for any government, including the UK, to agree to water down measures that protect children. And I just find it unlikely that tackling child sexual abuse material, for instance, would be something that is a bargaining chip in trade talks.' This act as it is feels like just the start, Dan added, with the government showing signs it is willing to update it if need be. 'Ofcom seems ready for the challenge. They are releasing a lot of codes and a lot of consultations. I think the ultimate test will be whether, let's say in a year's time, children's and adults' experience of the online world is much safer and more comfortable than it is today.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion After the death of his father-in-law, Tim Burrows discovered that direct cremation, a service which cuts out middle men and effectively bypasses formal funerals, is on the rise. But what does this trend say about how we mourn now? Tim explores in this wonderful piece. Charlie Lindlar, acting deputy editor, newsletters As a Gen X-er who grew up pre-smartphone, the thought of someone constantly knowing my whereabouts fills me with horror. Yet today, couples frequently turn on the location-sharing function in order to track one another's movements. Leah Harper and her partner tried it for a week. Did their blue dots head to Splitsville? Alex Needham, acting head of newsletters Damian Carrington is always on top of the damage done by plastics, whether it's to our bodies or our planet. Now he digs into how the industry's lobbyists are 'derailing' a global treaty on cutting plastic production in this depressing piece. Charlie When Philippa Barnes was five, her family joined the Jesus Fellowship, a Christian community based in Northamptonshire, in which women were subordinate to men and family relationships suppressed. In a gripping long read, Barbara Speed tells the story of her life in and out of a cult that disfigured the lives of many of its members. Alex Before the the Towie clans, the Made in Chelsea lot and even the Kardashians, there were The Osbournes. Stuart Heritage explores how the show, centred on the recently departed Ozzy, wife Sharon and kids Jack and Kelly, changed TV … for better or for worse. Charlie Football | Aitana Bonmatí's extra-time winner earned a 1-0 victory against Germany putting Spain into the Euro 2025 final against England. Cricket | India's Rishabh Pant was driven off on a golf buggy and left nursing a suspected broken foot having attempted a reverse sweep off Chris Woakes. Fourth Test, day one: India 264-4 Football | Arsenal have finally reached agreement with Sporting for the transfer of Viktor Gyökeres in a deal worth up to €73.5m (£63.7m). 'We have faced hunger before, but never like this' – a quote from inside Gaza on the front page of the Guardian. The Express carries a 'new plea' from Bob Geldof: 'Feed the children of Gaza and their tormented, terrified, broken and panicked mothers'. 'Badenoch pledge to model leadership on state-slashing Argentine president' – that's the Financial Times while the i paper has 'Cancer patients face 'crushing' treatment delays due to doctors strike tomorrow'. 'Hit striking doctors in pocket, says NHS chief' is the top line in the Times. 'Police not ready for summer of unrest' runs the Telegraph's splash headline while the Daily Mail claims Home Office data shows 'Asylum seekers gambling away taxpayer cash'. The Metro has 'England star asked wife: Help me die'. 'Monster of rock … and proud grandpa' – Ozzy Osbourne remembered in the Mirror. Why do we age in dramatic bursts, and what can we do about it? Scientists are beginning to understand that ageing is not a simply linear process. Instead, recent research appears to show that we age in three accelerated bursts; at about 40, 60 and 80 years old. To find out what might be going on, Ian Sample hears from Professor Michael Snyder, director of the Center for Genomics and Personalised Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine. Michael explains what the drivers of these bursts of ageing could be, and how they might be counteracted. A bit of good news to remind you that the world's not all bad For this week's edition of our games newsletter, Pushing Buttons (sign up here!), Keith Stuart writes on the couples who game together, and how they strengthen their bond through games like Final Fantasy and Animal Crossing. 'There is a lot of romance in experiencing new places together, getting lost and combining skills to help each other out of calamities. There is sweetness in a shared Stardew Valley or Animal Crossing escapade; there is intellectual challenge in quiet evenings with Blue Prince or Split Fiction,' he writes. 'For too long, gaming was seen as the preserve of lonely young men, a hobby too guarded and insular for lovers; now everyone can play and the digital world is opening up.' Sign up here for a weekly roundup of The Upside, sent to you every Sunday And finally, the Guardian's puzzles are here to keep you entertained throughout the day. Until tomorrow. Quick crossword Cryptic crossword Wordiply
The Guardian
13-05-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Trump strikes a blow for AI – by firing the US copyright supremo
Hello, and welcome to TechScape. Sometimes it helps me to write by thinking about how a radio broadcaster or television presenter would deliver the information, so I'm your host, Blake Montgomery. Today in tech news: questions hover over the automation of labor in the worker-strapped US healthcare system; and drones proliferate in a new conflict: India v Pakistan, both armed with nuclear weapons. But first, how fights over AI and copyright take very different shapes in the UK and US. The United Kingdom is in the throes of a debate over whether to compensate artists' for the use of their copyrighted work in the creation of generative artificial intelligence technology. The fracas came to head on Monday with a vote in the House of Lords that saw parliament's upper house demand tech companies make clear whether they have used copyright-protected content. My colleagues Dan Milmo and Raphael Boyd report: The UK government has suffered another setback in the House of Lords over its plans to let artificial intelligence firms use copyright-protected work without permission. An amendment to the data bill requiring AI companies to reveal which copyrighted material is used in their models was backed by peers, despite government opposition. The government's copyright proposals are the subject of a consultation due to report back this year, but opponents of the plans have used the data bill as a vehicle for registering their disapproval. The main government proposal is to let AI firms use copyright-protected work to build their models without permission, unless the copyright holders signal they do not want their work to be used in that process – a solution that critics say is impractical and unworkable. Read the full story about Monday's vote here. Meanwhile, in contrast to a thoughtful and robust conversation, the US is taking the opposite tack. Over the weekend, Donald Trump fired the head of the US copyright office, CBS News reported. Register of Copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, was sacked after she issued a report questioning AI companies' growing need for more data and casting doubt on their expressed need to circumvent current copyright laws. In a statement, New York Democratic representative Joe Morelle pointed specifically to Trump's booster-in-chief Elon Musk as a motivator for Perlmutter's firing: 'Donald Trump's termination of register of copyrights, Shira Perlmutter, is a brazen, unprecedented power grab with no legal basis. It is surely no coincidence he acted less than a day after she refused to rubber-stamp Elon Musk's efforts to mine troves of copyrighted works to train AI models.' Trump's abrupt severing of the copyright chief from her job reminds me of the Gordian knot. Legend has it that Alexander the Great was presented with a knot in a rope tying a cart to a stake. So complex were its twistings that no man had been able to untie it of the hundreds who had tried. Alexander silently drew his sword and sliced the knot in two. The story is one of a great man demonstrating the ingenuity that would lead him to conquer the world. Alexander did solve the riddle. He also defeated its purpose. The cart is left with no anchor. Perhaps the riddle had taken on more significance than the original problem of keeping the cart in place, but that is a question for another day. Trump may have cut through any thorny legal questions the copyright office had raised, but the vacuum at the head of the US's copyright authority means that richer and better-connected players will run roughshod over copyright law in the course of their business. That may be what the president wants. The more powerful players in lawsuits over AI and copyright are undoubtedly the well capitalized AI companies, as much as I want artists to be paid in abundance for their creativity. These tech companies have cozied up to Trump in an effort to ensure a friendlier regulatory environment, which seems to be working if the firing of the copyright chief is any evidence. Lawsuits over how much AI companies owe artists and publishers for their surreptitious use of copyrighted material with an avowed lack of permission still abound, and both plaintiffs and defendants will be taking their cues from the US copyright office. My colleague Nick Robins-Early reports on a sweepstakes put on by Trump promising face-time with the president to holders of his cryptocurrency: On Monday, the top 220 buyers of a Donald Trump-sponsored cryptocurrency won access to an exclusive dinner with the president as a reward for pouring money into the coin. It was the culmination of Trump's weekslong promotion of the contest, which has drawn allegations that he is using his position to enrich his family business while opening himself up to foreign influence. The cryptocurrency, called $TRUMP, was created in mid-January and boasts a market capitalization of over $2bn after months of investors buying into the heavily promoted coin. A Trump family-linked company and another firm own a majority of the coins, according to Reuters. 'Congratulations, if you're in the top 220 on the leaderboard we will be contacting you in the next 24 hours. Check your inbox (and spam folder) and expect a phone call for the Trump Official Dinner invitation and details,' the $TRUMP website announced mid-day Monday. 'President Trump will see YOU on May 22 at the Gala Dinner in Washington D.C.' Trump's crypto enterprise has drawn criticism from Democrats, ethics watchdogs and the Securities and Exchange Commission over conflicts of interest and allegations of corruption. The contest to dine with the president has intensified those concerns as it creates what is essentially a bidding war for direct access to the president. Though India and Pakistan have reached a tenuous ceasefire, the four days of open conflict between the two hostile neighbors offered yet another instance of a phenomenon that has accelerated in recent years: drones now play a central part in modern warfare. Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion The New York Times reports that India accused Pakistan of using drones made by Turkey for its attacks; Pakistan alleged India mobilized Israeli drones, though neither could be verified. Indian military officials claimed that Pakistan had sent between 300 to 400 drones on the offensive at 36 locations on the night of 8 May. Pakistan said it had shot down some 70 drones flown from India. 'Drones' refers to two things that are related but very different: small quadcopters operated by remote control and much larger semi-autonomous aerial vehicles operated from military command centers. It is an unfortunate quirk of English, in my opinion. In India and Pakistan, as well as in Ukraine and Myanmar, the smaller unmanned aircraft have become a mainstay weapon. The war between Ukraine and Russia has demonstrated how widely drones have proliferated. Explosive quadcopters, equipped with first-person view and functioning as aerial improvised explosive devices, have carried out some of the most dramatic attacks of the conflict, including a bombing of the Kremlin itself in May 2023. One expert summarized the development to the Guardian earlier this year by describing drones as evolving from 'a novelty in 2022, to one of the weapons of choice in 2023, to roaming the entire tactical space'. One of the great fears of our age is that machines will replace our jobs en masse, leaving the human workforce in the lurch. The Guardian published a story over the weekend about Zing, a robot that dispenses methadone, a drug used in treatment for the opioid addiction that has spread through the veins of the US in recent decades. Beneath the story of innovation runs an undercurrent: where do we draw the line between automation that offers genuine help to workers and profiteering preference for robot labor over humans? Read the full story about drug-dealing robots here. The story published one day before Walgreens announced it would expand the services of its 'micro-fulfillment centers' – hubs where prescription-dispensing robots count and package medications for chronic health conditions for the company's pharmacies, CNBC reports. Already, these automated centers handle about 16m prescriptions each month, 40% of prescriptions served by Walgreens, according to the company. The company plans to up the number of stores that rely on these centers from 4,800 in February to 5,000 by the end of the year. Walgreens says the shift to automated labor, begun in 2021, is already producing financial results, some $500m in cost savings over the past four years. Pharmacy techs suffer from similar issues as methadone-dispensing nurses – low pay, intense pressure, and high turnover rates – but at a much wider scale. Walgreens is a massive conglomerate of some 12,500 stores across the US, Europe and Latin America worth about $9.7bn; it employs 312,000 people, per its website. In 2023, Walgreens' pharmacy workers staged walkouts across the US to protest their working conditions. Chief among their concerns: chronic understaffing and burnout among the workers who chose to stay. They called the protests 'Pharmageddon'. Walgreens may hire fewer pharmacy workers because it has automated their labor and outsourced it to a micro-fulfilment center. But it seems equally possible based on what pharmacy workers say that those jobs were going unfilled to begin with, leading to unsafe working conditions. Automated labor may fill the gap left by the labor shortage. The same dynamic may play out at methadone clinics across the United States. Already, Walgreens corporate says its automated labor is helping alleviate the problems workers face and allowing staff to spend more time interacting with patients in person. Among the stats: a 40% increase in vaccine dispensations, which are performed person-to-person, at pharmacies served by its automated prescription system. Read more about the automation of labor in a different arena: Amazon warehouses here. BM Boys: the Nigerian sextortion network hiding in plain sight on TikTok Court clash between Meta and NSO ends in $168m defeat for spyware firm AI of dead Arizona road rage victim addresses killer in court
The Guardian
18-02-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
US and UK out of step with rest of the world on AI
Hello, and welcome back to TechScape. Today – the grand failure of the Paris AI summit, the fungibility of facts online, and how to ditch diversity if you're a tech giant. Last week, leaders from around the world gathered in Paris to discuss artificial intelligence and arrive at a common understanding of how to both encourage and regulate the technology's development. They failed. My colleagues Dan Milmo and Eleni Courea report: The US and the UK have refused to sign a declaration on 'inclusive and sustainable' artificial intelligence at a landmark Paris summit, in a blow to hopes for a concerted approach to developing and regulating the technology. The communique states that priorities include 'ensuring AI is open, inclusive, transparent, ethical, safe, secure and trustworthy, taking into account international frameworks for all' and 'making AI sustainable for people and the planet'. The document was backed by 60 other signatories on Tuesday, including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada. Why couldn't the US and the UK come to the same common understanding? 'America first.' In his speech in the Grand Palais, the US vice-president, JD Vance, made it clear the US was not going to be held back from developing artificial intelligence by global regulation or an excessive focus on safety. 'We need international regulatory regimes that foster the creation of AI technology rather than strangle it, and we need our European friends, in particular, to look to this new frontier with optimism rather than trepidation,' he said. The US is competing with China for the lead on AI in a cutthroat race that has led industry executives to decry any laws regulating their businesses as threats to national security. Donald Trump already perceives most European regulations as overly cautious, so he's inclined to agree. What's more, Trump is under the heavy influence of Elon Musk, who is himself the owner of a fledgling AI company. The president doesn't want to follow any law that business leaders tell him will hinder the development of AI, so he's not going to follow Europe's safety-focused lead. The UK has adopted a similar approach in hopes of fostering unfettered AI development and the mammoth investment that often comes with it like the US's $500bn Project Stargate. Read the full story. Google and Apple changed the name of the body of water between Mexico and Florida to 'the Gulf of America' last week. People in Mexico will see the maiden name, people in the US the Maga name. People outside of either nation will see both, which looks a bit like a hyphenated last name. You may not view these new names as facts. However, in the eyes of map software, they are. In its blogpost explaining the change, Google cited the US Geographic Names Information System, which officially updated 'Gulf of Mexico' to 'Gulf of America' after an executive order from Trump. Google Maps pulls its geographic information from online government documents, which have changed to reflect Trump's whims. Other erasures: Google Calendar removed Black History Month, Pride and other cultural events. They won't appear by default on users' calendars any more. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cut online resources for contraception, gender-affirming care, STIs and HIV. Some flickered in and out of existence; some vanished completely. Though we may remember our lives as a single continuous, factual narrative, our collective history comprises many. Modify the official sources that make up the record, and the past changes with them. It is a basic but destabilizing realization. We may say that the Stonewall monument in New York City is dedicated in part to the trans community. That becomes a matter of discussion, dispute and controversy rather than one of agreed-upon fact if the National Parks Service preserves none of its own record of the transgender Americans who fought for their rights there. The incontrovertible proof we might cite in an argument, the Wayback Machine archive of previous versions of websites, is itself fragile and incomplete. A historian's record is good evidence, but it is the recollection of a researcher who relies on primary sources much like the National Parks Service's own record, which is now different. We are faced with the brittleness of the truth. The internet's recollection is long, but like human memory, it decays. Didn't this website used to say something different, we wonder as we stare at the parks department's site on Stonewall. Left with only a suspect official record, facts online are fungible, subject to alteration by those with control of the reference materials. Silicon Valley is moving away from diversity, equity and inclusion. Donald Trump has given private US companies permission that borders on an order to do so. He's mandated that the US government get rid of programs that aim to improve the experiences and increase the numbers of underrepresented employees in the workplace, often abbreviated into a bogeyman as DEI. Last week, the Guardian published two stories that give exclusive details on how tech giants are dismantling their diversity programs. Mark Zuckerberg's company once invested millions and attracted top talent as tech's leader in corporate diversity. Those aspirations peaked in 2019, but just a few years later, Meta scuttled them altogether. My colleagues Johana Bhuiyan and Dara Kerr report: Sign up to TechScape A weekly dive in to how technology is shaping our lives after newsletter promotion 'Facebook used to be the place to be if you wanted to work on diversity,' said a former recruiter on the DEI team, who asked not to be named for fear of professional reprisal. 'Everyone wanted to work with Maxine Williams. Everyone wanted to follow what Facebook was doing. We were the leaders in this.' Seven former Facebook employees who worked on the company's DEI and trust and safety teams say the shift had been a long time in the making. As Zuckerberg's priorities have shifted with political winds, the company's emphasis on diversity and other policies have followed suit, they said. The former employees said it was never clear how personally invested Zuckerberg was in making Meta a more inclusive workplace. This particular anecdote from 2014 made me laugh. It seems like the most 2014 thing to ever happen. Rognlien, a former employee, said Facebook's workers seemed to be taking the lessons of anti-bias workshops to heart. He cited an enthusiastic example of their success: a group of male engineers who had taken the training printed posters of Kanye West's face and hung them in the company's conference rooms. Captioned with 'Imma let you finish' in reference to West cutting off Taylor Swift at the Video Music Awards five years earlier, the oversized heads served as reminders not to interrupt women in meetings. Read the full story. Google has also dropped its diversity program as well as a pledge not to develop weaponized artificial intelligence. In the first all-staff meeting since that one-two-punch announcement, executives defended their decision. My colleague Johana Bhuiyan got inside. *** On diversity: Melonie Parker, Google's former head of diversity, said the company was doing away with its diversity and inclusion employee training programs and 'updating' broader training programs that have 'DEI content'. It was the first time company executives have addressed the whole staff since Google announced it would no longer follow hiring goals for diversity and took down its pledge not to build militarized AI. The chief legal officer, Kent Walker, said a lot had changed since Google first introduced its AI principles in 2018, which explicitly stated Google would not build AI for harmful purposes. He said it would be 'good for society' for the company to be part of evolving geopolitical discussions in response to a question about why the company removed prohibitions against building AI for weapons and surveillance. Parker said that, as a federal contractor, the company had been reviewing all of its programs and initiatives in response to Donald Trump's executive orders that direct federal agencies and contractors to dismantle DEI work. *** On AI: After employee protests in 2018, Google withdrew from the US defense department's Project Maven – which used AI to analyze drone footage – and released its AI principles and values, which promised not to build AI for weapons or surveillance. Kent Walker, Google's chief legal officer, said, 'While it may be that some of the strict prohibitions that were in [the first version] of the AI principles don't jive well with those more nuanced conversations we're having now, it remains the case that our north star through all of this is that the benefits substantially outweigh the risks.' The kicker of the story elicited another laugh from me: For each category of question from employees, Google's internal AI summarizes all the queries into a single one. The third-most-popular question employees asked was why the AI summaries were so bad. 'The AI summaries of questions on Ask are terrible. Can we go back to answering the questions people actually asked?' it read. Read the full story. TikTok returns to Apple App Store and Google Play in US Rape under wraps: how Tinder, Hinge and their corporate owner chose profits over safety Campaigner for migrants in Libya targeted in spyware attack State department removes word 'Tesla' from $400m US armoured vehicles list US watchdog to investigate Musk 'Doge' team's access to payment systems The best iPhones in 2025: which Apple smartphone is right for you, according to our expert Scarlett Johansson warns of dangers of AI after Kanye West deepfake goes viral
