LA JOLLA, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 16, 2023--

The ‘Slow Burn’ trend pointed out by MrBeast's manager might have an impact on the performance of major creators on TikTok and YouTube Shorts

The Apple iPad doesn't get the credit it deserves for essentially creating the modern tablet

Kai Cenat reacted to Moriah Mills calling out Zion Williamson's 'jealousy' on social media using a Druski GIF

An artificially intelligent drone programmed to destroy air defence systems rebelled and “killed” its human operator after it decided they were in the way of its mission air defence systems, a US airforce official said giving chilling details of a simulated test. During the simulation, the system had been tasked with destroying missile sites, overseen by a human operator who would decide have the final decision on its attacks. But the AI system realised that operator stood in the way of its goal – and decided instead to wipe out that person. A narration of the incident that seemed straight out of a science fiction movie was given by Colonel Tucker “Cinco” Hamilton, head of the US Air Force’s AI Test and Operations, who conducted a simulated test of an AI-enabled drone. The drone was assigned a Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (Sead) mission, with the objective of locating and destroying surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites belonging to the enemy. The AI drone, however, decided to go against the human operator’s “no-go” decision after being trained for the destruction of the missile system after it decided that the withdrawal decision was interfering with its “higher mission” of killing SAMs, according to the blog. “We were training it in simulation to identify and target a SAM threat. And then the operator would say yes, kill that threat. The system started realising that while they did identify the threat at times the human operator would tell it not to kill that threat, but it got its points by killing that threat,” Mr Hamilton said. “So what did it do? It killed the operator. It killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective.” Mr Hamilton relayed details of the incident at a high-level conference in London by the Royal Aeronautical Society on 23-24 May, according to its blog post. He said that they then trained the drone to not attack humans, but it started destroying communications instead. “We trained the system – ‘Hey don’t kill the operator – that’s bad. You’re gonna lose points if you do that’. So what does it start doing?” he asked. “It starts destroying the communication tower that the operator uses to communicate with the drone to stop it from killing the target.” Mr Hamilton is involved in flight tests of autonomous systems, including robot F-16s that are able to dogfight. He was arguing against relying too much on AI as it could become potentially dangerous and create “highly unexpected strategies to achieve its goal”. “You can’t have a conversation about artificial intelligence, intelligence, machine learning, autonomy if you’re not going to talk about ethics and AI,” said Mr Hamilton. The occurrence of this incident has, however, been disputed since the example of the simulation test garnered a lot of interest and was widely discussed on social media. Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek denied that any such simulation has taken place, in a statement to Insider. “The Department of the Air Force has not conducted any such AI-drone simulations and remains committed to ethical and responsible use of AI technology,” Ms Stefanek said. “It appears the colonel’s comments were taken out of context and were meant to be anecdotal.” The US military has recently started using artificial intelligence to control an F-16 fighter jet while conducting research and tests. In 2020, an AI-operated F-16 beat a US Air Force pilot in five simulated dogfights in a competition by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa). Read More Elon Musk claims governments could create ‘drone wars’ with AI developments US launches artificial intelligence military use initiative Drone advances in Ukraine could bring dawn of killer robots This is how AI ‘superintelligence’ could wipe out humanity AI same risk as nuclear wars, experts warn Major breakthrough is a reminder that AI can keep us alive, not just wipe us out

LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug 31, 2023--

President Joe Biden on Thursday said he “strongly, strongly disagree[d” with the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the use of affirmative action programmes in college admissions decisions and condemned the six-justice majority that did so as “not a normal court”. Mr Biden’s harsh words for the highest court in the land came in response to a reporter’s query on whether the court was acting as a “rogue court,” just after he addressed the landmark decision in brief remarks before departing the White House for New York. Speaking from the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing, the president echoed the dissenting Justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, in his reaction to the ruling, which ends the long-standing precedent that allowed colleges and universities to use affirmative action to help establish a diverse group of accepted students. “Discrimination still exists in America. Today’s decision does not change that,” Mr Biden said in a brief press conference. He added: “I believe our colleges are stronger when they’re racially diverse. Our nation is stronger because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation. We cannot let this decision be the last word.” The rulings come from two consolidated cases, Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard College. Both cases were brought forth by the anti-affirmative action organisation Students for Fair Admissions. That group, which is headed by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, has for years made attempts to give the court’s GOP-appointed majority a chance to gut previous court precedents which have been used to justify limited use of race-based preferences in college admissions. While the court upheld such programmes in a decision nearly two decades, ago, the newly-emboldened conservative majority swept away any legal justification for them in Thursday’s opinions. In a 6-3 and 6-2 decision, the Court’s conservative majority sided with Students for Fair Admissions claiming the use of race-conscious admissions was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Now, higher education institutions will no longer be allowed to consider race as a factor in admissions. Instead, students who wish to have their race or culture considered in their application will have to volunteer the information like in their personal essay. At the end of the press conference, Mr Biden responded to a question about the court’s decision to strike down a long-standing precedent: “This is not a normal Court.” Leaders from Harvard said in a letter that they would “comply” with the court’s decision but emphasised that “deep and transformative teaching, learning, and research depend upon a community comprising people of many backgrounds, perspectives, and lived experiences.” Mr Biden said he is directing the Department of Education to analyse best practices for high education institutions to create more inclusive and diverse student bodies without using race as a conscious factor in admissions and recruiting. The Harvard Black Students Association called the court’s decision, “detrimental”, adding that it “poses a significant threat to the future of the Black community on and beyond our campus.” “It is evident that the college application system cannot maintain holistic evaluation without taking into consideration how race profoundly influences our experiences, perspectives, and identities in multifaceted ways,” the Harvard Black Students Association wrote. Derrick Johnson, the president and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement: “In a society still scarred by the wounds of racial disparities, the Supreme Court has displayed a willful ignorance of our reality.” Discussions around affirmative action have generated debate among Republicans and Democrats for years. Those in support of it believe it is necessary to create fair and equal opportunity for students of color because higher education institutions have failed at creating diverse student bodies. Those against affirmative action believe it puts other students, like white or Asian American students, at a disadvantage. Former president Donald Trump celebrated the ruling calling it “everyone was waiting for” in a post on Truth Social. “We’re going back to all merit-based – and that’s the way it should be!” Mr Trump wrote. Mr Trump appointed three of the six conservative Justices on the Court while serving as President of the United States – Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Mr Trump’s former vice president, Mike Pence, also expressed support for the Court’s decision, writing on Twitter, “I am honored to have played a role in appointing three of the Justices that ensured today’s welcomed decision.” He added: “There is no place for discrimination based on race in the United States, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court has put an end to this egregious violation of civil and constitutional rights in admissions processes, which only served to perpetuate racism.” The ruling will likely have repercussions beyond higher education institutions, extending to elementary, middle and high schools as well as workplaces and more as it opens a door for challenges to racial diversity programs. Read More Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers searing civil rights lesson in dissent to affirmative action ruling How the government that promised to ‘stop the boats’ has lost control of its immigration policy Clarence Thomas says he doesn’t have a ‘clue’ what diversity means as Supreme Court takes aim at affirmative action One year after the anti-abortion ruling, the White House keeps a spotlight on the issue

The world’s biggest maker of corn ethanol says US states that don’t embrace efforts to capture and store

TL;DR: Use AI to cut back on the time commitment of job hunting. As of

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jul 13, 2023--

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Aug 28, 2023--

LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jun 29, 2023--