Amazon introduced an updated slate of Echo devices and pledged to bring ChatGPT-style artificial intelligence to Alexa-powered gadgets. From a report: For more than a year the digital assistant has been using a home-built set of large language models -- the foundational networks that enable ChatGPT and rival technologies -- to help summarize text gathered from the web and make Alexa more conversant in various languages, Dave Limp, Amazon's senior vice president of Devices & Services, said in an interview. New, more conversational capabilities will "roll out incrementally," he said. "It's not years away, but there are some things that we have to solve." Amazon on Wednesday announced four updated Alexa devices:

The Echo Pop, which takes the company's spherical, fabric-covered Echo Dot smart speaker and slices it in half. The semi-spherical device, which sells for $40, comes with technology borrowed from Amazon's eero router subsidiary that can extend the range of home Wi-Fi

A revamped Echo Show 5, which pairs Alexa with a 5-inch screen. Amazon says the $90 speaker is 20% faster than the prior generation and has clearer sound.

An updated edition of the Echo Show 5 Kids comes with a year of Amazon's Kids+ subscription with age-appropriate audiobooks, videos and games. It will sell for $100.

A new version of Amazon's Echo Buds loses the noise-cancelling feature of previous editions, but, at $50, comes in at less than half the price. The buds let users listen to music and summon Alexa on the go.

According to the Financial Times, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman is close to raising around $100 million in funding for his Worldcoin cyrpto project. Markets Insider reports: Worldcoin is in advanced talks to raise the cash from both new and existing investors ahead of a potential launch within the next few weeks, the Financial Times said Sunday, citing three people with knowledge of the deal. The startup wants to use eyeball-scanning technology to create a digital identification system that would give people across the globe access to a free crypto token called Worldcoin. It's previously received backing from Andreessen Horowitz's crypto fund, Coinbase's VC arm Coinbase Ventures, and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried.

Worldcoin pulled in $100 million from investors last year through a token sale that valued the company at around $3 billion, according to a report by The Information from March 2022. That fundraising effort came before a bruising period for crypto in which flagship tokens like bitcoin and ether cratered in price and high-profile companies including Bankman-Fried's FTX collapsed. "It's a bear market, a crypto winter. It's remarkable for a project in this space to get this amount of investment," one of the FT's sources told the publication.

Vice Media has filed for bankruptcy, "punctuating a yearslong descent from a new-media darling to a cautionary tale of the problems facing the digital publishing industry," writes Lauren Hirsch and Benjamin Mullin via the New York Times. The media company was once valued at $5.7 billion back in 2017. From the report: The bankruptcy will not interrupt daily operations for Vice's businesses, which in addition to its flagship website include the ad agency Virtue, the Pulse Films division and Refinery29, a women-focused site acquired by Vice in 2019. A group of Vice's lenders, including Fortress Investment Group and Soros Fund Management, is in the leading position to acquire the company out of bankruptcy. The group has submitted a bid of $225 million, which would be covered by its existing loans to the company. It would also take over "significant liabilities" from Vice after any deal closes. A sale process follows next. The lenders have secured a $20 million loan to continue operating Vice and then, if a better bid does not emerge, the group that includes Fortress and Soros will acquire Vice.

Investments from media titans like Disney and shrewd financial investors like TPG, which spent hundreds of millions of dollars, will be rendered worthless by the bankruptcy, cementing Vice's status among the most notable bad bets in the media industry. Like some of its peers in the digital-media industry, including BuzzFeed and Vox Media, Vice and its investors bet big on the rising power of social media networks like Facebook and Instagram, anticipating they would deliver a tide of young, upwardly mobile readers that advertisers craved. Though readers came by the millions, new media companies had trouble wringing profits from them, and the bulk of digital ad dollars went to the major tech platforms.

An anonymous reader writes: A once-in-a-generation convergence of technology and pressure to operate more efficiently has corporations saying many lost jobs may never return. The jobs lost in a monthslong cascade of white-collar layoffs triggered by overhiring and rising interest rates might never return, corporate executives and economists say. Companies are rethinking the value of many white-collar roles, in what some experts anticipate will be a permanent shift in labor demand that will disrupt the work life of millions of Americans whose jobs will be lost, diminished or revamped through the use of artificial intelligence.

"We may be at the peak of the need for knowledge workers," said Atif Rafiq, a former chief digital officer at McDonald's and Volvo. "We just need fewer people to do the same thing." Long after robots began taking manufacturing jobs, artificial intelligence is now coming for the higher-ups -- accountants, software programmers, human-resources specialist and lawyers -- and converging with unyielding pressure on companies to operate more efficiently. [...] The Labor Department projects that of the 20 occupations that will create the most jobs through 2031, about two-thirds will be blue-collar jobs that pay around $32,000 a year, including home-health and personal-care aides, restaurant cooks, fast-food workers, wait staff and freight movers. The professions with the best prospects for growth that require a college degree include software developers, operations managers and registered nurses. Those jobs pay around $100,000 a year and are forecast to be better protected than other white-collar work from AI displacement.

The top US cryptocurrency enforcement tsar is promising a crackdown on illicit behaviour on digital platforms, saying the scale of crypto crime has grown "significantly" in the past four years. From a report: The Department of Justice is targeting crypto exchanges along with the "mixers and tumblers" that obscure the trail of transactions, Eun Young Choi, who was appointed director of the agency's national cryptocurrency enforcement team last year, told the Financial Times in an interview. The DoJ is targeting companies that commit crimes themselves or allow them to happen, such as enabling money laundering, she said. "But on top of that, they're allowing for all the other criminal actors to easily profit from their crimes and cash out in ways that are obviously problematic to us," she added. "And so we hope that by focusing on those types of platforms, we're going to have a multiplier effect."

Choi said the focus on platforms would "send a deterrent message" to businesses that are skirting anti-money laundering or client identification rules, and who were not investing in solid compliance and risk mitigation procedures. Choi heads a new unit focused on criminal misuse of digital assets as the US under the administration of President Joe Biden has emerged as one of the jurisdictions with the toughest stance on crypto worldwide. "We're seeing the scale and the scope of digital assets being used in a variety of illicit ways grow significantly over the last, say, four years," she said. "I think that is concurrent with the increase of its adoption by the public writ large."

Ilya Pozin made a bunch of money when Viacom bought Pluto TV, the free video-streaming company he co-founded, for $340 million four years ago. Since exiting Pluto about a year after that deal closed, Pozin has been working on another startup venture -- one he thinks will be a much bigger deal. From a report: On Monday, Pozin's brainchild, Telly, comes out of stealth after two years in development. Telly wants to ship out thousands (and eventually millions) of free 4K HDTVs, which would cost more than $1,000 at retail, according Pozin. The 55-inch main screen is a regular TV panel, with three HDMI inputs and an over-the-air tuner, plus an integrated soundbar. The Telly TVs don't actually run any streaming apps that let you access services like Netflix, Prime Video or Disney+; instead, they're bundled with a free Chromecast with Google TV adapter.

What's new and different: The unit has a 9-inch-high second screen, affixed to the bottom of the set, which is real estate Telly will use for displaying news, sports scores, weather or stocks, or even letting users play video games. And, critically, Telly's second screen features a dedicated space on the right-hand side that will display advertising -- ads you can't skip past and ads that stay on the screen the whole time you're watching TV... and even when you're not.

"Tech CEOs want us to believe that generative AI will benefit humanity," argues an column in the Guardian, adding "They are kidding themselves..."

"There is a world in which generative AI, as a powerful predictive research tool and a performer of tedious tasks, could indeed be marshalled to benefit humanity, other species and our shared home. But for that to happen, these technologies would need to be deployed inside a vastly different economic and social order than our own, one that had as its purpose the meeting of human needs and the protection of the planetary systems that support all life... " AI — far from living up to all those utopian hallucinations — is much more likely to become a fearsome tool of further dispossession and despoilation...

What work are these benevolent stories doing in the culture as we encounter these strange new tools? Here is one hypothesis: they are the powerful and enticing cover stories for what may turn out to be the largest and most consequential theft in human history. Because what we are witnessing is the wealthiest companies in history (Microsoft, Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon ...) unilaterally seizing the sum total of human knowledge that exists in digital, scrapable form and walling it off inside proprietary products, many of which will take direct aim at the humans whose lifetime of labor trained the machines without giving permission or consent.

This should not be legal. In the case of copyrighted material that we now know trained the models (including this newspaper), various lawsuits have been filed that will argue this was clearly illegal... The trick, of course, is that Silicon Valley routinely calls theft "disruption" — and too often gets away with it. We know this move: charge ahead into lawless territory; claim the old rules don't apply to your new tech; scream that regulation will only help China — all while you get your facts solidly on the ground. By the time we all get over the novelty of these new toys and start taking stock of the social, political and economic wreckage, the tech is already so ubiquitous that the courts and policymakers throw up their hands... These companies must know they are engaged in theft, or at least that a strong case can be made that they are. They are just hoping that the old playbook works one more time — that the scale of the heist is already so large and unfolding with such speed that courts and policymakers will once again throw up their hands in the face of the supposed inevitability of it all...

[W]e trained the machines. All of us. But we never gave our consent. They fed on humanity's collective ingenuity, inspiration and revelations (along with our more venal traits). These models are enclosure and appropriation machines, devouring and privatizing our individual lives as well as our collective intellectual and artistic inheritances. And their goal never was to solve climate change or make our governments more responsible or our daily lives more leisurely. It was always to profit off mass immiseration, which, under capitalism, is the glaring and logical consequence of replacing human functions with bots.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader mspohr for sharing the article.

Three companies "supplied millions of fake public comments to influence a 2017 proceeding by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to repeal net neutrality rules," announced New York's attorney general this week.

Their investigation "found that the fake comments used the identities of millions of consumers, including thousands of New Yorkers, without their knowledge or consent," as well as "widespread fraud and abusive practices" Collectively, the three companies have agreed to pay $615,000 in penalties and disgorgement. This is the second series of agreements secured by Attorney General James with companies that supplied fake comments to the FCC... As detailed in a report by the Office of the Attorney General, the nation's largest broadband companies funded a secret campaign to generate millions of comments to the FCC in 2017. These comments provided "cover" for the FCC to repeal net neutrality rules. To help generate these comments, the broadband industry engaged commercial lead generators that used advertisements and prizes, like gift cards and sweepstakes entries, to encourage consumers to join the campaign.

However, nearly every lead generator that was hired to enroll consumers in the campaign instead simply fabricated consumers' responses. As a result, more than 8.5 million fake comments that impersonated real people were submitted to the FCC, and more than half a million fake letters were sent to Congress. Two of the companies, LCX and Lead ID, were each engaged to enroll consumers in the campaign. Instead, each independently fabricated responses for 1.5 million consumers. The third company, Ifficient, acted as an intermediary, engaging other lead generators to enroll consumers in the campaign. Ifficient supplied its client with more than 840,000 fake responses it had received from the lead generators it had hired.

The Office of the Attorney General's investigation also revealed that the fraud perpetrated by the various lead generators in the net neutrality campaign infected other government proceedings as well. Several of the lead generation firms involved in the broadband industry's net neutrality comment campaigns had also worked on other, unrelated campaigns to influence regulatory agencies and public officials. In nearly all of these advocacy campaigns, the lead generation firms engaged in fraud. As a result, more than 1 million fake comments were generated for other rulemaking proceedings, and more than 3.5 million fake digital signatures for letters and petitions were generated for federal and state legislators and government officials across the nation.

LCX and Lead ID were responsible for many of these fake comments, letters, and petition signatures. Across four advocacy campaigns in 2017 and 2018, LCX fabricated consumer responses used in approximately 900,000 public comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) at the U.S. Department of the Interior. Similarly, in advocacy campaigns between 2017 and 2019, Lead ID fabricated more than half a million consumer responses. These campaigns targeted a variety of government agencies and officials at the federal and state levels...

LCX and its principals will pay $400,000 in penalties and disgorgement to New York and $100,000 to the San Diego District Attorney's Office.
Thanks to Slashdot reader gkelley for sharing the news.

The EU is planning an undersea internet cable to improve connectivity to Georgia and reduce dependence on lines running through Russia, amid growing concerns about vulnerabilities to infrastructure transmitting global data. From a report: The $49mn cable will link EU member states to the Caucasus via international waters in the Black Sea, stretching a span of 1,100km. The project aims to reduce the region's "dependency on terrestrial fibre-optic connectivity transiting via Russia," the European Commission said in a policy document. The EU and Georgia jointly identified the need for the Black Sea internet cable in 2021 to improve Georgia's digital connectivity. However, the war in Ukraine has added impetus to the project, given the need to avoid relying on "connections that are not secure or stable," said a person with knowledge of the proposal.

Internet cables have come under scrutiny because of global concerns around espionage, as land-based lines and the stations where submarine cables come ashore are seen as vulnerable to interception by governments, hackers and thieves. Concerns around intentional sabotage of undersea cables and other maritime infrastructure have also grown since multiple explosions on the Nord Stream gas pipelines last September, which media reports recently linked to Russian vessels. Two cables off the coast of Norway were cut in 2021 and 2022, sparking concerns about malicious attacks.

Veteran open source report Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, writing at The Register: We can all agree that securing our software is a good thing. Thanks to one security fiasco after another -- the SolarWinds software supply chain attack, the perpetual Log4j vulnerability, and the npm maintainer protest code gone wrong -- we know we must secure our code. But the European Union's proposed Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) goes way, way too far in trying to regulate software security. At the top level, it looks good. Brussels states that before "products with digital elements" are allowed on the EU market, manufacturers must follow best practices in four areas. Secure the product over its whole life; follow a coherent cybersecurity framework; show cybersecurity transparency; and ensure customers can use products securely. Sounds great, doesn't it? But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The devil, as always, is in the details. Some of this has nothing to do with open source software. Good luck creating any program in any way that a clueless user can't screw up.

But the EU commissioners don't have a clue about how open source software works. Or, frankly, what it is. They think that open source is the same as proprietary software with a single company behind it that's responsible for the work and then monetizes it. Nope. Open source, as I've said over and over again, is not a business model. Sure, you can build businesses around it. Who doesn't these days? But just as the AWSes, Googles, and Facebooks of the world depend on open source software, they also use programs written by Tom, Denise, and Harry from around the world. The CRA's underlying assumption is that you can just add security to software, like adding a new color option to your car's paint job. We wish!

Securing software is a long, painful process. Many open source developers have neither the revenue nor resources to secure their programs to a government standard. The notional open source developer in Nebraska, thanklessly maintaining a vital small program, may not even know where Brussels is (it's in Belgium). They can't afford to secure their software to meet EU specifications. They often have no revenue. They certainly have no control over who uses their software. It's open source, for pity's sake! As open source developer Thomas Depierre recently blogged: "We are not suppliers. All the people writing and maintaining these projects, we are not suppliers. We do not have a business relationship with all these organizations. We are volunteers, writing code and putting it online under these Licenses." Exactly.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called out the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Thursday, slamming the financial watchdog for its regulatory approach toward the digital asset industry. From a report: It filed an amicus brief in support of Coinbase, which took the SEC to court last month. The exchange wants a court to force the SEC to respond to its so-called "petition for rulemaking" filed last July. The petition asks the SEC to propose and adopt rules for digital assets and answer questions related to regulation. Now Coinbase has one of the largest business organizations in the world standing behind it.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents the interests of more than 3 million businesses and organizations throughout the country, from small businesses to global corporations, according to its website. Amicus briefs are legal documents containing information or advice related to a specific court case and are provided by third parties. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused the SEC of intentionally sewing uncertainty to keep the digital assets industry on ice. "The SEC has deliberately muddied the waters by claiming sweeping authority over digital assets while deploying a haphazard, enforcement-based approach," it wrote. "This regulatory chaos is by design, not happenstance." Further reading: Coinbase CEO Says SEC is On 'Lone Crusade'

SimilarWeb: Developers increasingly get advice from AI chatbots and GitHub CoPilot rather than Stack Overflow message boards. While traffic to OpenAI's ChatGPT has been growing exponentially, Stack Overflow has been experiencing a steady decline -- losing some of its standings as the go-to source developers turn to for answers to coding challenges. Actually, traffic to Stack Overflow's community website has been dropping since the beginning of 2022. That may be in part because of a related development, the introduction of the CoPilot coding assistant from Microsoft's GitHub business. CoPilot is built on top of the same OpenAI large language model as ChatGPT, capable of processing both human language and programming language. A plugin to the widely used Microsoft Visual Studio Code allows developers to have CoPilot write entire functions on their behalf, rather than going to Stack Overflow in search of something to copy and paste. CoPilot now incorporates the latest GPT-4 version of OpenAI's platform.

On a year-over-year basis, traffic to Stack Overflow (stackoverflow.com) has been down by an average of 6% every month since January 2022 and was down 13.9% in March. ChatGPT doesn't have a year-over-year track record, having only launched at the end of November, but its website (chat.openai.com) has become one of the world's hottest digital properties in that short time, bigger than Microsoft's Bing search engine for worldwide traffic. It attracted 1.6 billion visits in March and another 920.7 million in the first half of April. The GitHub website has also been seeing strong growth, with traffic to github.com up 26.4% year-over-year in March to 524 million visits. That doesn't reflect all the usage of CoPilot, which normally takes place within an editor like Visual Studio Code, but it would include people coming to the website to get a subscription to the service. Visits to the GitHub CoPilot free trial signup page more than tripled from February to March, topping 800,000.

Former Coinbase product manager Ishan Wahi was sentenced to two years in prison for insider trading. Decrypt reports: Ishan Wahi, 32, and his associates -- including his brother, Nikhil -- made over $1.5 million from investing in new digital assets just before they were listed by America's biggest crypto exchange. Wahi was able to use his knowledge of incoming assets to buy them and then quickly sell them, to make huge profits. When the San Francisco-based exchange lists new coins and tokens, they quickly shoot up in value, a phenomenon known as "the Coinbase effect."

The Indian national tried to flee the country after being quizzed by Coinbase, the Department of Justice said. But he was stopped from boarding a flight to India by American cops. Wahi pleaded guilty in February to two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud brought against him by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. Wahi, his brother and his friend, Sameer Ramani, were also hit with civil charges by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. "[Wahi] violated the trust placed in him by his employer" by sharing the secret listings," said U.S. Attorney Damian Williams. "Today's sentence should send a strong signal to all participants in the cryptocurrency markets that the laws decidedly do apply to them."

For the first time, the American Psychological Association (APA) has issued guidelines for teenagers, parents, teachers and policymakers on how to use social media, with the aim of reducing the rate of depression, anxiety and loneliness in adolescents. NPR reports: The 10 recommendations in the report summarize recent scientific findings and advise actions, primarily by parents, such as monitoring teens' feeds and training them in social media literacy, even before they begin using these platforms. But some therapists and clinicians say the recommendations place too much of the burden on parents. To implement this guidance requires cooperation from the tech companies and possibly regulators.

While social media can provide opportunities for staying connected, especially during periods of social isolation, like the pandemic, the APA says adolescents should be routinely screened for signs of "problematic social media use." The APA recommends that parents should also closely monitor their children's social media feed during early adolescence, roughly ages 10-14. Parents should try to minimize or stop the dangerous content their child is exposed to, including posts related to suicide, self-harm, disordered eating, racism and bullying. Studies suggest that exposure to this type of content may promote similar behavior in some youth, the APA notes.

Another key recommendation is to limit the use of social media for comparison, particularly around beauty -- or appearance-related content. Research suggests that when kids use social media to pore over their own and others' appearance online, this is linked with poor body image and depressive symptoms, particularly among girls. As kids age and gain digital literacy skills they should have more privacy and autonomy in their social media use, but parents should always keep an open dialogue about what they are doing online. The report also cautions parents to monitor their own social media use, citing research that shows that adults' attitudes toward social media and how they use it in front of kids may affect young people.

The APA's report does contain recommendations that could be picked up by policy makers seeking to regulate the industry. For instance it recommends the creation of "reporting structures" to identify and remove or deprioritize social media content depicting "illegal or psychologically maladaptive behavior," such as self-harm, harming others, and disordered eating. It also notes that the design of social media platforms may need to be changed to take into account "youths' development capabilities," including features like endless scrolling and recommended content. It suggests that teens should be warned "explicitly and repeatedly" about how their personal data could be stored, shared and used.

The FBI has sabotaged a suite of malicious software used by elite Russian spies, U.S. authorities said on Tuesday, providing a glimpse of the digital tug-of-war between two cyber superpowers. From a report: Senior law enforcement officials said FBI technical experts had identified and disabled malware wielded by Russia's FSB security service against an undisclosed number of American computers, a move they hoped would deal a death blow to one of Russia's leading cyber spying programs.

"We assess this as being their premier espionage tool," one of the U.S. officials told journalists ahead of the release. He said Washington hoped the operation would "eradicate it from the virtual battlefield." The official said the FSB spies behind the malware, known as Snake, are part of a notorious hacking group tracked by the private sector and known as "Turla." The group has been active for two decades against a variety of NATO-aligned targets, U.S. government agencies and technology companies, a senior FBI official said.

Microsoft is expanding preview access to its Microsoft 365 Copilot, a digital assistant based on OpenAI's GPT-4 that brings AI-powered capabilities across Microsoft 365 apps and services. The tech giant has also announced a new indexing tool that lets Copilot more accurately report on internal company data, alongside some new Copilot features for apps like Microsoft Whiteboard, Outlook, and PowerPoint. From a report: The company is launching the Microsoft 365 Copilot Early Access Program -- an invitation-only paid preview that will initially be rolled out to 600 global customers. Prior to this expansion, just 20 customers have been able to test the Microsoft 365 Copilot. Those new customers will be asked to pay an unspecified amount for the privilege, but Microsoft doesn't say when the rollout will begin.

Microsoft is also introducing a range of new capabilities to the Microsoft 365 Copilot. A new Semantic Index feature is being rolled out for enterprise customers running the Microsoft 365 E3 or E5 suite that creates an intuitive map of both user and company data. Microsoft says that the Semantic Index "is critical to getting relevant, actionable responses to prompts in Microsoft 365 Copilot." For example, Microsoft says that by asking Copilot about a "March sales report," the tool will recognize that "sales reports are produced by Kelly on the finance team and created in Excel," rather than simply looking for any documents containing those keywords.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: An EU plan under which all WhatsApp, iMessage and Snapchat accounts could be screened for child abuse content has hit a significant obstacle after internal legal advice said it would probably be annulled by the courts for breaching users' rights. Under the proposed "chat controls" regulation, any encrypted service provider could be forced to survey billions of messages, videos and photos for "identifiers" of certain types of content where it was suspected a service was being used to disseminate harmful material. The providers issued with a so-called "detection order" by national bodies would have to alert police if they found evidence of suspected harmful content being shared or the grooming of children.

Privacy campaigners and the service providers have already warned that the proposed EU regulation and a similar online safety bill in the UK risk end-to-end encryption services such as WhatsApp disappearing from Europe. Now leaked internal EU legal advice, which was presented to diplomats from the bloc's member states on 27 April and has been seen by the Guardian, raises significant doubts about the lawfulness of the regulation unveiled by the European Commission in May last year. The legal service of the council of the EU, the decision-making body led by national ministers, has advised the proposed regulation poses a "particularly serious limitation to the rights to privacy and personal data" and that there is a "serious risk" of it falling foul of a judicial review on multiple grounds.

The EU lawyers write that the draft regulation "would require the general and indiscriminate screening of the data processed by a specific service provider, and apply without distinction to all the persons using that specific service, without those persons being, even indirectly, in a situation liable to give rise to criminal prosecution." The legal service goes on to warn that the European court of justice has previously judged the screening of communications metadata is "proportionate only for the purpose of safeguarding national security" and therefore "it is rather unlikely that similar screening of content of communications for the purpose of combating crime of child sexual abuse would be found proportionate, let alone with regard to the conduct not constituting criminal offenses." The lawyers conclude the proposed regulation is at "serious risk of exceeding the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to meet the legitimate objectives pursued, and therefore of failing to comply with the principle of proportionality". The legal service is also concerned about the introduction of age verification technology and processes to popular encrypted services. "The lawyers write that this would necessarily involve the mass profiling of users, or the biometric analysis of the user's face or voice, or alternatively the use of a digital certification system they note 'would necessarily add another layer of interference with the rights and freedoms of the users,'" reports the Guardian.

"Despite the advice, it is understood that 10 EU member states -- Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania and Spain -- back continuing with the regulation without amendment."

Perhaps woken by news of its next premier first-party title already looking really impressive on emulators, Nintendo has moved to take down key tools for emulating and unlocking Switch consoles, including one that lets Switch owners grab keys from their own device. From a report: Simon Aarons maintained a forked repository of Lockpick, a tool (along with Lockpick_RCM) that grabbed the encryption keys from a Nintendo Switch and allowed it to run officially licensed games. Aarons tweeted on Thursday night that Nintendo had issued DMCA takedown requests to GitHub, asking Lockpick, Lockpick_RCM, and nearly 80 forks and derivations to be taken down under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which largely makes illegal the circumvention of technological protection measures that safeguard copyrighted material.

Nintendo's takedown request (RTF file) notes that the Switch contains "multiple technological protection measures" that allow the Switch to play only "legitimate Nintendo video game files." Lockpick tools, combined with a modified Switch, let users grab the cryptographic keys from their own Switch and use them on "systems without Nintendo's Console TPMs" to play "pirated versions of Nintendo's copyright-protected game software." GitHub typically allows repositories with DMCA strikes filed against them to remain open while their maintainers argue their case. Still, it was an effective move. Seeing Nintendo's move on Lockpick, a popular Switch emulator on Android, Skyline, called it quits over the weekend, at least as a public-facing tool you can easily download to your phone. In a Discord post (since removed, along with the Discord itself), developer "Mark" wrote that "the risks associated with a potential legal case are too high for us to ignore, and we cannot continue knowing that we may be in violation of copyright law."

America's consumer-protecting federal agency has a division overseeing advertising practices. Its web site includes a "business guidance" section with "advice on complying with FTC law," and this week one of the agency's attorney's warned that the FTC "is focusing intensely on how companies may choose to use AI technology, including new generative AI tools, in ways that can have actual and substantial impact on consumers."

The warning came in a blog post titled "The Luring Test: AI and the engineering of consumer trust." In the 2014 movie Ex Machina, a robot manipulates someone into freeing it from its confines, resulting in the person being confined instead. The robot was designed to manipulate that person's emotions, and, oops, that's what it did. While the scenario is pure speculative fiction, companies are always looking for new ways — such as the use of generative AI tools — to better persuade people and change their behavior. When that conduct is commercial in nature, we're in FTC territory, a canny valley where businesses should know to avoid practices that harm consumers...

As for the new wave of generative AI tools, firms are starting to use them in ways that can influence people's beliefs, emotions, and behavior. Such uses are expanding rapidly and include chatbots designed to provide information, advice, support, and companionship. Many of these chatbots are effectively built to persuade and are designed to answer queries in confident language even when those answers are fictional. A tendency to trust the output of these tools also comes in part from "automation bias," whereby people may be unduly trusting of answers from machines which may seem neutral or impartial. It also comes from the effect of anthropomorphism, which may lead people to trust chatbots more when designed, say, to use personal pronouns and emojis. People could easily be led to think that they're conversing with something that understands them and is on their side.

Many commercial actors are interested in these generative AI tools and their built-in advantage of tapping into unearned human trust. Concern about their malicious use goes well beyond FTC jurisdiction. But a key FTC concern is firms using them in ways that, deliberately or not, steer people unfairly or deceptively into harmful decisions in areas such as finances, health, education, housing, and employment. Companies thinking about novel uses of generative AI, such as customizing ads to specific people or groups, should know that design elements that trick people into making harmful choices are a common element in FTC cases, such as recent actions relating to financial offers , in-game purchases , and attempts to cancel services . Manipulation can be a deceptive or unfair practice when it causes people to take actions contrary to their intended goals. Under the FTC Act, practices can be unlawful even if not all customers are harmed and even if those harmed don't comprise a class of people protected by anti-discrimination laws.
The FTC attorney also warns against paid placement within the output of a generative AI chatbot. ("Any generative AI output should distinguish clearly between what is organic and what is paid.") And in addition, "People should know if an AI product's response is steering them to a particular website, service provider, or product because of a commercial relationship. And, certainly, people should know if they're communicating with a real person or a machine..."

"Given these many concerns about the use of new AI tools, it's perhaps not the best time for firms building or deploying them to remove or fire personnel devoted to ethics and responsibility for AI and engineering. If the FTC comes calling and you want to convince us that you adequately assessed risks and mitigated harms, these reductions might not be a good look. "

Thanks to Slashdot reader gluskabe for sharing the post.

Fines for overdue library books were eliminated more than three years ago in Chicago, Seattle, and San Francisco — as well as at the Los Angeles Public Library system (which serves 18 million people). The Hill reported that just in the U.S., more than 200 cities and municipalities had eliminated the fines by the end of 2019: Fines account for less than 1 percent of Chicago Public Library's revenue stream, and there is also a collection cost in terms of staff time, keeping cash on hand, banking and accounting. The San Diego library system did a detailed study and found the costs were higher than the fines collected, says Molloy.
And this week the King County Library System in Washington state — serving one million patrons in 50 libraries — joined the trend, announcing that it would end all late fines for overdue books.

A local newspaper summarized the results of a six-month review by library staff presented to the Board of Trustees: - In recent years, fines made up less than 1% of KCLS' operating budget.
- Late fine revenue continues to decrease over time. This trend correlates with patrons' interest in more digital and fewer physical items. Digital titles return automatically and do not accrue late fines.
- Collecting fines from patrons also has costs. Associated expenses include staff time, payment processing fees, printing notices and more.
- A majority of peer libraries have eliminated late fines.
Now Slashdot reader robotvoice writes: Library fines were assessed since early last century as an incentive for patrons to return materials and "be responsible." However, many studies have found that fines disproportionately affect the poor and disadvantaged in our society...

I have collected several anecdotes of dedicated library patrons who were locked out of borrowing because of excessive and punitive fines... I get daily use and enjoyment from library books and materials. While I personally have been scrupulous about paying fines — until they were eliminated — I support the idea that libraries are there to help those with the least access.

What do you think?
Share your own thoughts in the comments. Should libraries eliminate fines for overdue books?