British Campaigners Warn Against Meta’s Plans to Use Automation in Risk Assessment

Campaigners for internet safety are calling on the UK Communications Regulator to restrict the application of artificial intelligence in essential risk assessments, following reports that Meta, founded by Mark Zuckerberg, intends to automate these checks.

Ofcom stated that it would “consider the concerns” outlined in the letters from campaigners, as highlighted in last month’s report, which indicated that up to 90% of all risk assessments for the owners of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp would be conducted by AI.

Social media platforms are crucial in assessing how harm manifests on their services and how they can alleviate potential dangers, particularly regarding the protection of child users and the prevention of illegal content, in accordance with the UK’s online safety legislation. The risk assessment process is deemed a vital element of this law.

In correspondence addressed to Ofcom’s CEO, Melanie Dawes, organizations like the Molly Rose Foundation, NSPCC, and Internet Watch Foundation criticized the prospect of AI-led risk assessments as “a backward and bewildering move.”

They urged, “We recommend advocating publicly that risk assessments are rarely seen as ‘appropriate and sufficient.’

The letter also called on the watchdog to “confront the belief that the platform can opt to bypass the risk assessment process.”

A spokesperson from Ofcom remarked, “Who has completed, reviewed, or approved the risk assessment? We are taking the concerns raised in this letter into account and will respond in due course.”

Skip past newsletter promotions

Mehta commented that the letter misrepresented the company’s safety strategies, which focus on high standards and adherence to regulations.

A Meta spokesperson stated, “We have not relied on AI for making decisions regarding risk. Our specialists have developed tools that assist teams in determining when legal and policy obligations pertain to a specific product. We have enhanced our capability to manage harmful content with human-supervised technology, leading to significantly better safety outcomes.”

The Molly Rose Foundation initiated the letter after a report by US broadcaster NPR last month indicated that Meta’s algorithms and updated safety features had been predominantly approved by AI systems, bypassing human oversight.

An unnamed former Meta executive told NPR that this shift would enable companies to roll out app updates and features more rapidly on Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp; however, it raises concerns regarding the prevention of potential issues prior to the launch of new products, resulting in “increased risks” for users.

NPR also noted that Meta is exploring the possibility of automating reviews in sensitive areas, particularly concerning risks to young users and addressing the spread of misinformation.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump Administration Rejects Author of the National Climate Assessment

The Trump administration has dismissed numerous scientists and experts who were working on the federal government’s key report regarding the impacts of global warming on the nation.

This decision, which is obligatory in Congress, poses significant risks to the future of the National Climate Assessment, according to experts.

Since 2000, the federal government has released an in-depth report every few years detailing how rising temperatures influence human health, agriculture, fisheries, water resources, transportation, energy generation, and various aspects of the U.S. economy. The latest climate assessment was published in 2023. This report is utilized not only by state and local authorities but also by private enterprises, assisting in preparations for extreme weather events, floods, droughts, and other climate-related challenges.

On Monday, researchers nationwide began the preparation for the sixth National Climate Assessment, scheduled for early 2028, only to receive an email indicating that the report’s scope is “currently under review” and all contributors have been dismissed.

“We are now liberating all existing assessment contributors from their roles,” the email stated. “As the evaluation plan progresses, there may be future chances for contribution or involvement. Thank you for your service.”

For some authors, this felt like a devastating setback for the next report.

“This could signal the end of the assessment,” remarked Jesse Keenan, a professor at Tulane University specializing in climate adaptation and a co-author of the previous climate assessment. “If we eliminate all involved, there will be no advancement.”

The White House has not yet responded to requests for comments.

Climate assessments are generally compiled by volunteer scientists and expert contributors from across the nation. The process involves multiple reviews by 14 federal agencies and a public comment period. Oversight is provided by the Global Change Research Program, a federal entity established by Congress in 1990, with support from NASA.

During the Trump administration, this process faced significant upheaval. Recently, NASA terminated its major partnership with ICF International, a consulting firm that supplied much of the technical support and staffing for the Global Change Research Program, which coordinates the contributions from numerous sources.

President Trump has consistently downplayed the risks associated with global warming. Russell Vert, the current head of the Office of Management and Budget, noted in a pre-election document that the next president should “reorganize” the global change research program, as scientific reports on climate change were often utilized in environmental litigation that restricted federal actions.

Vought advocated for the separation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency responsible for the government’s largest climate research unit, termed the “climate warning.”

During Trump’s first term, the administration made efforts to undermine the national climate assessment. When the 2018 report was released, which found that global warming posed an imminent and catastrophic threat, the administration published it the day after Thanksgiving to lessen its impact.

In February, scientists submitted a comprehensive summary of the upcoming assessment to the White House for initial review; however, that review has been halted, and the agency’s comment period has been delayed.

It remains uncertain what will happen next with the assessment, which is still mandated by Congress. Some scientists worry that the administration may attempt to draft an entirely new report from scratch, potentially downplaying the dangers of rising temperatures and contradicting established climate science.

“These are the most effective strategies to assist us,” said Mead Crosby, a senior scientist in the Climate Impact Group at the University of Washington, who has contributed to the assessment. “The real question is whether it accurately reflects reliable science and has a tangible impact on our community in preparing for climate change.”

Scientists previously involved in climate assessments assert that the report is crucial for understanding the effects of climate change on daily life in the United States.

Catherine Hayho, a climate scientist at Texas Tech, stated this month, “we are considering that global issue and making it more relevant to us.” “If you care about food, water, transportation, insurance, or health, this is what climate change signifies for residents in the Southwest or the Great Plains. That’s the importance.”

Numerous state and local policymakers, along with private companies, depend on these assessments to comprehend how climate change impacts various regions of the United States and how they can adapt accordingly.

While the scientific understanding of climate change and its repercussions has not dramatically shifted since the last assessment in 2023, Dr. Keenan from Tulane noted that research is continuously advancing regarding what communities can do to mitigate rising sea levels and other issues exacerbated by increasing temperatures.

Scientists indicated that decision-makers responsible for the final assessment would likely rely on outdated information regarding effective adaptations and mitigation measures.

“We risk losing our fundamental report, which is intended to communicate the dangers of climate change and propose advancements,” stated Dustin Mulbany, an environmental studies professor and author at San Jose State University. “That would be quite devastating.”

Source: www.nytimes.com

Funding for national climate assessment to be reduced

The Trump administration has slashed funding and staff for a program overseeing the primary federal report on the impacts of global warming on the country, leading to concerns among scientists about the future of assessments.

Congress mandates the National Climate Assessment every four years, examining the effects of rising temperatures on various sectors of the US economy. The most recent report was published in 2023 and is being utilized by state and city governments and private companies to prepare for climate change.

The Global Change Research Program, established by Congress in 1990 and supported by NASA, coordinates efforts among 14 federal agencies, the Smithsonian agency, and external scientists to produce these reports.

NASA recently issued stopwork orders for consulting firms ICF International, which provided crucial technical support and staff for the Global Change Research Program. The cancellation of this support has raised uncertainty about the future of the assessment.

Scientists are unsure how the assessment can proceed without ICF’s support, as they have played a significant role in previous assessments.

In response, NASA is working to rationalize contracts and improve efficiency in supporting Congress-mandated programs. The cancellation of the ICF contract was first reported by Politico.

The next national climate assessment, scheduled for 2027 or 2028, may face challenges following these developments, with many climate scientists already expressing concerns about its future.

During Trump’s first term, the administration attempted to undermine the nation’s climate assessment, releasing the 2018 report on the day after Thanksgiving to minimize its impact.

Climate assessments involve scientists nationwide who volunteer to write reports, which then undergo reviews by federal agencies. The delay in the review process for the upcoming assessment has raised concerns among scientists.

Federal involvement in the assessment adds significant value, according to experts, as it ensures a comprehensive review by all federal agencies and the public.

The National Climate Assessment is crucial for understanding how climate change impacts everyday life in the United States, bringing the global issue closer to home.

Climate scientists emphasize the importance of the assessment in highlighting the effects of climate change on various aspects of daily life.

Source: www.nytimes.com