US Legislators Clash Over Strategies to Enhance Online Child Safety | Technology

SAs historic legislation obtained enough votes to pass in the U.S. Senate, divisions among online child safety advocates have emerged. Some former opponents of the bill have been swayed by amendments and now lend their support. However, its staunchest critics are demanding further changes.

The Kids Online Safety Act (Kosa), introduced over two years ago, garnered 60 supporters in the Senate by mid-February. Despite this, numerous human rights groups continue to vehemently oppose the bill, highlighting the ongoing discord among experts, legislators, and activists over how to ensure the safety of young people in the digital realm.


“The Kids Online Safety Act presents our best chance to tackle the harmful business model of social media, which has resulted in the loss of far too many young lives and contributed to a mental health crisis,” stated Josh Golin, executive director of Fair, a children’s online safety organization.

Critics argue that the amendments made to the bill do not sufficiently address their concerns. Aliya Bhatia, a policy analyst at the Center for Democratic Technology, expressed, “A one-size-fits-all approach to child safety is insufficient in protecting children. This bill operates on the assumption of a consensus regarding harmful content types and designs, which does not exist. Such a belief hampers the ability of young people to freely engage online, impeding their access to the necessary communities.”

What is the Kids Online Safety Act?

The Xhosa bill, spearheaded by Connecticut Democrat Richard Blumenthal and Tennessee Republican Marsha Blackburn, represents a monumental shift in U.S. tech legislation. The bill mandates platforms like Instagram and TikTok to mitigate online risks through alterations to their designs and the ability to opt out of algorithm-based recommendations. Enforcement would necessitate more profound changes to social networks compared to current regulations.

Initially introduced in 2022, the bill elicited an open letter signed by over 90 human rights organizations vehemently opposing it. The coalition argued that the bill could enable conservative state attorneys general, who determine harmful content, to restrict online resources and information concerning LGBTQ+ youth and individuals seeking reproductive health care. They cautioned that the bill could potentially be exploited for censorship.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Could ChatGPT Replace Legislators? AI Generates Complex Bills in 15 Seconds

“`html

ChatGPT may soon become ChatGOV.

Lawmakers from Porto Alegre, Brazil, used an artificial intelligence program to draft a bill that was unanimously approved by their fellow lawmakers last month.

The computer-drafted bill, introduced by 37-year-old city councilor Ramiro Rosario, says there is still a bias against incorporating AI tools into the political process.

“They are [government colleagues] If they had known, they would never have signed it,” said Rosario. told the Wall Street Journal It’s part of a “deliberately boring” bill aimed at stopping local water companies from charging residents for new meters.

Normally, drafting such a painstaking bill would take Rosario and his large staff several days, but ChatGPT produced the lengthy text in just 15 seconds.

Rosario believes this bill is the first in the world to be created entirely by an AI program.

He also predicts that ChatGPT could spell disaster for his public relations team. Case in point: The program also drafted a press release about the law.

“There should be 20 or 30 people.” [employees] In the future it will probably not be necessary,” declared the politician. “To be honest, I don’t need it anymore.”

ChatGPT also came up with legal provisions for the bill that the tech-loving Rosario wouldn’t have thought of on his own.

But other politicians are less enamored with AI.

When some of Mr. Rosario’s government colleagues learned that the bill was authored by ChatGPT, it drew scorn.

City Councilor João Bosco Bas is currently calling for the law to be repealed.

“That’s a dangerous precedent!” the detractors declared. That’s not what you do! He should have talked to other members of Congress first. ”

But Rosario is undaunted.

“They didn’t understand it,” he told Barron’s candidly.

Brazilian lawmakers aren’t the first to use ChatGPT professionally.

british judge I made a headline in September after admitting to using a “very handy” cyber tool to summarize the law.

In March, Indian judges also adopted ChatGPT. decide the fate of the criminal trial.

But experts may be overlooking potential problems with AI tools.

In a recent departmental AI instruction manual, New York City government explains Such technology has the potential for “misuse, flawed design,” as well as “serious bias” and “active harm.”

Experts in the field are deeply concerned about the “fundamental flaw” in the programmed left-leaning bias that ChatGPT uses to derive its answers. Researchers have previously found that they are also more tolerant of hate speech against Republicans and men.

This tool has been used to censor press freedom before. Last February, the show refused to write a New York Post-style article because it was “inflammatory.”

ChatGPT was not held to the same standards when asked to do the same in the style of CNN.

Using ChatGPT involves legal risks. MT.Photostock – Stock.adobe.com Political plans aside, ChatGPT also faces long-term technical issues that will become very clear in legislative matters.

Language learning models (LLMs) have a very hard time creating quotes and often create fake quotes. This can and has already caused problems in court when referring to previous legal cases.

In June, a New York City lawyer profusely apologized to a federal judge after ChatGPT “deceived” him by creating a false precedent for his lawsuit. This is because there is no live feed of updates coming into the program, so the program is basing its responses solely on training data for the day.

Experts warn of built-in bias within ChatGPT. AP

In other words, ChatGPT is not connected to the Internet. that Method.

It’s also worth noting that, similar to Brazil’s controversial Rosario bill, a prominent AI program also believed the US Constitution was drafted by a computer.

“`

Source: nypost.com