hacklink hack forum hacklink film izle hacklink marsbahisizmir escortsahabetpornJojobetcasibompadişahbetjojobetEsenyurt Escort

News

Tag: Uncertain

  • Content creators respond to TikTok’s uncertain future in the US

    Content creators respond to TikTok’s uncertain future in the US

    TikTok content creators who make a living promoting their businesses and personal brands on the app were afraid Sunday that they would have to find new ways to engage consumers and make money as the app’s future in the United States remained uncertain.

    TikTok told U.S. users that it was beginning to restore service just hours after the popular video-sharing platform went dark in response to a federal ban, which President-elect Donald Trump said he would try to pause by executive order on his first day in office.

    Some users reported Sunday that the app was working again, but it remained unavailable for download in Apple and Google’s app stores. Others remained locked out of accessing their profiles and the communities they had built online.

    Here’s how content creators are reacting:

    On a typical morning, esthetician and social media personality Lee Zavorskas scrolls on TikTok while she sips coffee. Sunday morning was different – she scribbled a to-do list instead, which included playing with her cats and dog and plotting how to bolster her presence on other platforms like YouTube since TikTok went dark for her Saturday night.

    “I’m a 58-year-old content creator that found a seat at the table that’s not available on Instagram,” Zavorskas said.

    While Zavorskas has more followers on Instagram, she found a large crowd of people over the age of 40 on TikTok, making it easier to build her audience. She held out some hope that she would be able to return to the community she found on the app.

    “It’s like going to your favorite restaurant and ordering your favorite food, and they’re like, ‘You know what? We took it away,’” she said.

    Tiffany Cianci, a Maryland-based content creator who owns small businesses, stopped posting on Twitter and Instagram and cut her advertising with Meta and Google out of frustration.

    “It’s TikTok or nothing for me,” she said.

    She thinks lawmakers unfairly punished TikTok for succeeding alongside its profitable competitors. And they played “political football” with an app that millions of small businesses rely on to survive, she said.

    “I spoke to small businesses in the last three days that have sobbed on my livestreams, afraid they’ll have to lay their employees off tomorrow morning,” Cianci said. “They are so afraid because they have other people’s lives in their hands.”

    Tiffany Watson, a 20-year-old beauty content creator, had been making videos since the days of Musical.ly, and was just starting to figure out the kind of content she was passionate about when TikTok went dark.

    “The community on TikTok is like nothing else, so it’s weird to not have that anymore,” she said.

    With spare time on her hands, Watson plans to focus on bolstering her presence on Instagram and YouTube. She also wants to devote more time to school as the psychology major and criminal justice minor prepares to graduate from Wingate University in North Carolina and enter “the real world.” But being a content creator remains her “main dream,” she said.

    If Trump lifts the ban, Watson plans to return to TikTok, but said she will “probably be more tuned into my YouTube since this ban has kinda spooked me.”

    Source link

  • The outlook is uncertain for AI regulations as the US government pivots to full Republican control

    The outlook is uncertain for AI regulations as the US government pivots to full Republican control

    WASHINGTON — With artificial intelligence at a pivotal moment of development, the federal government is about to transition from one that prioritized AI safeguards to one more focused on eliminating red tape.

    That’s a promising prospect for some investors but creates uncertainty about the future of any guardrails on the technology, especially around the use of AI deepfakes in elections and political campaigns.

    President-elect Donald Trump has pledged to rescind President Joe Biden’s sweeping AI executive order, which sought to protect people’s rights and safety without stifling innovation. He hasn’t specified what he would do in its place, but the platform of the Republican National Committee, which he recently reshaped, said AI development should be “rooted in Free Speech and Human Flourishing.”

    It’s an open question whether Congress, soon to be fully controlled by Republicans, will be interested in passing any AI-related legislation. Interviews with a dozen lawmakers and industry experts reveal there is still interest in boosting the technology’s use in national security and cracking down on non-consensual explicit images.

    Yet the use of AI in elections and in spreading misinformation is likely to take a backseat as GOP lawmakers turn away from anything they view as potentially suppressing innovation or free speech.

    “AI has incredible potential to enhance human productivity and positively benefit our economy,” said Rep. Jay Obernolte, a California Republican widely seen as a leader in the evolving technology. “We need to strike an appropriate balance between putting in place the framework to prevent the harmful things from happening while at the same time enabling innovation.”

    Artificial intelligence interests have been expecting sweeping federal legislation for years. But Congress, gridlocked on nearly every issue, failed to pass any artificial intelligence bill, instead producing only a series of proposals and reports.

    Some lawmakers believe there is enough bipartisan interest around some AI-related issues to get a bill passed.

    “I find there are Republicans that are very interested in this topic,” said Democratic Sen. Gary Peters, singling out national security as one area of potential agreement. “I am confident I will be able to work with them as I have in the past.”

    It’s still unclear how much Republicans want the federal government to intervene in AI development. Few showed interest before this year’s election in regulating how the Federal Election Commission or the Federal Communications Commission handled AI-generated content, worrying that it would raise First Amendment issues at the same time that Trump’s campaign and other Republicans were using the technology to create political memes.

    The FCC was in the middle of a lengthy process for developing AI-related regulations when Trump won the presidency. That work has since been halted under long-established rules covering a change in administrations.

    Trump has expressed both interest and skepticism in artificial intelligence.

    During a Fox Business interview earlier this year, he called the technology “very dangerous” and “so scary” because “there’s no real solution.” But his campaign and supporters also embraced AI-generated images more than their Democratic opponents. They often used them in social media posts that weren’t meant to mislead, but rather to further entrench Republican political views.

    Elon Musk, Trump’s close adviser and a founder of several companies that rely on AI, also has shown a mix of concern and excitement about the technology, depending on how it is applied.

    Musk used X, the social media platform he owns, to promote AI-generated images and videos throughout the election. Operatives from Americans for Responsible Innovation, a nonprofit focused on artificial intelligence, have publicly been pushing Trump to tap Musk as his top adviser on the technology.

    “We think that Elon has a pretty sophisticated understating of both the opportunities and risks of advanced AI systems,” said Doug Calidas, a top operative from the group.

    But Musk advising Trump on artificial intelligence worries others. Peters argued it could undercut the president.

    “It is a concern,” said the Michigan Democrat. “Whenever you have anybody that has a strong financial interest in a particular technology, you should take their advice and counsel with a grain of salt.”

    In the run-up to the election, many AI experts expressed concern about an eleventh-hour deepfake — a lifelike AI image, video or audio clip — that would sway or confuse voters as they headed to the polls. While those fears were never realized, AI still played a role in the election, said Vivian Schiller, executive director of Aspen Digital, part of the nonpartisan Aspen Institute think tank.

    “I would not use the term that I hear a lot of people using, which is it was the dog that didn’t bark,” she said of AI in the 2024 election. “It was there, just not in the way that we expected.”

    Campaigns used AI in algorithms to target messages to voters. AI-generated memes, though not lifelike enough to be mistaken as real, felt true enough to deepen partisan divisions.

    A political consultant mimicked Joe Biden’s voice in robocalls that could have dissuaded voters from coming to the polls during New Hampshire’s primary if they hadn’t been caught quickly. And foreign actors used AI tools to create and automate fake online profiles and websites that spread disinformation to a U.S. audience.

    Even if AI didn’t ultimately influence the election outcome, the technology made political inroads and contributed to an environment where U.S. voters don’t feel confident that what they are seeing is true. That dynamic is part of the reason some in the AI industry want to see regulations that establish guidelines.

    “President Trump and people on his team have said they don’t want to stifle the technology and they do want to support its development, so that is welcome news,” said Craig Albright, the top lobbyist and senior vice president at The Software Alliance, a trade group whose members include OpenAI, Oracle and IBM. “It is our view that passing national laws to set the rules of the road will be good for developing markets for the technology.”

    AI safety advocates during a recent meeting in San Francisco made similar arguments, according to Suresh Venkatasubramanian, director of the Center for Tech Responsibility at Brown University.

    “By putting literal guardrails, lanes, road rules, we were able to get cars that could roll a lot faster,” said Venkatasubramanian, a former Biden administration official who helped craft White House principles for approaching AI.

    Rob Weissman, co-president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, said he’s not hopeful about the prospects for federal legislation and is concerned about Trump’s pledge to rescind Biden’s executive order, which created an initial set of national standards for the industry. His group has advocated for federal regulation of generative AI in elections.

    “The safeguards are themselves ways to promote innovation so that we have AI that’s useful and safe and doesn’t exclude people and promotes the technology in ways that serve the public interest,” he said.

    ___

    The Associated Press receives support from several private foundations to enhance its coverage of elections and democracy, and from the Omidyar Network to support coverage of artificial intelligence and its impact on society. AP is solely responsible for all content. See more about AP’s democracy initiative here and a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org

    Source link

  • Mexico says foreign firms have pledged $20 billion in investments, but many are old or uncertain

    Mexico says foreign firms have pledged $20 billion in investments, but many are old or uncertain

    MEXICO CITY — Mexican officials announced Tuesday what they claimed was $20 billion in new foreign direct investment in Mexico, but much of that was neither new, nor completely certain.

    Investor confidence in Mexico has been shaken recently by controversial reforms to the energy sector and the judiciary, and the government is eager to regain the trust of foreign companies.

    Among the bigger announcements Tuesday was what appeared to be a final investment decision by Mexico Pacific LLC for an LNG gas terminal on Mexico’s Gulf of California, also known as the Sea of Cortez.

    That $15 billion project would import U.S. natural gas, liquefy it and ship it to customers largely in Asia. It is planned for Puerto Libertad, between the coastal towns of Guaymas and Puerto Peñasco.

    Mexico Pacific CEO Sarah Bairstow said “this represents the largest foreign direct investment to date.”

    However, that plan has been on the drawing boards since at least 2020, and still depends on getting cross-border gas pipelines approved and built.

    Mexican Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said the second-largest investment was a $6 billion commitment by Amazon.

    While Ebrard did not specify what it was for, Amazon Web Services had already announced in February an investment of “more than $5 billion” to build cloud-computing infrastructure in Mexico.

    And Ebrard said the cruise line Royal Caribbean pledged to invest $1.5 billion in the Caribbean coast resort of Mahahual, south of Tulum.

    That was apparently a reference to the company plan — announced last week — to build a second “Perfect Day Mexico” on-shore facility for cruise ship passengers in Mahahual, which was once a sleepy coastal village until a cruise ship dock was built.

    Ebrard said that, together with other projects, investments could total as much as $30 billion in 2025.

    “The message of President Claudia Sheinbaum is certainty, assurance, investments in Mexico are safe,” Ebrard said at the event.

    However, foreign governments and some foreign business groups have expressed concerns about a reform passed in September that would make all judges — including the justices of the Supreme Court — stand for election.

    The fear is that would politicize court cases and put foreign firms — who obviously have no vote in the elections — at a disadvantage. They fear judges would be likely to heed the will of their constituents than the letter of the law.

    And foreign energy companies are still smarting from their treatment at the hands of Sheinbaum’s predecessor and political mentor, former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who left office on Sept. 30.

    López Obrador pushed through laws to guarantee the state-owned electric utility a majority share of the power market. The reforms put foreign-owned electricity generating plants at the back of the line for power purchases, even though their power plants were often cleaner and used more renewables than the government’s dirty coal and fuel-oil fired generators.

    ____

    Follow AP’s coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at https://apnews.com/hub/latin-america

    Source link

  • Uncertain if lifestyle advice actually works

    Uncertain if lifestyle advice actually works

    Healthcare professionals are increasingly giving advice to patients on how to improve their health, but there is often a lack of scientific evidence if this advice is actually beneficial. This is according to a study from the University of Gothenburg, which also guides towards more effective recommendations.

    The researchers do not criticize the content of the advice — it is good if people lose weight, stop smoking, eat a better diet or exercise more. However, there is no evidence that patients actually change their lifestyle after receiving this advice from healthcare professionals.

    “There is often a lack of research showing that counseling patients is effective. It is likely that the advice rarely actually helps people,” says Minna Johansson, Associate Professor at Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg and General Practitioner at Herrestad’s Healthcare Center in Uddevalla, who is the study’s lead author.

    Few pieces of advice are well-founded

    The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was conducted by an international team of researchers. They have previously analyzed medical recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK. This organization is behind 379 recommendations of advice and interventions that healthcare professionals should give to patients, with the aim of changing their lifestyle.

    In only 3% of cases there were scientific studies showing that the advice has positive effects in practice. A further 13% of this advice had some evidence, but with low certainty. The researchers also reviewed additional guidelines from other influential institutions around the world and found that these often overestimate the positive impact of the advice and rarely take disadvantages into account.

    “Trying to improve public health by giving lifestyle advice to one person at a time is both expensive and ineffective. Resources would probably be better spent on community-based interventions that make it easier for all of us to live healthy lives,” says Minna Johansson, who also believes the advice could increase stigmatization for people with e.g., obesity.

    Showing the way forward

    Today’s healthcare professionals would not be able to give all the advice recommended while maintaining other care. The researchers’ calculations show that in the UK, for example, five times as many nurses would need to be hired, compared to current levels, to cope with the task.

    The study also presents a new guideline to help policy makers and guideline authors consider the pros and cons of the intervention in a structured way before deciding whether or not to recommend it. Victor Montori, Professor of Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in the United States is a co-author of the study: “The guideline consists of a number of key questions, which show how to adequately evaluate the likelihood that the lifestyle intervention will lead to positive effects or not,” says Victor Montori.

    Source link

  • Uncertain if lifestyle advice actually works

    Uncertain if lifestyle advice actually works

    Healthcare professionals are increasingly giving advice to patients on how to improve their health, but there is often a lack of scientific evidence if this advice is actually beneficial. This is according to a study from the University of Gothenburg, which also guides towards more effective recommendations.

    The researchers do not criticize the content of the advice — it is good if people lose weight, stop smoking, eat a better diet or exercise more. However, there is no evidence that patients actually change their lifestyle after receiving this advice from healthcare professionals.

    “There is often a lack of research showing that counseling patients is effective. It is likely that the advice rarely actually helps people,” says Minna Johansson, Associate Professor at Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg and General Practitioner at Herrestad’s Healthcare Center in Uddevalla, who is the study’s lead author.

    Few pieces of advice are well-founded

    The study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, was conducted by an international team of researchers. They have previously analyzed medical recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK. This organization is behind 379 recommendations of advice and interventions that healthcare professionals should give to patients, with the aim of changing their lifestyle.

    In only 3% of cases there were scientific studies showing that the advice has positive effects in practice. A further 13% of this advice had some evidence, but with low certainty. The researchers also reviewed additional guidelines from other influential institutions around the world and found that these often overestimate the positive impact of the advice and rarely take disadvantages into account.

    “Trying to improve public health by giving lifestyle advice to one person at a time is both expensive and ineffective. Resources would probably be better spent on community-based interventions that make it easier for all of us to live healthy lives,” says Minna Johansson, who also believes the advice could increase stigmatization for people with e.g., obesity.

    Showing the way forward

    Today’s healthcare professionals would not be able to give all the advice recommended while maintaining other care. The researchers’ calculations show that in the UK, for example, five times as many nurses would need to be hired, compared to current levels, to cope with the task.

    The study also presents a new guideline to help policy makers and guideline authors consider the pros and cons of the intervention in a structured way before deciding whether or not to recommend it. Victor Montori, Professor of Medicine at the Mayo Clinic in the United States is a co-author of the study: “The guideline consists of a number of key questions, which show how to adequately evaluate the likelihood that the lifestyle intervention will lead to positive effects or not,” says Victor Montori.

    Source link