Artificial intelligence Archives | Page 8 of 675

Canada expands AI strategy with safety measures

Canada will invest C$50 million to expand the Canadian AI Safety Institute as part of its new national AI strategy, with a focus on emerging AI risks, technical research and transparent evaluations of AI models.

The strategy, titled ‘AI for All’, says trustworthy AI infrastructure is necessary as AI capabilities grow and agentic AI systems become more widely adopted. According to the government, citizens, businesses, and public institutions need clearer ways to identify which AI systems are safe to use, how risks are assessed and what standards apply.

Canada also plans to work on AI transparency measures, including watermarking of AI-generated content, to help people understand when they are interacting with AI systems or AI-generated material. The government said such measures should support more informed choices about AI products and content.

The strategy also includes plans to create a Canada Trusted AI Certification programme to help users identify trustworthy AI products in the market. Canada will renew funding for the Standards Council of Canada’s AI Programme to support AI testing, certification, interoperability and participation in global standards work.

The AI strategy links safety measures with wider work on privacy, online harms and democratic resilience. The government says it will modernise consumer privacy legislation, introduce online safety laws and protect elections and democratic institutions from AI-enabled misinformation and foreign interference.

Canada also plans to accelerate applied AI research, testing and deployment with law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies in areas such as fraud and extortion prevention, cyber defence, threat detection and data protection.

Why does it matter?

Canada’s strategy treats AI safety not only as research, but as part of the infrastructure needed for adoption and public trust. Certification, model evaluation, watermarking and standards can shape how governments, businesses and citizens decide which AI systems to use. The strategy also shows how AI governance is expanding across privacy, online safety, cybersecurity, elections and national security, rather than remaining limited to innovation policy.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

PMI launches global standard for AI project management

The Project Management Institute (PMI) has published a global standard for managing AI initiatives in portfolio, programme and project environments. The standard, titled ‘The Standard for Artificial Intelligence in Portfolio, Program, and Project Management‘, is intended to guide project, programme and portfolio teams delivering AI initiatives.

PMI said AI deployment within organisations is typically delivered through projects, including the development of AI systems, AI-enabled workflows and AI-powered products. The organisation said project professionals have lacked a dedicated framework for planning, governing and delivering AI transformation initiatives.

The standard establishes eight guiding principles, five performance domains and a lifecycle framework for designing, deploying and overseeing AI initiatives. PMI said the guidance is technology-agnostic and built around human-in-the-loop oversight at every stage.

The standard comes as governments and organisations continue to develop AI governance approaches, including risk-based regulation, transparency requirements, and accountability measures. PMI said the standard is intended to help project professionals integrate responsible AI governance into project delivery, from design and development through deployment and oversight.

The standard also addresses AI business cases, tool selection, AI-specific risk management, ethics oversight, and compliance with emerging requirements such as the EU AI Act and ISO 42001. PMI said the framework provides project leaders with a common language for aligning legal, audit, finance, technology and business teams around AI implementation objectives and governance requirements.

The standard is available as a free digital download for PMI members worldwide. Non-members can access the digital edition through purchase or PMI membership.

Why does it matter?

As organisations move from experimenting with AI to deploying it at scale, attention is increasingly shifting from technical development to implementation, governance and operational oversight. Many AI initiatives fail not because of technology limitations, but because of challenges related to project management, risk management, stakeholder alignment and organisational readiness.

PMI’s standard reflects the growing effort to operationalise AI governance by translating broad principles into practical project delivery processes. It also highlights how emerging regulatory frameworks, such as the EU AI Act, are influencing the way organisations plan, manage and oversee AI-enabled transformation initiatives.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

New NIST study reveals inherent weaknesses in AI defences

A new study by a researcher at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology suggests that fixed AI guardrails cannot provide complete protection against adaptive adversarial prompts.

The paper, published in IEEE Security & Privacy by NIST senior scientist Apostol Vassilev, uses logic linked to Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorems to argue that a finite set of AI safety rules cannot be universally robust against every possible prompt-based attack.

According to NIST, the finding does not mean AI systems cannot be hardened. Instead, it supports moving away from a ‘one and done’ security model towards continuous monitoring, testing and updating.

The recommended approach includes ongoing red-team work to identify adversarial prompts before attackers exploit them, continuous updates to strengthen guardrails and operational resilience measures that limit the impact of successful attacks and enable quick recovery.

NIST said the goal is not to eliminate all vulnerabilities, but to make exploitation more difficult and costly. As AI systems are deployed more widely, organisations should treat AI security as a permanent operational process rather than a problem that can be solved through a fixed set of controls.

Why does it matter?

The study reinforces a central challenge in AI governance: security controls for AI systems cannot be treated as static compliance measures. As AI tools are integrated into business operations, public services and security-sensitive environments, organisations may need continuous red-teaming, guardrail updates, monitoring and incident response. The policy relevance lies in shifting AI risk management from one-time assurance towards ongoing operational resilience.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

MIT study warns of AI reliance in news verification

A new MIT Media Lab study suggests that using AI to verify news can improve short-term accuracy but may not help users build lasting skills to detect misinformation.

The month-long study followed 67 participants as they assessed news headlines and image pairs. Participants were 21% more accurate at detecting false information when assisted by an AI chatbot during a session. However, their unassisted performance on new news items declined by 15 percentage points by the fourth week compared with before the study began.

Researchers linked the finding to the ‘AI dependency paradox’, in which tools that improve immediate performance can also encourage users to rely on automated guidance rather than develop their own judgement. The study found that some participants shifted from active analysis to passive acceptance of AI suggestions, even as some believed their own abilities were improving.

The researchers said the way AI systems interact with users matters. Tools that ask guided questions and encourage reasoning appear more likely to support long-term learning than systems that simply provide direct answers.

The findings point to the need for stronger AI literacy as chatbots become more common in news consumption, education and information verification. Researchers also noted limitations, including the small set of validated news items and a participant pool focused on the United States and the United Kingdom.

Why does it matter?

AI is increasingly becoming part of how people search for, verify and consume news. The study suggests that using AI as a shortcut for fact-checking may reduce users’ ability to evaluate information independently, while better-designed systems could support learning and critical reasoning. That distinction matters for educators, platforms and policymakers working on misinformation, media literacy and responsible AI use.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

New York moves to curb undisclosed news scraping by AI bots

New York lawmakers have passed legislation aimed at restricting ‘stealth crawlers’, automated bots that access and scrape content from news websites without identifying themselves. If signed by Governor Kathy Hochul, New York would become the first US state to impose such transparency requirements.

The bill would require companies operating such bots to identify themselves when accessing the websites of news organisations. It would also prohibit activity that damages, impairs or places undue burdens on news websites, or otherwise causes economic harm to publishers.

Supporters, including the New York State Broadcasters Association and the New York News Publishers Association, argue that undisclosed scraping allows technology companies to use journalistic content for AI and other automated services while reducing traffic and revenue opportunities for publishers.

The legislation would authorise the New York Attorney General’s office to take enforcement action against non-compliant companies, with civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day for violations. The measure was passed by lawmakers in New York and now awaits the governor’s decision.

Why does it matter?

The legislation reflects growing tensions between news publishers and technology companies over the use of online content for AI training, search services and other automated applications. Publishers increasingly argue that large-scale content scraping can generate commercial value for technology firms while undermining the business models that support journalism.

If enacted, the measure could establish one of the first state-level transparency frameworks governing automated content collection in the United States. It may also influence broader debates about AI training data, web scraping practices, publisher rights and the relationship between technology platforms and news organisations.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

UK to issue guidance on smartphone and screen use for children

The Department for Education and Department of Health and Social Care have announced plans to publish guidance on mobile device use for children aged 5 to 16. The guidance, due to be published this autumn, aims to provide parents with practical advice on issues including screen time, social media use, sleep and smartphone habits.

A three-week call for evidence has been launched to help shape the guidance, supported by an independent expert group co-chaired by Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza and Professor Russell Viner. The review will also examine how children use screens in schools and at home.

The government said technology can support learning, creativity and inclusion, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities. It added that the guidance will focus on helping families make informed decisions about online safety rather than imposing blanket restrictions on technology use.

Alongside the guidance, the government plans additional measures relating to technology in education, including the possible introduction of safety certification for certain school technology products and the creation of an AI Youth Advisory Board.

Ministers are also considering measures such as app curfews, time limits and other tools aimed at improving children’s online safety. The announcement was made in the UK, where ministers said technology used in schools should be safe, effective and supported by evidence.

Why does it matter?

Governments around the world are increasingly examining the impact of smartphones, social media and digital platforms on children’s wellbeing, safety and development. While technology can provide educational and social benefits, concerns have grown over excessive screen time, online harms, sleep disruption and the effects of digital services on young people.

The UK’s approach reflects a broader policy trend towards evidence-based guidance and targeted safeguards rather than outright restrictions. The review may also influence future discussions on digital wellbeing, online safety, parental controls and the role of technology in education.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

India’s human rights commission examines impact of digital arrest scams

The National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) held an open house discussion on safeguarding human rights against digital arrest scams, highlighting their growing impact on individual rights, dignity and personal security.

The NHRC Chairperson said cybersecurity-enabled fraud has caused significant financial losses and noted that digital arrest scams often exploit fear of law enforcement authorities to coerce victims into transferring money. Participants also highlighted the challenges victims face in recovering stolen funds and obtaining effective redress.

Speakers stressed the need for stronger protections for vulnerable groups, particularly older adults, alongside improved data protection, public awareness campaigns and faster support mechanisms for victims. Participants also reviewed existing government measures, AI-powered detection tools and industry initiatives aimed at preventing and detecting fraud.

Key recommendations included recognising digital arrest scams as a distinct criminal offence, strengthening measures against mule accounts and the fraudulent misuse of official identities, improving compensation and recovery mechanisms, and enhancing cooperation among government agencies, industry and other stakeholders in India.

Why does it matter?

Digital arrest scams have emerged as a growing form of cyber-enabled fraud, combining social engineering techniques with the impersonation of law enforcement and government authorities. By exploiting fear and urgency, such scams can cause significant financial losses and psychological harm, particularly among vulnerable groups.

The discussion highlights the increasing intersection between cybersecurity, consumer protection and human rights. As digital fraud becomes more sophisticated, policymakers are placing greater emphasis on prevention, victim support, data protection and coordinated responses involving government agencies, technology providers and financial institutions.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Anthropic launches Claude Fable 5 with advanced safety safeguards

Anthropic has launched Claude Fable 5, a new general-purpose AI model, alongside Claude Mythos 5, a more capable version reserved for selected cyber defence and infrastructure partners.

The company described Fable 5 as its most capable generally available model to date, with strong performance across software engineering, knowledge work, vision and scientific research. Anthropic said the model’s advanced capabilities pose misuse risks, particularly in cybersecurity and research biology.

To reduce those risks, Fable 5 includes additional safety classifiers designed to detect potential misuse, including attempts to bypass safeguards. When certain high-risk requests are detected, users may receive a response from Anthropic’s next-most-capable model, Claude Opus 4.8, rather than Fable 5.

Anthropic said the safeguards have been tuned conservatively and may sometimes block benign requests. According to the company, the fallback mechanism is triggered in less than 5% of sessions on average.

Claude Mythos 5 uses the same underlying model as Fable 5, but with some safeguards lifted in specific areas. Anthropic said it will initially deploy Mythos 5 through Project Glasswing, in collaboration with the US government, for a limited group of cyber defenders and critical software infrastructure providers.

The launch highlights a growing model governance approach in which access to frontier AI capabilities is tiered according to use case and risk. Anthropic said it plans to expand trusted access to Mythos 5 while continuing to refine safeguards for broader public use.

Why does it matter?

The release shows how frontier AI providers are increasingly linking capability deployment to access controls, model routing and domain-specific safeguards. As advanced systems become more useful for software engineering, cybersecurity and scientific research, companies face pressure to provide broad access while limiting misuse in dual-use areas. Anthropic’s split between Fable 5 and Mythos 5 reflects a wider governance question: who should receive access to the most capable AI systems, under what conditions, and with what oversight.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our chatbot!

EU orders Meta to restore access for AI assistants

The European Commission has imposed interim measures requiring Meta to restore access to WhatsApp for rival general-purpose AI assistants while an EU antitrust investigation continues.

The measures require Meta to reinstate access to the WhatsApp Business Solution for third-party AI assistant providers under the same terms that applied before 15 October 2025. Meta must comply within five working days and maintain access until the Commission adopts a final decision.

The Commission opened the investigation in December 2025 after Meta changed the terms of its WhatsApp Business Solution to restrict AI providers from using the service when AI was the primary service offered. In February 2026, the Commission sent Meta a Statement of Objections setting out its preliminary view that the conduct could breach the EU antitrust rules.

According to the Commission, Meta appears at first sight to hold a dominant position in the EEA-wide market for consumer communication applications through WhatsApp. It also said Meta may have abused that position by preventing competing general-purpose AI assistants from accessing and interacting with users on WhatsApp.

Meta revised its policy in March 2026 to allow third-party AI assistants back onto WhatsApp, but introduced a fee that the Commission said was, at first sight, equivalent in practice to the previous ban. The Commission warned that the conduct could harm competition at a critical stage in the development of the market for general-purpose AI assistants.

The substantive investigation remains ongoing, and the interim measures do not prejudge the Commission’s final decision. The Commission said it may impose fines or daily penalty payments if Meta fails to comply.

Why does it matter?

The case shows how the EU competition enforcement is moving into the emerging market for general-purpose AI assistants. WhatsApp is not only a messaging service, but also a major access point for businesses and users. If dominant platforms can limit rival AI assistants’ access to such channels, competition in AI services could be shaped before the market fully matures. The interim measures also signal that the Commission is willing to act quickly where it believes platform conduct may create serious and irreparable harm to competition.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech, and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!

Poland signals progress on AI gigafactories and digital services tax

According to the Polish Press Agency, negotiations between the European Commission and EU member states on the development of AI gigafactories could conclude in June. The planned facilities are expected to be financed through the EU’s €20 billion InvestAI fund.

The initiative aims to establish five AI gigafactories across the EU to support the development of large-scale AI models and applications. Discussions intensified after revisions to the funding model required member states to commit financial support before the launch of a tender process limited to private companies and consortia.

Polish Deputy Minister of Digitisation Dariusz Standerski said Poland led a coalition of seven member states that opposed the revised framework and pushed for changes. He said negotiations are now close to a compromise that could strengthen the EU’s digital sovereignty and AI infrastructure ambitions.

Separately, Standerski said the Ministry of Digitisation is finalising proposals for a digital services tax of up to 3% on revenues generated by large technology companies operating in Poland. The draft legislation is expected to be published by early July in Poland.

Why does it matter?

The AI gigafactory initiative is a central component of the EU’s broader effort to strengthen its AI infrastructure and reduce dependence on non-European providers of computing capacity. Access to large-scale computing resources is increasingly viewed as a prerequisite for developing advanced AI models and competing in the global AI ecosystem.

The negotiations also highlight the governance challenges associated with large industrial policy initiatives. Questions around funding, public-private participation and member state involvement will shape how effectively the EU can translate its AI ambitions into operational infrastructure.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!