Human rights principles Archives | Page 135 of 157

South Korea’s new Science Minister pledges AI-led national transformation

South Korea’s new Science and ICT Minister, Bae Kyung-hoon, has pledged to turn the nation into one of the world’s top three AI powerhouses.

Instead of following outdated methods, Bae outlined a bold national strategy centred on AI, science and technology, aiming to raise Korea’s potential growth rate to 3 per cent and secure a global economic leadership position.

Bae, a leading AI expert and former president of LG AI Research, officially assumed office on Thursday.

Drawing from experience developing hyperscale AI models like LG’s Exaone, he emphasised the need to build a unique competitive advantage rooted in AI transformation, talent development and technological innovation.

Rather than focusing only on industrial growth, Bae’s policy agenda targets a broad AI ecosystem, revitalised research and development, world-class talent nurturing, and addressing issues affecting daily life.

His plans include establishing AI-centred universities, enhancing digital infrastructure, promoting AI semiconductors, restoring grassroots research funding, and expanding consumer rights in telecommunications.

With these strategies, Bae aims to make AI accessible to all citizens instead of limiting it to large corporations or research institutes. His vision is for South Korea to lead in AI development while supporting social equity, cybersecurity, and nationwide innovation.

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

Meta faces fresh EU backlash over Digital Markets Act non-compliance

Meta is again under EU scrutiny after failing to fully comply with the bloc’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), despite a €200 million fine earlier this year.

The European Commission says Meta’s current ‘pay or consent’ model still falls short and could trigger further penalties. A formal warning is expected, with recurring fines likely if the company does not adjust its approach.

The DMA imposes strict rules on major tech platforms to reduce market dominance and protect digital fairness. While Meta claims its model meets legal standards, the Commission says progress has been minimal.

Over the past year, Meta has faced nearly €1 billion in EU fines, including €798 million for linking Facebook Marketplace to its central platform. The new case adds to years of tension over data practices and user consent.

The ‘pay or consent’ model offers users a choice between paying for privacy or accepting targeted ads. Regulators argue this does not meet the threshold for genuine consent and mirrors Meta’s past GDPR tactics.

Privacy advocates have long criticised Meta’s approach, saying users are left with no meaningful alternatives. Internal documents show Meta lobbied against privacy reforms and warned governments about reduced investment.

The Commission now holds greater power under the DMA than it did with GDPR, allowing for faster, centralised enforcement and fines of up to 10% of global turnover.

Apple has already been fined €500 million, and Google is also under investigation. The EU’s rapid action signals a stricter stance on platform accountability. The message for Meta and other tech giants is clear: partial compliance is no longer enough to avoid serious regulatory consequences.

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

Pennsylvania criminalises malicious deepfakes under new digital forgery law

Governor Shapiro has enacted a new statute enhancing Pennsylvania’s legal stance on AI-generated content by defining deceptive deepfakes as digital forgery.

The law criminalises creating and distributing such content, mainly when used for deceit, highlighting a proactive response to deepening online threats.

The legislation differentiates between uses of deepfakes: non-consensual impersonation will result in misdemeanour charges, while cases involving fraudulent intent, such as financial scams or political manipulation, are now classified as third-degree felonies.

Support for the bill was bipartisan and overwhelming in the state legislature. Its sponsors emphasised that while it deters harmful digital impersonation, it also carefully safeguards legitimate speech, including parody, satire, and artistic expression.

With Pennsylvania now among the growing number of states implementing deepfake regulations, this development aligns with a national trend to regulate AI-generated digital forgeries. It complements earlier state-level laws and federal initiatives to curb AI’s misuse without stifling innovation.

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

Women see AI as more harmful across life settings

Women are showing more scepticism than men when it comes to AI particularly regarding its ethics, fairness and transparency.

A national study from Georgetown University, Boston University and the University of Vermont found that women were more concerned about AI’s risks in decision-making. Concerns were especially prominent around AI tools used in the workplace, such as hiring platforms and performance review systems.

Bias may be introduced when such tools rely on historical data, which often underrepresents women and other marginalised groups. The study also found that gender influenced compliance with workplace rules surrounding AI use, especially in restrictive environments.

When AI use was banned, women were more likely to follow the rules than men. Usage jumped when tools were explicitly permitted. In cases where AI was allowed, over 80% of both women and men reported using the tools.

Women were generally more wary of AI’s impact across all areas of life — not just in the professional sphere. From personal settings to public life, survey respondents who identified as women consistently viewed AI as more harmful than beneficial.

The study, conducted via Qualtrics in August 2023, surveyed a representative US sample with a majority of female respondents. On average, participants were 45 years old, with over half identifying as women across different educational and professional backgrounds.

The research comes amid wider concerns in the AI field about ethics and accountability, often led by women researchers. High-profile cases include Google’s dismissal of Timnit Gebru and later Margaret Mitchell, both of whom raised ethical concerns about large language models.

The study’s authors concluded that building public trust in AI may require clearer policies and greater transparency in how systems are designed. They also highlighted the importance of increasing diversity among those developing AI tools to ensure more inclusive outcomes.

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

Online health search grows, but scepticism about AI stays high

Trust in traditional healthcare providers remains high, but Americans are increasingly turning to AI for health information, according to new data from the Annenberg Public Policy Centre (APPC).

While 90% of adults trust their personal health provider, nearly 8 in 10 say they are likely to look online for answers to health-related questions. The rise of the internet gave the public access to government health authorities such as the CDC, FDA, and NIH.

Although trust in these institutions dipped during the Covid-19 pandemic, confidence remains relatively high at 66%–68%. Generative AI tools are now becoming a third key source of health information.

AI-generated summaries — such as Google’s ‘AI Overviews‘ or Bing’s ‘Copilot Answers’ — appear prominently in search results.

Despite disclaimers that responses may contain mistakes, nearly two-thirds (63%) of online health searchers find these responses somewhat or very reliable. Around 31% report often or always finding the answers they need in the summaries.

Public attitudes towards AI in clinical settings remain more cautious. Nearly half (49%) of US adults say they are not comfortable with providers using AI tools instead of their own experience. About 36% express some level of comfort, while 41% believe providers are already using AI at least occasionally.

AI use is growing, but most online health seekers continue exploring beyond the initial summary. Two-thirds follow links to websites such as Mayo Clinic, WebMD, or non-profit organisations like the American Heart Association. Federal resources such as the CDC and NIH are also consulted.

Younger users are more likely to recognise and interact with AI summaries. Among those aged 18 to 49, between 69% and 75% have seen AI-generated content in search results, compared to just 49% of users over 65.

Despite high smartphone ownership (93%), only 59% of users track their health with apps. Among these, 52% are likely to share data with a provider, although 36% say they would not. Most respondents (80%) welcome prescription alerts from pharmacies.

The survey, fielded in April 2025 among 1,653 US adults, highlights growing reliance on AI for health information but also reveals concerns about its use in professional medical decision-making. APPC experts urge greater transparency and caution, especially for vulnerable users who may not understand the limitations of AI-generated content.

Director Kathleen Hall Jamieson warns that confusing AI-generated summaries with professional guidance could cause harm. Analyst Laura A. Gibson adds that outdated information may persist in AI platforms, reinforcing the need for user scepticism.

As the public turns to digital health tools, researchers recommend clearer policies, increased transparency, and greater diversity in AI development to ensure safe and inclusive outcomes.

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

How AI-generated video is reshaping the film industry

AI-generated video has evolved at breakneck speed, moving from distorted and unconvincing clips to hyper-realistic creations that rival traditional filmmaking. What was once a blurry, awkward depiction of Will Smith eating spaghetti in 2023 is now flawlessly rendered on platforms like Google’s Veo 3.

In just months, tools such as Luma Labs’ Dream Machine, OpenAI’s Sora, and Runway AI’s Gen-4 have redefined what’s possible, drawing the attention of Hollywood studios, advertisers, and artists eager to test the limits of this new creative frontier.

Major industry players are already experimenting with AI for previsualisation, visual effects, and even entire animated films. Lionsgate and AMC Networks have partnered with Runway AI, with executives exploring AI-generated family-friendly versions of blockbuster franchises like John Wick and The Hunger Games.

The technology drastically cuts costs for complex scenes, making it possible to create elaborate previews—like a snowstorm filled with thousands of soldiers—for a fraction of the traditional price. However, while some see AI as a tool to expand creative possibilities, resistance remains strong.

Critics argue that AI threatens traditional artistic processes, raises ethical concerns over energy use and data training, and risks undermining human creativity. The debate mirrors past technological shifts in entertainment—inevitable yet disruptive.

As Runway and other pioneers push toward immersive experiences in augmented and virtual reality, the future of filmmaking may no longer be defined solely by Hollywood, but by anyone with access to these powerful tools.

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

Military AI and the void of accountability

In her blog post ‘Military AI: Operational dangers and the regulatory void,’ Julia Williams warns that AI is reshaping the battlefield, shifting from human-controlled systems to highly autonomous technologies that make life-and-death decisions. From the United States’ Project Maven to Israel’s AI-powered targeting in Gaza and Ukraine’s semi-autonomous drones, military AI is no longer a futuristic concept but a present reality.

While designed to improve precision and reduce risks, these systems carry hidden dangers—opaque ‘black box’ decisions, biases rooted in flawed data, and unpredictable behaviour in high-pressure situations. Operators either distrust AI or over-rely on it, sometimes without understanding how conclusions are reached, creating a new layer of risk in modern warfare.

Bias remains a critical challenge. AI can inherit societal prejudices from the data it is trained on, misinterpret patterns through algorithmic flaws, or encourage automation bias, where humans trust AI outputs even when they shouldn’t.

These flaws can have devastating consequences in military contexts, leading to wrongful targeting or escalation. Despite attempts to ensure ‘meaningful human control’ over autonomous weapons, the concept lacks clarity, allowing states and manufacturers to apply oversight unevenly. Responsibility for mistakes remains murky—should it lie with the operator, the developer, or the machine itself?

That uncertainty feeds into a growing global security crisis. Regulation lags far behind technological progress, with international forums disagreeing on how to govern military AI.

Meanwhile, an AI arms race accelerates between the US and China, driven by private-sector innovation and strategic rivalry. Export controls on semiconductors and key materials only deepen mistrust, while less technologically advanced nations fear both being left behind and becoming targets of AI warfare. The risk extends beyond states, as rogue actors and non-state groups could gain access to advanced systems, making conflicts harder to contain.

As Williams highlights, the growing use of military AI threatens to speed up the tempo of conflict and blur accountability. Without strong governance and global cooperation, it could escalate wars faster than humans can de-escalate them, shifting the battlefield from soldiers to civilian infrastructure and leaving humanity vulnerable to errors we may not survive.

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

Asia’s humanities under pressure from AI surge

Universities across Asia, notably in China, are slashing liberal arts enrollments to expand STEM and AI programmes. Institutions like Fudan and Tsinghua are reducing intake for humanities subjects, as policymakers push for a high-tech workforce.

Despite this shift, educators argue that sidelining subjects like history, philosophy, and ethics threatens the cultivation of critical thinking, moral insight, and cultural literacy, which are increasingly necessary in an AI-saturated world.

They contend that humanistic reasoning remains essential for navigating AI’s societal and ethical complexities.

Innovators are pushing for hybrid models of education. Humanities courses are evolving to incorporate AI-driven archival research, digital analysis, and data-informed argumentation, turning liberal arts into tools for interpreting technology, rather than resisting it.

Supporters emphasise that liberal arts students offer distinct advantages: they excel in communication, ethical judgement, storytelling and adaptability, capacities that machines lack. These soft skills are increasingly valued in workplaces that integrate AI.

Analysts predict that the future lies not in abandoning the humanities but in transforming them. When taught alongside technical disciplines, through STEAM initiatives and cross-disciplinary curricula, liberal arts can complement AI, ensuring that technology remains anchored in human values.

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

Mexican voice actors demand AI regulation over cloning threat

Mexican actors have raised alarm over the threat AI poses to their profession, calling for stronger regulation to prevent voice cloning without consent.

From Mexico City’s Monument to the Revolution, dozens of audiovisual professionals rallied with signs reading phrases like ‘I don’t want to be replaced by AI.’ Lili Barba, president of the Mexican Association of Commercial Announcements, said actors are urging the government to legally recognise the voice as a biometric identifier.

She cited a recent video by Mexico’s National Electoral Institute that used the cloned voice of the late actor Jose Lavat without family consent. Lavat was famous for dubbing stars like Al Pacino and Robert De Niro. Barba called the incident ‘a major violation we can’t allow.’

Actor Harumi Nishizawa described voice dubbing as an intricate art form. She warned that without regulation, human dubbing could vanish along with millions of creative jobs.

Last year, AI’s potential to replace artists sparked major strikes in Hollywood, while Scarlett Johansson accused OpenAI of copying her voice for a chatbot.

Streaming services like Amazon Prime Video and platforms such as YouTube are now testing AI-assisted dubbing systems, with some studios promoting all-in-one AI tools,

In South Korea, CJ ENM recently introduced a system combining audio, video and character animation, highlighting the pace of AI adoption in entertainment.

Despite the tech’s growth, many in the industry argue that AI lacks the creative depth of real human performance, especially in emotional or comedic delivery. ‘AI can’t make dialogue sound broken or alive,’ said Mario Heras, a dubbing director in Mexico. ‘The human factor still protects us.’

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

Stanford study flags dangers of using AI as mental health therapists

A new Stanford University study warns that therapy chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) may pose serious user risks, including reinforcing harmful stigmas and offering unsafe responses. Presented at the upcoming ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, the study analysed five popular AI chatbots marketed for therapeutic support, evaluating them against core guidelines for assessing human therapists.

The research team conducted two experiments, one to detect bias and stigma, and another to assess how chatbots respond to real-world mental health issues. Findings revealed that bots were more likely to stigmatise people with conditions like schizophrenia and alcohol dependence compared to those with depression.

Shockingly, newer and larger AI models showed no improvement in reducing this bias. In more serious cases, such as suicidal ideation or delusional thinking, some bots failed to react appropriately or even encouraged unsafe behaviour.

Lead author Jared Moore and senior researcher Nick Haber emphasised that simply adding more training data isn’t enough to solve these issues. In one example, a bot replied to a user hinting at suicidal thoughts by listing bridge heights, rather than recognising the red flag and providing support. The researchers argue that these shortcomings highlight the gap between AI’s current capabilities and the sensitive demands of mental health care.

Despite these dangers, the team doesn’t entirely dismiss the use of AI in therapy. If used thoughtfully, they suggest that LLMs could still be valuable tools for non-clinical tasks like journaling support, billing, or therapist training. As Haber put it, ‘LLMs potentially have a compelling future in therapy, but we need to think critically about precisely what this role should be.’

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