How Deepfakes Are Created Generative AI models enable the creation of highly realistic fake media. Most deepfakes today are produced by training deep neural networks on real images, video or audio of a target person. The two predominant AI architectures are generative adversarial networks (GANs) and autoencoders. A GAN consists of a generator network that produces synthetic images and a discriminator network that tries to distinguish fakes from real data. Through iterative training, the generator learns to produce outputs that increasingly fool the discriminator¹. Autoencoder-based tools similarly learn to encode a target face and then decode it onto a source video. In practice, deepfake creators use accessible software: open-source tools like DeepFaceLab and FaceSwap dominate video face-swapping (one estimate suggests DeepFaceLab was used for over 95% of known deepfake videos)². Voice-cloning tools (often built on similar AI principles) can mimic a person’s speech from minutes of audio. Commercial platforms like Synthesia allow text-to-video avatars (turning typed scripts into lifelike “spokespeople”), which have already been misused in disinformation campaigns³. Even mobile apps (e.g. FaceApp, Zao) let users do basic face swaps in minutes⁴. In short, advances in GANs and related models make deepfakes cheaper and easier to generate than ever. Diagram of a generative adversarial network (GAN): A generator network creates fake images from random input and a discriminator network distinguishes fakes from real examples. Over time the generator improves until its outputs “fool” the discriminator⁵ During creation, a deepfake algorithm is typically trained on a large dataset of real images or audio from the target. The more varied and high-quality the training data, the more realistic the deepfake. The output often then undergoes post-processing (color adjustments, lip-syncing refinements) to enhance believability¹. Technical defenses focus on two fronts: detection and authentication. Detection uses AI models to spot inconsistencies (blinking irregularities, audio artifacts or metadata mismatches) that betray a synthetic origin⁵. Authentication embeds markers before dissemination – for example, invisible watermarks or cryptographically signed metadata indicating authenticity⁶. The EU AI Act will soon mandate that major AI content providers embed machine-readable “watermark” signals in synthetic media⁷. However, as GAO notes, detection is an arms race – even a marked deepfake can sometimes evade notice – and labels alone don’t stop false narratives from spreading⁸⁹. Deepfakes in Recent Elections: Examples Deepfakes and AI-generated imagery already have made headlines in election cycles around the world. In the 2024 U.S. primary season, a digitally-altered audio robocall mimicked President Biden’s voice urging Democrats not to vote in the New Hampshire primary. The caller (“Susan Anderson”) was later fined $6 million by the FCC and indicted under existing telemarketing laws¹⁰¹¹. (Importantly, FCC rules on robocalls applied regardless of AI: the perpetrator could have used a voice actor or recording instead.) Also in 2024, former President Trump posted on social media a collage implying that pop singer Taylor Swift endorsed his campaign, using AI-generated images of Swift in “Swifties for Trump” shirts¹². The posts sparked media uproar, though analysts noted the same effect could have been achieved without AI (e.g., by photoshopping text on real images)¹². Similarly, Elon Musk’s X platform carried AI-generated clips, including a parody “Ad” depicting Vice-President Harris’s voice via an AI clone¹³. Beyond the U.S., deepfake-like content has appeared globally. In Indonesia’s 2024 presidential election, a video surfaced on social media in which a convincingly generated image of the late President Suharto appeared to endorse the candidate of the Golkar Party. Days later, the endorsed candidate (who is Suharto’s son-in-law) won the presidency¹⁴. In Bangladesh, a viral deepfake video superimposed the face of opposition leader Rumeen Farhana onto a bikini-clad body – an incendiary fabrication designed to discredit her in the conservative Muslim-majority society¹⁵. Moldova’s pro-Western President Maia Sandu has been repeatedly targeted by AI-driven disinformation; one deepfake video falsely showed her resigning and endorsing a Russian-friendly party, apparently to sow distrust in the electoral process¹⁶. Even in Taiwan (amidst tensions with China), a TikTok clip circulated that synthetically portrayed a U.S. politician making foreign-policy statements – stoking confusion ahead of Taiwanese elections¹⁷. In Slovakia’s recent campaign, AI-generated audio mimicking the liberal party leader suggested he plotted vote-rigging and beer-price hikes – instantly spreading on social media just days before the election¹⁸. These examples show that deepfakes have touched diverse polities (from Bangladesh and Indonesia to Moldova, Slovakia, India and beyond), often aiming to undermine candidates or confuse voters¹⁵¹⁸. Notably, many of the most viral “deepfakes” in 2024 were actually circulated as obvious memes or claims, rather than subtle deceptions. Experts observed that outright undetectable AI deepfakes were relatively rare; more common were AI-generated memes plainly shared by partisans, or cheaply doctored “cheapfakes” made with basic editing tools¹³¹⁹. For instance, social media was awash with memes of Kamala Harris in Soviet garb or of Black Americans holding Trump signs¹³, but these were typically used satirically, not meant to be secretly believed. Nonetheless, even unsophisticated fakes can sway opinion: a U.S. study found that false presidential ads (not necessarily AI-made) did change voter attitudes in swing states. In sum, deepfakes are a real and growing phenomenon in election campaigns²⁰²¹ worldwide – a trend taken seriously by voters and regulators alike. U.S. Legal Framework and Accountability In the U.S., deepfake creators and distributors of election misinformation face a patchwork of tools, but no single comprehensive federal “deepfake law.” Existing laws relevant to disinformation include statutes against impersonating government officials, electioneering (such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which requires disclaimers on political ads), and targeted statutes like criminal electioneering communications. In some cases ordinary laws have been stretched: the NH robocall used the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and mail/telemarketing fraud provisions, resulting in the $6M fine and a criminal charge. Similarly, voice impostors can potentially violate laws against “false advertising” or “unlawful corporate communications.” However, these laws were enacted before AI, and litigators have warned they often do not fit neatly. For example, deceptive deepfake claims not tied to a specific victim do not easily fit into defamation or privacy torts. Voter intimidation laws (prohibiting threats or coercion) also leave a gap for non-threatening falsehoods about voting logistics or endorsements. Recognizing these gaps, some courts and agencies are invoking other theories. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently charged individuals under broad fraud statutes (e.g. for a plot to impersonate an aide to swing votes in 2020), and state attorneys general have considered deepfake misinformation as interference with voting rights. Notably, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is preparing to enforce new rules: in April 2024 it issued an advisory opinion limiting “non-candidate electioneering communications” that use falsified media, effectively requiring that political ads use only real images of the candidate. If finalized, that would make it unlawful for campaigns to pay for ads depicting a candidate saying things they never did. Similarly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) have signaled that purely commercial deepfakes could violate consumer protection or election laws (for example, liability for mass false impersonation or for foreign-funded electioneering). U.S. Legislation and Proposals Federal lawmakers have proposed new statutes. The DEEPFAKES Accountability Act (H.R.5586 in the 118th Congress) would, among other things, impose a disclosure requirement: political ads featuring a manipulated media likeness would need clear disclaimers identifying the content as synthetic. It also increases penalties for producing false election videos or audio intended to influence the vote. While not yet enacted, supporters argue it would provide a uniform rule for all federal and state campaigns. The Brennan Center supports transparency requirements over outright bans, suggesting laws should narrowly target deceptive deepfakes in paid ads or certain categories (e.g. false claims about time/place/manner of voting) while carving out parody and news coverage. At the state level, over 20 states have passed deepfake laws specifically for elections. For example, Florida and California forbid distributing falsified audio/visual media of candidates with intent to deceive voters (though Florida’s law exempts parody). Some states (like Texas) define “deepfake” in statutes and allow candidates to sue or revoke candidacies of violators. These measures have had mixed success: courts have struck down overly broad provisions that acted as prior restraints (e.g. Minnesota’s 2023 law was challenged for threatening injunctions against anyone “reasonably believed” to violate it). Critically, these state laws raise First Amendment issues: political speech is highly protected, so any restriction must be tightly tailored. Already, Texas and Virginia statutes are under legal review, and Elon Musk’s company has sued under California’s law (which requires platforms to label or block deepfakes) as unconstitutional. In practice, most lawsuits have so far centered on defamation or intellectual property (for instance, a celebrity suing over a botched celebrity-deepfake video), rather than election-focused statutes. Policy Recommendations: Balancing Integrity and Speech Given the rapidly evolving technology, experts recommend a multi-pronged approach. Most stress transparency and disclosure as core principles. For example, the Brennan Center urges requiring any political communication that uses AI-synthesized images or voice to include a clear label. This could be a digital watermark or a visible disclaimer. Transparency has two advantages: it forces campaigns and platforms to “own” the use of AI, and it alerts audiences to treat the content with skepticism. Outright bans on all deepfakes would likely violate free speech, but targeted bans on specific harms (e.g. automated phone calls impersonating voters, or videos claiming false polling information) may be defensible. Indeed, Florida already penalizes misuse of recordings in voter suppression. Another recommendation is limited liability: tying penalties to demonstrable intent to mislead, not to the mere act of content creation. Both U.S. federal proposals and EU law generally condition fines on the “appearance of fraud” or deception. Technical solutions can complement laws. Watermarking original media (as encouraged by the EU AI Act) could deter the reuse of authentic images in doctored fakes. Open tools for deepfake detection – some supported by government research grants – should be deployed by fact-checkers and social platforms. Making detection datasets publicly available (e.g. the MIT OpenDATATEST) helps improve AI models to spot fakes. International cooperation is also urged: cross-border agreements on information-sharing could help trace and halt disinformation campaigns. The G7 and APEC have all recently committed to fighting election interference via AI, which may lead to joint norms or rapid response teams. Ultimately, many analysts believe the strongest “cure” is a well-informed public: education campaigns to teach voters to question sensational media, and a robust independent press to debunk falsehoods swiftly. While the law can penalize the worst offenders, awareness and resilience in the electorate are crucial buffers against influence operations. As Georgia Tech’s Sean Parker quipped in 2019, “the real question is not if deepfakes will influence elections, but who will be empowered by the first effective one.” Thus policies should aim to deter malicious use without unduly chilling innovation or satire. References: https://www.security.org/resources/deepfake-statistics/. https://www.wired.com/story/synthesia-ai-deepfakes-it-control-riparbelli/. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107292. https://technologyquotient.freshfields.com/post/102jb19/eu-ai-act-unpacked-8-new-rules-on-deepfakes. https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/we-looked-at-78-election-deepfakes-political-misinformation-is-not-an-ai-problem. https://www.npr.org/2024/12/21/nx-s1-5220301/deepfakes-memes-artificial-intelligence-elections. https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-elections-disinformation-chatgpt-bc283e7426402f0b4baa7df280a4c3fd. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/new-and-old-tools-to-tackle-deepfakes-and-election-lies-in-2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/regulating-ai-deepfakes-and-synthetic-media-political-arena. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/political-deepfakes-and-elections/. https://www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/deceptive-audio-or-visual-media-deepfakes-2024-legislation. https://law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/media/2022/06/nagumotu_pp113-157.pdf. https://dfrlab.org/2024/10/02/brazil-election-ai-research/. https://dfrlab.org/2024/11/26/brazil-election-ai-deepfakes/. https://freedomhouse.org/article/eu-digital-services-act-win-transparency. The post The Legal Accountability of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Election Misinformation appeared first on MarkTechPost.

Every few weeks, it seems like there’s a new headline about a lawyer getting in trouble for submitting filings containing, in the words of one judge, “bogus AI-generated research.” The details vary, but the throughline is the same: an attorney turns to a large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT to help them with legal research (or worse, writing), the LLM hallucinates cases that don’t exist, and the lawyer is none the wiser until the judge or opposing counsel points out their mistake. In some cases, including an aviation lawsuit from 2023, attorneys have had to pay fines for submitting filings with AI-generated hallucinations. So why haven’t they stopped?The answer mostly comes down to time crunches, and the way AI has crept into nearly every profession. Legal research databases like LexisNexis and Westlaw have AI integrations now. For lawyers juggling big caseloads, AI can seem like an incredibly efficient assistant. Most lawyers aren’t necessarily using ChatGPT to write their filings, but they are increasingly using it and other LLMs for research. Yet many of these lawyers, like much of the public, don’t understand exactly what LLMs are or how they work. One attorney who was sanctioned in 2023 said he thought ChatGPT was a “super search engine.” It took submitting a filing with fake citations to reveal that it’s more like a random-phrase generator — one that could give you either correct information or convincingly phrased nonsense.Andrew Perlman, the dean of Suffolk University Law School, argues many lawyers are using AI tools without incident, and the ones who get caught with fake citations are outliers. “I think that what we’re seeing now — although these problems of hallucination are real, and lawyers have to take it very seriously and be careful about it — doesn’t mean that these tools don’t have enormous possible benefits and use cases for the delivery of legal services,” Perlman said. Legal databases and research systems like Westlaw are incorporating AI services.In fact, 63 percent of lawyers surveyed by Thomson Reuters in 2024 said they’ve used AI in the past, and 12 percent said they use it regularly. Respondents said they use AI to write summaries of case law and to research “case law, statutes, forms or sample language for orders.” The attorneys surveyed by Thomson Reuters see it as a time-saving tool, and half of those surveyed said “exploring the potential for implementing AI” at work is their highest priority. “The role of a good lawyer is as a ‘trusted advisor’ not as a producer of documents,” one respondent said. But as plenty of recent examples have shown, the documents produced by AI aren’t always accurate, and in some cases aren’t real at all.RelatedIn one recent high-profile case, lawyers for journalist Tim Burke, who was arrested for publishing unaired Fox News footage in 2024, submitted a motion to dismiss the case against him on First Amendment grounds. After discovering that the filing included “significant misrepresentations and misquotations of supposedly pertinent case law and history,” Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, of Florida’s middle district, ordered the motion to be stricken from the case record. Mizelle found nine hallucinations in the document, according to the Tampa Bay Times.Mizelle ultimately let Burke’s lawyers, Mark Rasch and Michael Maddux, submit a new motion. In a separate filing explaining the mistakes, Rasch wrote that he “assumes sole and exclusive responsibility for these errors.” Rasch said he used the “deep research” feature on ChatGPT pro, which The Verge has previously tested with mixed results, as well as Westlaw’s AI feature.Rasch isn’t alone. Lawyers representing Anthropic recently admitted to using the company’s Claude AI to help write an expert witness declaration submitted as part of the copyright infringement lawsuit brought against Anthropic by music publishers. That filing included a citation with an “inaccurate title and inaccurate authors.” Last December, misinformation expert Jeff Hancock admitted he used ChatGPT to help organize citations in a declaration he submitted in support of a Minnesota law regulating deepfake use. Hancock’s filing included “two citation errors, popularly referred to as ‘hallucinations,’” and incorrectly listed authors for another citation. These documents do, in fact, matter — at least in the eyes of judges. In a recent case, a California judge presiding over a case against State Farm was initially swayed by arguments in a brief, only to find that the case law cited was completely made up. “I read their brief, was persuaded (or at least intrigued) by the authorities that they cited, and looked up the decisions to learn more about them – only to find that they didn’t exist,” Judge Michael Wilner wrote.Perlman said there are several less risky ways lawyers use generative AI in their work, including finding information in large tranches of discovery documents, reviewing briefs or filings, and brainstorming possible arguments or possible opposing views. “I think in almost every task, there are ways in which generative AI can be useful — not a substitute for lawyers’ judgment, not a substitute for the expertise that lawyers bring to the table, but in order to supplement what lawyers do and enable them to do their work better, faster, and cheaper,” Perlman said.But like anyone using AI tools, lawyers who rely on them to help with legal research and writing need to be careful to check the work they produce, Perlman said. Part of the problem is that attorneys often find themselves short on time — an issue he says existed before LLMs came into the picture. “Even before the emergence of generative AI, lawyers would file documents with citations that didn’t really address the issue that they claimed to be addressing,” Perlman said. “It was just a different kind of problem. Sometimes when lawyers are rushed, they insert citations, they don’t properly check them; they don’t really see if the case has been overturned or overruled.” (That said, the cases do at least typically exist.)Another, more insidious problem is the fact that attorneys — like others who use LLMs to help with research and writing — are too trusting of what AI produces. “I think many people are lulled into a sense of comfort with the output, because it appears at first glance to be so well crafted,” Perlman said.Alexander Kolodin, an election lawyer and Republican state representative in Arizona, said he treats ChatGPT as a junior-level associate. He’s also used ChatGPT to help write legislation. In 2024, he included AI text in part of a bill on deepfakes, having the LLM provide the “baseline definition” of what deepfakes are and then “I, the human, added in the protections for human rights, things like that it excludes comedy, satire, criticism, artistic expression, that kind of stuff,” Kolodin told The Guardian at the time. Kolodin said he “may have” discussed his use of ChatGPT with the bill’s main Democratic cosponsor but otherwise wanted it to be “an Easter egg” in the bill. The bill passed into law. Kolodin — who was sanctioned by the Arizona State Bar in 2020 for his involvement in lawsuits challenging the result of the 2020 election — has also used ChatGPT to write first drafts of amendments, and told The Verge he uses it for legal research as well. To avoid the hallucination problem, he said, he just checks the citations to make sure they’re real.“You don’t just typically send out a junior associate’s work product without checking the citations,” said Kolodin. “It’s not just machines that hallucinate; a junior associate could read the case wrong, it doesn’t really stand for the proposition cited anyway, whatever. You still have to cite-check it, but you have to do that with an associate anyway, unless they were pretty experienced.”Kolodin said he uses both ChatGPT’s pro “deep research” tool and the LexisNexis AI tool. Like Westlaw, LexisNexis is a legal research tool primarily used by attorneys. Kolodin said that in his experience, it has a higher hallucination rate than ChatGPT, which he says has “gone down substantially over the past year.” AI use among lawyers has become so prevalent that in 2024, the American Bar Association issued its first guidance on attorneys’ use of LLMs and other AI tools. Lawyers who use AI tools “have a duty of competence, including maintaining relevant technological competence, which requires an understanding of the evolving nature” of generative AI, the opinion reads. The guidance advises lawyers to “acquire a general understanding of the benefits and risks of the GAI tools” they use — or, in other words, to not assume that an LLM is a “super search engine.” Attorneys should also weigh the confidentiality risks of inputting information relating to their cases into LLMs and consider whether to tell their clients about their use of LLMs and other AI tools, it states.Perlman is bullish on lawyers’ use of AI. “I do think that generative AI is going to be the most impactful technology the legal profession has ever seen and that lawyers will be expected to use these tools in the future,” he said. “I think that at some point, we will stop worrying about the competence of lawyers who use these tools and start worrying about the competence of lawyers who don’t.”Others, including one of the judges who sanctioned lawyers for submitting a filing full of AI-generated hallucinations, are more skeptical. “Even with recent advances,” Wilner wrote, “no reasonably competent attorney should out-source research and writing to this technology — particularly without any attempt to verify the accuracy of that material.”See More:

Jesse Armstrong loves to pull fictional stories out of reality. His universally acclaimed TV show Succession, for instance, was inspired by real-life media dynasties like the Murdochs and the Hearsts. Similarly, his newest film Mountainhead centers upon characters that share key traits with the tech world’s most powerful leaders: Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Sam Altman, and others.Mountainhead, which releases on HBO on May 31 at 8 p.m. ET, portrays four top tech executives who retreat to a Utah hideaway as the AI deepfake tools newly released by one of their companies wreak havoc across the world. As the believable deepfakes inflame hatred on social media and real-world violence, the comfortably-appointed quartet mulls a global governmental takeover, intergalactic conquest and immortality, before interpersonal conflict derails their plans.Armstrong tells TIME in a Zoom interview that he first became interested in writing a story about tech titans after reading books like Michael Lewis’ Going Infinite (about Sam Bankman-Fried) and Ashlee Vance’s Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, as well as journalistic profiles of Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, and others. He then built the story around the interplay between four character archetypes—the father, the dynamo, the usurper, and the hanger-on—and conducted extensive research so that his fictional executives reflected real ones. His characters, he says, aren’t one-to-one matches, but “Frankenstein monsters with limbs sewn together.” These characters are deeply flawed and destructive, to say the least. Armstrong says he did not intend for the film to be a wholly negative depiction of tech leaders and AI development. “I do try to take myself out of it, but obviously my sense of what this tech does and could do infuses the piece. Maybe I do have some anxieties,” he says. Armstrong contends that the film is more so channeling fears that AI leaders themselves have warned about. “If somebody who knows the technology better than anyone in the world thinks there's a 1/5th chance that it's going to wipe out humanity—and they're some of the optimists—I think that's legitimately quite unnerving,” he says. Here’s how each of the characters in Mountainhead resembles real-world tech leaders. This article contains spoilers. Venis (Cory Michael Smith) is the dynamo.Cory Michael Smith in Mountainhead Macall Polay—HBOVenis is Armstrong’s “dynamo”: the richest man in the world, who has gained his wealth from his social media platform Traam and its 4 billion users. Venis is ambitious, juvenile, and self-centered, even questioning whether other people are as real as him and his friends. Venis’ first obvious comp is Elon Musk, the richest man in the real world. Like Musk, Venis is obsessed with going to outer space and with using his enormous war chest to build hyperscale data centers to create powerful anti-woke AI systems. Venis also has a strange relationship with his child, essentially using it as a prop to help him through his own emotional turmoil. Throughout the movie, others caution Venis to shut down his deepfake AI tools which have led to military conflict and the desecration of holy sites across the world. Venis rebuffs them and says that people just need to adapt to technological changes and focus on the cool art being made. This argument is similar to those made by Sam Altman, who has argued that OpenAI needs to unveil ChatGPT and other cutting-edge tools as fast as possible in order to show the public the power of the technology. Like Mark Zuckerberg, Venis presides over a massively popular social media platform that some have accused of ignoring harms in favor of growth. Just as Amnesty International accused Meta of having “substantially contributed” to human rights violations perpetrated against Myanmar’s Rohingya ethnic group, Venis complains of the UN being “up his ass for starting a race war.”Randall (Steve Carell) is the father.Steve Carell in Mountainhead Macall Polay—HBOThe group’s eldest member is Randall, an investor and technologist who resembles Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel in his lofty philosophizing and quest for immortality. Like Andreessen, Randall is a staunch accelerationist who believes that U.S. companies need to develop AI as fast as possible in order to both prevent the Chinese from controlling the technology, and to ostensibly ignite a new American utopia in which productivity, happiness, and health flourish. Randall’s power comes from the fact that he was Venis’ first investor, just as Thiel was an early investor in Facebook. While Andreessen pens manifestos about technological advancement, Randall paints his mission in grandiose, historical terms, using anti-democratic, sci-fi-inflected language that resembles that of the philosopher Curtis Yarvin, who has been funded and promoted by Thiel over his career. Randall’s justification of murder through utilitarian and Kantian lenses calls to mind Sam Bankman-Fried’s extensive philosophizing, which included a declaration that he would roll the dice on killing everyone on earth if there was a 51% chance he would create a second earth. Bankman-Fried’s approach—in embracing risk and harm in order to reap massive rewards—led him to be convicted of massive financial fraud. Randall is also obsessed with longevity just like Thiel, who has railed for years against the “inevitability of death” and yearns for “super-duper medical treatments” that would render him immortal. Jeff (Ramy Youssef) is the usurper.Ramy Youssef in Mountainhead Macall Polay—HBOJeff is a technologist who often serves as the movie’s conscience, slinging criticisms about the other characters. But he’s also deeply embedded within their world, and he needs their resources, particularly Venis’ access to computing power, to thrive. In the end, Jeff sells out his values for his own survival and well-being. AI skeptics have lobbed similar criticisms at the leaders of the main AI labs, including Altman—who started OpenAI as a nonprofit before attempting to restructure the company—as well as Demis Hassabis and Dario Amodei. Hassabis is the CEO of Google Deepmind and a winner of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry; a rare scientist surrounded by businessmen and technologists. In order to try to achieve his AI dreams of curing disease and halting global warning, Hassabis enlisted with Google, inking a contract in 2014 in which he prohibited Google from using his technology for military applications. But that clause has since disappeared, and the AI systems developed under Hassabis are being sold, via Google, to militaries like Israel’s. Another parallel can be drawn between Jeff and Amodei, an AI researcher who defected from OpenAI after becoming worried that the company was cutting back its safety measures, and then formed his own company, Anthropic. Amodei has urged governments to create AI guardrails and has warned about the potentially catastrophic effects of the AI industry’s race dynamics. But some have criticized Anthropic for operating similarly to OpenAI, prioritizing scale in a way that exacerbates competitive pressures. Souper (Jason Schwartzman) is the hanger-on. Jason Schwartzman in Mountainhead Macall Polay—HBOEvery quartet needs its Turtle or its Ringo; a clear fourth wheel to serve as a punching bag for the rest of the group’s alpha males. Mountainhead’s hanger-on is Souper, thus named because he has soup kitchen money compared to the rest (hundreds of millions as opposed to billions of dollars). In order to prove his worth, he’s fixated on getting funding for a meditation startup that he hopes will eventually become an “everything app.” No tech exec would want to be compared to Souper, who has a clear inferiority complex. But plenty of tech leaders have emphasized the importance of meditation and mindfulness—including Twitter co-founder and Square CEO Jack Dorsey, who often goes on meditation retreats. Armstrong, in his interview, declined to answer specific questions about his characters’ inspirations, but conceded that some of the speculations were in the right ballpark. “For people who know the area well, it's a little bit of a fun house mirror in that you see something and are convinced that it's them,” he says. “I think all of those people featured in my research. There's bits of Andreessen and David Sacks and some of those philosopher types. It’s a good parlor game to choose your Frankenstein limbs.”

Democratic senators are probing whether RealPage, a software company accused of colluding with landlords to raise rents, lobbied for a proposed ban on states regulating AI for the next decade. In a letter to RealPage CEO Dana Jones, five Democratic senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (D-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Tina Smith (D-MN) — ask for more information about the company’s “potential involvement” in a provision attached to Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill, which bars state laws that impact AI or “automated decision” systems for 10 years.The senators argue that the provision could scuttle attempts to stop RealPage from feeding sensitive information from groups of landlords into an algorithm and using it to recommend noncompetitive rental prices.In 2022, a report from ProPublica linked RealPage to rising rent prices across the US, alleging that its algorithm allows landlords to coordinate pricing. The Department of Justice and eight states sued the company last year, claiming it “deprives renters of the benefits of competition on apartment leasing terms.” Meanwhile, cities like Minneapolis, Jersey City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco have passed laws meant to ban the use of rent-setting software, and several states, including Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington, have legislation in the works.“Republicans are trying to give a green light to RealPage’s rent-hiking algorithm.”As it stands, the senators argue the Republican budget reconciliation bill would block pending legislation and stop states from enforcing any regulation that puts limitations on RealPage’s rent-setting algorithm. The bill proposes preventing states from enforcing “any law or regulation” covering a broad range of automated computing systems, which would likely apply to the algorithms used by RealPage.And while the moratorium’s most high-profile proponents are giants like OpenAI, lawmakers believe RealPage might have spent millions pushing for it too. “In light of this, we seek information on RealPage’s lobbying efforts, and on how the Republicans’ reconciliation provision would help the bottom line of RealPage and other large corporations by allowing them to take advantage of consumers,” the letter states.The senators say RealPage “stepped up” its Congressional lobbying in response to local legislation that would affect its business. They cite a report from The Lever, which found that the National Multifamily Housing Council, a trade group that represents RealPage, increased its lobbying spending from $4.8 million in 2020 to $9 million in 2024. The Lever also found that the trade group disclosed that it lobbied on “issues surrounding the risks and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence,” as well as “federal policies affecting usage of data, artificial intelligence, software,” and other technology used in real estate.Related“RealPage ramped up its million dollar spending campaign in Congress and lo and behold, Republicans in Congress passed a provision to block states from protecting renters,” Senator Warren told The Verge. “Americans are being squeezed by rising rents, but instead of helping, Republicans are trying to give a green light to RealPage’s rent-hiking algorithm.”The Senators have asked RealPage how much money the company spent on Congressional lobbying in each year since 2020, as well as which firms and individuals it “engaged or contracted with” during the same period. They also want to know how much it spent on lobbying targeted toward AI legislation, as well as how RealPage would be impacted by the budget reconciliation bill in states with pending legislation on rent-setting software. The senators ask RealPage to respond by June 10th, 2025.If passed, the bill — currently awaiting consideration in the Senate — could have far wider-ranging impacts than RealPage. In addition to blocking states from regulating AI chatbots, it could also affect any laws covering things like deepfakes, automated hiring systems, facial recognition, sentencing algorithms, and more. See More:

Home You Can Now Make AI Videos with Audio Thanks to Veo3: A New Era of Scams Await News You Can Now Make AI Videos with Audio Thanks to Veo3: A New Era of Scams Await 6 min read Published: May 27, 2025 Key Takeaways With Google’s Veo3, you can now render AI videos, audio, and background sounds. This would also make it easy for scammers to design deepfake scams to defraud innocent citizens. Users need to exercise self-vigilance to protect themselves. Developers’ responsibilities and government regulations will also play a key part. Google recently launched Veo3, an AI tool that lets you create videos with audio, including background tracks and various sound effects. Until recently, you could either use voice cloning apps to build AI voices or video rendering apps to generate AI videos. However, thanks to Veo3, folks can now create entire videos with audio. While this is an exciting development, we can’t help but think how easy it would be for scammers and swindlers to use Veo3’s videos to scam people. A video posted by a user on Threads shows a TV anchor breaking the news that ‘Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth has died after drinking an entire litre of vodka on a dare by RFK.’ At first glance, the video is extremely convincing, and chances are that quite a few people might have believed it. After all, the quality is that of a professional news studio with a background of the Pentagon. Another user named Ari Kuschnir posted a 1-minute 16-second video on Reddit showing various characters in different settings talking to each other in various accents. The facial expressions are very close to those of a real human. A user commented, ‘Wow. The things that are coming. Gonna be wild!’ The ‘wild’ part is that the gap between reality and AI-generated content is closing daily. And remember, this is only the first version of this brand-new technology – things will only get worse (worse) from here. New AI Age for Scammers With the development of generative AI, we have already seen countless examples of people losing millions to such scams.  For example, in January 2024, an employee of a Hong Kong firm sent $25M to fraudsters who convinced the employee that she was talking to the CFO of the firm on a video call. Deloitte’s Center for Financial Services has predicted that generative AI could lead to a loss of $40B in the US alone by 2027, growing at a CAGR of 32%. Until now, scammers also had to take the effort of generating audio and video separately and syncing them to compile a ‘believable’ video. However, advanced AI tools like Veo3 make it easier for bad actors to catch innocent people off guard. In what is called the internet’s biggest scam so far, an 82-year-old retiree, Steve Beauchamp, lost $690,000 after he invested his retirement savings in an investment scheme. The AI-generated video showed Elon Musk talking about this investment and how everyone looking to make money should invest in the scheme. In January 2024, sexually explicit images of Taylor Swift were spread on social media, drawing a lot of legislative attention to the matter. Now, imagine what these scammers can do with Veo3-like technology. Making deepfake porn would become easier and faster, leading to a lot of extortion cases. It’s worth noting, though, that we’re not saying that Veo3 specifically will be used for such criminal activities because they have several safeguards in place. However, now that Veo3 has shown the path, other similar products might be developed for malicious use cases. How to Protect Yourself Protection against AI-generated content is a multifaceted approach involving three key pillars: self-vigilance, developers’ responsibilities, and government regulations. Self Vigilance Well, it’s not entirely impossible to figure out which video is made via AI and which is genuine. Sure, AI has grown leaps and bounds in the last two years, and we have something as advanced as Veo3. However, there are still a few telltale signs of an AI-generated video.  The biggest giveaway is the lip sync. If you see a video of someone speaking, pay close attention to their lips. The audio in most cases will be out of sync by a few milliseconds. The voice, in most cases, will also sound robotic or flat. The tone and pitch might be inconsistent without any natural breathing sounds. We also recommend that you only trust official sources of information and not any random video you find while scrolling Instagram, YouTube, or TikTok. For example, if you see Elon Musk promoting an investment scheme, look for the official page or website of that scheme and dig deeper to find out who the actual promoters are.  You will not find anything reliable or trustworthy in the process. This exercise takes only a couple of minutes but can end up saving thousands of dollars. Developer’s Responsibilities AI developers are also responsible for ensuring their products cannot be misused for scams, extortion, and misinformation. For example, Veo3 blocks prompts that violate responsible AI guidelines, such as those involving politicians or violent acts.  Google has also developed its SynthID watermarking system, which watermarks content generated using Google’s AI tools. People can use the SynthID Detector to verify if a particular content was generated using AI. However, these safeguards are currently limited to Google’s products as of now. There’s a need for similar, if not better, prevention systems moving forward. Government Regulations Lastly, the government needs to play a crucial role in regulating the use of artificial intelligence. For example, the EU has already passed the AI Act, with enforcement beginning in 2025. Under this, companies must undergo stringent documentation, transparency, and oversight standards for all high-risk AI systems.  Even in the US, several laws are under proposal. For instance, the DEEPFAKES Accountability Act would require AI-generated content that shows any person to include a clear disclaimer stating that it is a deepfake. The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives in September 2023 and is currently under consideration.  Similarly, the REAL Political Advertisements Act would require political ads that contain AI content to include a similar disclaimer. That said, we are still only in the early stages of formulating legislation to regulate AI content. With time, as more sophisticated and advanced artificial intelligence tools develop, lawmakers must also be proactive in ensuring digital safety. Krishi is a seasoned tech journalist with over four years of experience writing about PC hardware, consumer technology, and artificial intelligence.  Clarity and accessibility are at the core of Krishi’s writing style. He believes technology writing should empower readers—not confuse them—and he’s committed to ensuring his content is always easy to understand without sacrificing accuracy or depth. Over the years, Krishi has contributed to some of the most reputable names in the industry, including Techopedia, TechRadar, and Tom’s Guide. A man of many talents, Krishi has also proven his mettle as a crypto writer, tackling complex topics with both ease and zeal. His work spans various formats—from in-depth explainers and news coverage to feature pieces and buying guides.  Behind the scenes, Krishi operates from a dual-monitor setup (including a 29-inch LG UltraWide) that’s always buzzing with news feeds, technical documentation, and research notes, as well as the occasional gaming sessions that keep him fresh.  Krishi thrives on staying current, always ready to dive into the latest announcements, industry shifts, and their far-reaching impacts.  When he's not deep into research on the latest PC hardware news, Krishi would love to chat with you about day trading and the financial markets—oh! And cricket, as well. View all articles by Krishi Chowdhary Our editorial process The Tech Report editorial policy is centered on providing helpful, accurate content that offers real value to our readers. We only work with experienced writers who have specific knowledge in the topics they cover, including latest developments in technology, online privacy, cryptocurrencies, software, and more. Our editorial policy ensures that each topic is researched and curated by our in-house editors. We maintain rigorous journalistic standards, and every article is 100% written by real authors. More from News View all News OpenAI Academy – A New Beginning in AI Learning Krishi Chowdhary 44 minutes ago View all

Earlier this week, Google unveiled Flow, a tool that can be used to generate AI video with ease. Users can submit text prompts or give Veo, the AI model that Flow uses, the digital equivalent of a mood board in exchange for eight second clips. From there, users can direct Flow to patch together different clips to form a longer stream of footage, potentially allowing for the creation of entire films. Immediately, people experimented with asking the AI to generate gameplay footage — and the tools are shockingly good at looking like games that you might recognize. Already, one video has amassed millions of views as onlookers are in awe over how easily the AI footage could be mistaken for actual Fortnite gameplay. According to Matt Shumer, who originally generated the footage, the prompt he entered to produce this content never mentioned Fortnite by name. What he apparently wrote was, “Streamer getting a victory royale with just his pickaxe.” Uhhh… I don't think Veo 3 is supposed to be generating Fortnite gameplay pic.twitter.com/bWKruQ5Nox— Matt Shumer (@mattshumer_) May 21, 2025 Google did not respond to a request for comment over whether or not Veo should be generating footage that mimics copyrighted material. However, this does not appear to be an isolated incident. Another user got Veo to spit out something based on the idea of GTA 6. The result is probably a far cry from the realistic graphics GTA 6 has displayed in trailers thus far, but the gameplay still successfully replicates the aesthetic Rockstar is known for: We got Veo 3 playing GTA 6 before we got GTA 6!(what impresses me here is two distinct throughlines of audio: the guy, the game – prompt was 'a twitch streamer playing grand theft auto 6') pic.twitter.com/OM63yf0CKK— Sherveen Mashayekhi (@Sherveen) May 20, 2025 Though there are limitations — eight seconds is a short period of time, especially compared to the hours of material that human streamers generate — it’s undoubtedly an impressive piece of technology that augurs a specific pathway for the future of livestreams. We’ve already got AI-powered Twitch streamers like Neuro-sama, which hooks up a large language model to a text-to-speech program that allows the chibi influencer to speak to her viewers. Neuro-sama learns from other actual Twitch streamers, which makes her personality as malleable as it is chaotic. Imagine, for a moment, if an AI streamer didn’t need to rely on an actual game to endlessly entertain its viewers. Most games have a distinct beginning and end, and even live service games cannot endlessly produce new material. The combination of endless entertainment hosted by a personality who never needs to eat or sleep is a powerful if not terrifying combo, no? In January, Neuro-sama briefly became one in the top ten most subscribed Twitch channels according to stats website Twitch Tracker. That, and, an AI personality can sidestep many of the issues that are inherent to parasocial relationships. An AI cannot be harassed, swatted, or stalked by traditional means. An AI can still offend its viewers, but blame and responsibility in such instances are hazy concepts. AI-on-AI content — meaning, an AI streamer showing off AI footage — seems like the natural end point for the trends we’re seeing on platforms like Twitch. Twitch, for its part, already has a category for AI content. Its policies do not address the use of AI content beyond banning deepfake porn, but sexually explicit content of that nature wouldn’t be allowed regardless of source. “This topic is very much on our radar, and we are always monitoring emerging behaviors to ensure our policies remain relevant to what’s happening on our service,” a Twitch blog post from 2023 on deepfakes states. In 2024, ex-Twitch CEO Dan Clancy — who has a PhD in artificial intelligence — seemed confident about the opportunities that AI might afford Twitch streamers when Business Insider asked him about it in 2024. Clancy called AI a “boon” for Twitch that could potentially generate “endless” stimuli to react to. Would the general populace really be receptive to AI-on-AI content, though? Slurs aside, Fortnite’s AI Darth Vader seemed to be a hit. At the same time, nearly all generative models tend to spawn humans who have an unsettling aura. Everyone is laughing, yet no one looks happy. The cheer is forced in a way where you can practically imagine someone off-frame, menacingly holding a gun to the AI’s head. Like a dream where the more people smile, the closer things get to a nightmare. Everything is as perfect as it is hollow. Until the technology improves, any potential entertainer molded in the image of stock photography risks repulsing its viewers. Yet the internet is already slipping away from serving the needs of real human beings. Millions of bots roam about Twitch, dutifully inflating the views of streamers. Human beings will always crave the company of other people, sure. Much like mass production did for artisanal crafts, a future where our feeds are taken over by AI might just exponentially raise the value of authenticity and the human touch. But 2025 was the first year in history that traffic on the internet was determined to be frequented more by bots than people. It’s already a bot’s world out there. We’re just breathing in it.

US President Donald Trump signed into law legislation on Monday nicknamed the Take It Down Act, which requires platforms to remove nonconsensual instances of “intimate visual depiction” within 48 hours of receiving a request. Companies that take longer or don’t comply at all could be subject to penalties of roughly $50,000 per violation.The law received support from tech firms like Google, Meta, and Microsoft and will go into effect within the next year. Enforcement will be left up to the Federal Trade Commission, which has the power to penalize companies for what it deems unfair and deceptive business practices. Other countries, including India, have enacted similar regulations requiring swift removals of sexually explicit photos or deepfakes. Delays can lead to content spreading uncontrollably across the web; Microsoft, for example, took months to act in one high-profile case.But free speech advocates are concerned that a lack of guardrails in the Take It Down Act could allow bad actors to weaponize the policy to force tech companies to unjustly censor online content. The new law is modeled on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which requires internet service providers to expeditiously remove material that someone claims is infringing on their copyright. Companies can be held financially liable for ignoring valid requests, which has motivated many firms to err on the side of caution and preemptively remove content before a copyright dispute has been resolved.For years, fraudsters have abused the DMCA takedown process to get content censored for reasons that have nothing to do with copyright infringements. In some cases, the information is unflattering or belongs to industry competitors that they want to harm. The DMCA does include provisions that allow fraudsters to be held financially liable when they make false claims. Last year, for example, Google secured a default judgment against two individuals accused of orchestrating a scheme to suppress competitors in the T-shirt industry by filing frivolous requests to remove hundreds of thousands of search results.Fraudsters who may have feared the penalties of abusing DMCA could find Take It Down a less risky pathway. The Take It Down Act doesn’t include a robust deterrence provision, requiring only that takedown requestors exercise “good faith,” without specifying penalties for acting in bad faith. Unlike the DMCA, the new law also doesn’t outline an appeals process for alleged perpetrators to challenge what they consider erroneous removals. Critics of the regulation say it should have exempted certain content, including material that can be viewed as being in the public’s interest to remain online.Another concern is that the 48-hour deadline specified in the Take It Down Act may limit how much companies can vet requests before making a decision about whether to approve them. Free speech groups contend that could lead to the erasure of content well beyond nonconsensual “visually intimate depictions,” and invite abuse by the same kinds of fraudsters who took advantage of the DMCA.

Privacy and digital rights advocates are raising alarms over a law that many would expect them to cheer: a federal crackdown on revenge porn and AI-generated deepfakes.  The newly signed Take It Down Act makes it illegal to publish nonconsensual explicit images — real or AI-generated — and gives platforms just 48 hours to comply with a victim’s takedown request or face liability. While widely praised as a long-overdue win for victims, experts have also warned its vague language, lax standards for verifying claims, and tight compliance window could pave the way for overreach, censorship of legitimate content, and even surveillance.  “Content moderation at scale is widely problematic and always ends up with important and necessary speech being censored,” India McKinney, director of federal affairs at Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights organization, told TechCrunch. Online platforms have one year to establish a process for removing nonconsensual intimate imagery (NCII). While the law requires takedown requests come from victims or their representatives, it only asks for a physical or electronic signature — no photo ID or other form of verification is needed. That likely aims to reduce barriers for victims, but it could create an opportunity for abuse. “I really want to be wrong about this, but I think there are going to be more requests to take down images depicting queer and trans people in relationships, and even more than that, I think it’s gonna be consensual porn,” McKinney said.  Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), a co-sponsor of the Take It Down Act, also sponsored the Kids Online Safety Act which puts the onus on platforms to protect children from harmful content online. Blackburn has said she believes content related to transgender people is harmful to kids. Similarly, the Heritage Foundation — the conservative think tank behind Project 2025 — has also said that “keeping trans content away from children is protecting kids.”  Because of the liability that platforms face if they don’t take down an image within 48 hours of receiving a request, “the default is going to be that they just take it down without doing any investigation to see if this actually is NCII or if it’s another type of protected speech, or if it’s even relevant to the person who’s making the request,” said McKinney. Techcrunch event Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot for our leading AI industry event with speakers from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere. For a limited time, tickets are just $292 for an entire day of expert talks, workshops, and potent networking. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW Snapchat and Meta have both said they are supportive of the law, but neither responded to TechCrunch’s requests for more information about how they’ll verify whether the person requesting a takedown is a victim.  Mastodon, a decentralized platform that hosts its own flagship server that others can join, told TechCrunch it would lean towards removal if it was too difficult to verify the victim.  Mastodon and other decentralized platforms like Bluesky or Pixelfed may be especially vulnerable to the chilling effect of the 48-hour takedown rule. These networks rely on independently operated servers, often run by nonprofits or individuals. Under the law, the FTC can treat any platform that doesn’t “reasonably comply” with takedown demands as committing an “unfair or deceptive act or practice” – even if the host isn’t a commercial entity. “This is troubling on its face, but it is particularly so at a moment when the chair of the FTC has taken unprecedented steps to politicize the agency and has explicitly promised to use the power of the agency to punish platforms and services on an ideological, as opposed to principled, basis,” the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit dedicated to ending revenge porn, said in a statement.  Proactive monitoring McKinney predicts that platforms will start moderating content before it’s disseminated so they have fewer problematic posts to take down in the future.  Platforms are already using AI to monitor for harmful content. Kevin Guo, CEO and co-founder of AI-generated content detection startup Hive, said his company works with online platforms to detect deepfakes and child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Some of Hive’s customers include Reddit, Giphy, Vevo, Bluesky, and BeReal.  “We were actually one of the tech companies that endorsed that bill,” Guo told TechCrunch. “It’ll help solve some pretty important problems and compel these platforms to adopt solutions more proactively.”  Hive’s model is a software-as-a-service, so the startup doesn’t control how platforms use its product to flag or remove content. But Guo said many clients insert Hive’s API at the point of upload to monitor before anything is sent out to the community.  A Reddit spokesperson told TechCrunch the platform uses “sophisticated internal tools, processes, and teams to address and remove” NCII. Reddit also partners with nonprofit SWGfl to deploy its StopNCII tool, which scans live traffic for matches against a database of known NCII and removes accurate matches. The company did not share how it would ensure the person requesting the takedown is the victim.  McKinney warns this kind of monitoring could extend into encrypted messages in the future. While the law focuses on public or semi-public dissemination, it also requires platforms to “remove and make reasonable efforts to prevent the reupload” of nonconsensual intimate images. She argues this could incentivize proactive scanning of all content, even in encrypted spaces. The law doesn’t include any carve outs for end-to-end encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp, Signal, or iMessage.  Meta, Signal, and Apple have not responded to TechCrunch’s request for more information on their plans for encrypted messaging. Broader free speech implications On March 4, Trump delivered a joint address to Congress in which he praised the Take It Down Act and said he looked forward to signing it into law.  “And I’m going to use that bill for myself, too, if you don’t mind,” he added. “There’s nobody who gets treated worse than I do online.”  While the audience laughed at the comment, not everyone took it as a joke. Trump hasn’t been shy about suppressing or retaliating against unfavorable speech, whether that’s labeling mainstream media outlets “enemies of the people,” barring The Associated Press from the Oval Office despite a court order, or pulling funding from NPR and PBS. On Thursday, the Trump administration barred Harvard University from accepting foreign student admissions, escalating a conflict that began after Harvard refused to adhere to Trump’s demands that it make changes to its curriculum and eliminate DEI-related content, among other things. In retaliation, Trump has frozen federal funding to Harvard and threatened to revoke the university’s tax-exempt status.   “At a time when we’re already seeing school boards try to ban books and we’re seeing certain politicians be very explicitly about the types of content they don’t want people to ever see, whether it’s critical race theory or abortion information or information about climate change…it is deeply uncomfortable for us with our past work on content moderation to see members of both parties openly advocating for content moderation at this scale,” McKinney said.

close House passes bill targeting revenge porn and AI-generated deepfakes Texas high school student Elliston Berry joins ‘Fox & Friends’ to discuss the House’s passage of a new bill that criminalizes the sharing of non-consensual intimate images, including content created with artificial intelligence. Welcome to Fox News’ Artificial Intelligence newsletter with the latest AI technology advancements.IN TODAY'S NEWSLETTER:- Peek-a-boo, big tech sees you: Expert warns just 20 cloud images can make an AI deepfake video of your child- 5 AI terms you keep hearing and what they actually mean- AI to monitor NYC subway safety as crime concerns rise First Lady Melania Trump, joined by U.S. President Donald Trump, delivers remarks before President Trump signed the TAKE IT DOWN Act into law in the Rose Garden of the White House on May 19, 2025 in Washington, DC. The first lady made the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks (TAKE IT DOWN) Act a priority, traveling to Capitol Hill to lobby lawmakers and show her support for the legislation, which addresses non-consensual intimate imagery, or "revenge porn," and artificial intelligence deepfakes posted online and to social media.  (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)DEEPFAKE DANGERS: Parents love capturing their kids’ big moments, from first steps to birthday candles. But a new study out of the U.K. shows many of those treasured images may be scanned, analyzed and turned into data by cloud storage services, and nearly half of parents don’t even realize it.AI DECODED: Whether it's powering your phone’s autocorrect or helping someone create a new recipe with a few words, artificial intelligence (AI) is everywhere right now. But if you're still nodding along when someone mentions "neural networks" or "generative AI," you're not alone. MTA New York City Subway logo is seen on a train at a station in New York City on July 13, 2024.  (Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images)BIG BROTHER TECH: New York City's subway system is testing artificial intelligence to boost security and reduce crime. Michael Kemper, a 33-year NYPD veteran and the chief security officer for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which is the largest transit agency in the United States, is leading the rollout of AI software designed to spot suspicious behavior as it happens. WORLD CLASS: First lady Melania Trump is launching an audiobook of her memoir using artificial intelligence (AI) audio technology in multiple languages, Fox News Digital has learned. Melania Trump is launching an audiobook of her memoir using AI.  (MelaniaTrump.com)EXTREME ROBODOG: What really sets the Lynx M20 apart is its use of advanced artificial intelligence. The robot is equipped with AI motion-control algorithms that allow it to autonomously perceive and adapt to its environment, adjusting its posture and gait to handle everything from rocky trails to debris-strewn ruins.PARENTS' NIGHTMARE: A Connecticut teen will stand trial Monday for the 2022 murder of a Fairfield Prep lacrosse player following a booze-fueled house party and a spat between students from different schools. Lynx M20. (Deep Robotics)FOLLOW FOX NEWS ON SOCIAL MEDIASIGN UP FOR OUR OTHER NEWSLETTERSDOWNLOAD OUR APPSWATCH FOX NEWS ONLINEFox News GoSTREAM FOX NATIONFox NationStay up to date on the latest AI technology advancements and learn about the challenges and opportunities AI presents now and for the future with Fox News here. This article was written by Fox News staff.

The big picture: The US House of Representatives narrowly approved President Donald Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill," clearing the path for sweeping changes to the country's tax code and immigration policy. The bill also contains a contentious clause that blocks states from regulating artificial intelligence for the next 10 years. The moratorium applies not only to AI models but also to any products or services integrating AI, effectively banning and overriding state regulations in those areas. The restriction affects several critical sectors, including automotive, consumer IoT, social media, medical equipment, and more. Critics argue the clause could grant rogue developers a free pass to build AI systems that harm public safety, security, and well-being. They also contend that the bill undermines the federal system by restricting states from creating and enforcing regulations and impeding their right to self-governance. Some experts – and even Republican senators – warn that the bill could jeopardize national security and economic stability in ways not fully understood. Senators Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Josh Hawley of Missouri argue it will make it easier to create deepfakes and derail bipartisan efforts to confront AI-related threats. Non-profit advocacy groups, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, have raised strong objections to the bill, calling it Big Tech's effort to dismantle guardrails around artificial intelligence. The group also urged Congress to reject what it described as a damaging proposal. Supporters of the bill argue that the moratorium is essential for US companies to compete with state-backed Chinese tech firms. They contend that regulations hinder innovation and could severely weaken America's chances of leading the world in artificial intelligence. Backers also describe the One Big Beautiful Bill as a "generational opportunity" to implement the long-term changes voters demanded. // Related Stories The bill still faces Senate approval before President Trump can sign it into law. However, political commentators across the spectrum believe Trump may struggle to convince Senators that limiting state-level legislation and infringing state sovereignty is the right approach. The outcome could have lasting implications for balancing power between federal and state governments, shaping how the country regulates emerging technologies.