Tag Archives: political science

Feds False News Checker Tool To Use AI- At Risk Of Language & Political Bias

August 10, 2024 The Silo Leave a comment

Ottawa-Funded Misinformation Detection Tool to Rely on Artificial Intelligence

A new federally funded tool being developed with the aim of helping Canadians detect online misinformation will rely on artificial intelligence (AI), Ottawa has announced.

Heritage Minister Pascale St-Onge said on July 29 that Ottawa is providing almost $300,000 cad to researchers at Université de Montréal (UdeM) to develop the tool.

“Polls confirm that most Canadians are very concerned about the rise of mis- and disinformation,” St-Onge wrote on social media. “We’re fighting for Canadians to get the facts” by supporting the university’s independent project, she added.

Canadian Heritage says the project will develop a website and web browser extension dedicated to detecting misinformation.

The department says the project will use large AI language models capable of detecting misinformation across different languages in various formats such as text or video, and contained within different sources of information.

“This technology will help implement effective behavioral nudges to mitigate the proliferation of ‘fake news’ stories in online communities,” says Canadian Heritage.

OpenAI, Google DeepMind Employees Warn of ‘Serious Risks’ Posed by AI Technology

With the browser extension, users will be notified if they come across potential misinformation, which the department says will reduce the likelihood of the content being shared.

Project lead and UdeM professor Jean-François Godbout said in an email that the tool will rely mostly on AI-based systems such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT.

“The system uses mostly a large language model, such as ChatGPT, to verify the validity of a proposition or a statement by relying on its corpus (the data which served for its training),” Godbout wrote in French.

The political science professor added the system will also be able to consult “distinct and reliable external sources.” After considering all the information, the system will produce an evaluation to determine whether the content is true or false, he said, while qualifying its degree of certainty.

Godbout said the reasoning for the decision will be provided to the user, along with the references that were relied upon, and that in some cases the system could say there’s insufficient information to make a judgment.

Asked about concerns that the detection model could be tainted by AI shortcomings such as bias, Godbout said his previous research has demonstrated his sources are “not significantly ideologically biased.”

“That said, our system should rely on a variety of sources, and we continue to explore working with diversified and balanced sources,” he said. “We realize that generative AI models have their limits, but we believe they can be used to help Canadians obtain better information.”

The professor said that the fundamental research behind the project was conducted before receiving the federal grant, which only supports the development of a web application.

Bias Concerns

The reliance on AI to determine what is true or false could have some pitfalls, with large language models being criticized for having political biases.

Such concerns about the neutrality of AI have been raised by billionaire Elon Musk, who owns X and its AI chatbot Grok.

British and Brazilian researchers from the University of East Anglia published a study in January that sought to measure ChatGPT’s political bias.

“We find robust evidence that ChatGPT presents a significant and systematic political bias toward the Democrats in the US, Lula in Brazil, and the Labour Party in the UK,” they wrote. Researchers said there are real concerns that ChatGPT and other large language models in general can “extend or even amplify the existing challenges involving political processes posed by the Internet and social media.”

OpenAI says ChatGPT is “not free from biases and stereotypes, so users and educators should carefully review its content.”

Misinformation and Disinformation

The federal government’s initiatives to tackle misinformation and disinformation have been multifaceted.

The funds provided to the Université de Montréal are part of a larger program to shape online information, the Digital Citizen Initiative. The program supports researchers and civil society organizations that promote a “healthy information ecosystem,” according to Canadian Heritage.

The Liberal government has also passed major bills, such as C-11 and C-18, which impact the information environment.

Bill C-11 has revamped the Broadcasting Act, creating rules for the production and discoverability of Canadian content and giving increased regulatory powers to the CRTC over online content.

Bill C-18 created the obligation for large online platforms to share revenues with news organizations for the display of links. This legislation was promoted by then-Heritage Minister Pablo Rodriguez as a tool to strengthen news media in a “time of greater mistrust and disinformation.”

These two pieces of legislation were followed by Bill C-63 in February to enact the Online Harms Act. Along with seeking to better protect children online, it would create steep penalties for saying things deemed hateful on the web.

There is some confusion about what the latest initiative with UdeM specifically targets. Canadian Heritage says the project aims to counter misinformation, whereas the university says it’s aimed at disinformation. The two concepts are often used in the same sentence when officials signal an intent to crack down on content they deem inappropriate, but a key characteristic distinguishes the two.

The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security defines misinformation as “false information that is not intended to cause harm”—which means it could have been posted inadvertently.

Meanwhile, the Centre defines disinformation as being “intended to manipulate, cause damage and guide people, organizations and countries in the wrong direction.” It can be crafted by sophisticated foreign state actors seeking to gain politically.

Minister St-Onge’s office has not responded to a request for clarification as of this posts publication.

In describing its project to counter disinformation, UdeM said events like the Jan. 6 Capitol breach, the Brexit referendum, and the COVID-19 pandemic have “demonstrated the limits of current methods to detect fake news which have trouble following the volume and rapid evolution of disinformation.” For the Silo, Noe Chartier/ The Epoch Times.

The Canadian Press contributed to this report.

Politics

Report: Regulations on U.S. arms exports often skirted, rarely enforced

March 23, 2022 The Silo Leave a comment

SOMERVILLE, Mass.—While the United States likes to claim it has the gold standard of arms export control measures, in practice the measures offer few restrictions on U.S. presidents’ ability to ship arms wherever they like, according to a new report from the World Peace Foundation (WPF) at Tufts University’s The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The Arms Export Control Act (AECE) of 1976, as well as the United States’ international obligations, are meant to ensure decisions to export arms take into account the potential to escalate conflict or fall into the hands of U.S. enemies. The AECA sets up Congress as a check on presidential decisions.

“The potential for arms sales to exacerbate a conflict rarely stops a sale,” said report author Jennifer Erickson, associate professor of political science and international studies at Boston College. “When we do restrain exports, more often than not, political calculations are at work, rather than the legal checks and balances Congress put in place.”

Among the key findings of On the Front Lines: Conflict Zones and U.S. Arms Exports:

Conflict is not a consistent deterrent for U.S. arms exports. The United States usually prioritizes diplomatic and economic ties in export decision making—regardless of the conflict status of the recipient.
Presidents face few restrictions on using arms sales to meet policy goals. U.S. law sets an almost unreachable vote threshold for Congress to block or modify arms sales.
Even when the U.S. chooses not to supply weapons to conflict zones, it can and does use alternative means, such as common allies, to get arms to combatants.
There is no realistic way for the U.S. government to guarantee the weapons it sells are used only by the buyer, in ways that conform with U.S. interests. We cannot ensure weapons are only used defensively, for instance. And arms have staying power. Years after initial sales, they may be used instead for priorities the U.S. opposes.
Interpretation of regulations may become looser still as the U.S. enters a “New Cold War” with China or Russia.

In coming to these conclusions, the report examines U.S. arms sales, and restraint, connected to recent conflicts in Libya, Nigeria, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The World Peace Foundation commissioned similar studies on arms sales by the governments of the United Kingdom and France.

These studies follow earlier research by the WPF on which nations send arms into conflict zones, available on the website, Who Arms War?

“The United States has all the regulations and policy tools it needs to ensure we do not make already dangerous places even more deadly,” said Alex de Waal, World Peace Foundation executive director and research professor at The Fletcher School. “We have mechanisms that can minimize the risk of America arming deadly actors. What we don’t seem to have is the political will to actually use those mechanisms. On numerous occasions American arms have made the world a more dangerous place, including for Americans.”

ABOUT THE WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION

Established by the publisher Edwin Ginn in 1910, the World Peace Foundation aims to “educate the people of all nations to a full knowledge of the waste and destructiveness of war and of preparation for war, its evil effects on present social conditions and on the wellbeing of future generations, and to promote international justice and the brotherhood of man, and generally by every practical means to promote peace and goodwill among all mankind.”

Travel

Record-Breaking Global Mobility Grounded By COVID-19 Pandemic

April 11, 2020 The Silo Leave a comment

With global travel almost at a standstill, the latest results of the Henley Passport Index offer disturbing insight into the indiscriminate havoc caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Since its inception in 2006, the index has provided the authoritative annual ranking of global passport strength. Travel freedom has increased dramatically over the period in 2006, a citizen could travel to 58 destinations on average without a visa from the host nation; 14 years later, this number has almost doubled to 107.

The first ranking of the new decade published in January this year conclusively confirmed that overall, people were the most globally mobile than we had ever been in the history of humankind, with the top-ranking passport (Japan) offering its holders access to a record-breaking 191 destinations without requiring a visa in advance. Just three months later, the picture looks very different indeed.

Australia's Coronavirus Travel Bans Feed Old Fears — The result of the latest travel ban in Australia. Image: jacobinmag.com

Japan’s passport continues to hold the top spot on the Henley Passport Index as we enter the second quarter of 2020, but the reality is that current stringent travel restrictions mean that most non-essential travel for Japanese nationals is heavily curtailed.

This is true for almost every country of course, as more travel bans are implemented daily, and ever-more stringent coronavirus lockdown regulations are imposed by governments worldwide. With 3.5 billion people, nearly half the global population, presently living in voluntary or mandatory confinement, the latest results from the index — which is based on exclusive data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA) — raise challenging questions about what travel freedom and global mobility really mean, both currently and in a deeply uncertain post-pandemic future.

Dr. Christian H. Kaelin, Chairman of Henley & Partners and the inventor of the passport index concept, points out that in an unprecedented global health emergency such as this, relative passport strength becomes temporarily meaningless. “A Swiss citizen can, in theory, travel to 185 destinations around the world without needing a visa in advance, but the last few weeks have made it apparent that travel freedom is contingent on factors that occasionally can be utterly beyond our control. This is, of course, something that citizens of countries with weak passports in the lower ranks of the index are all too familiar with. As public health concerns and security rightfully take precedence over all else now, even within the otherwise borderless EU, this is an opportunity to reflect on what freedom of movement and citizenship essentially mean for those of us who have perhaps taken them for granted in the past.”

Q&A: New travel ban shakes up airlines, passengers - NEWS 1130 — Image: citynews1130.com

The future of international mobility after COVID-19

Commenting on the latest Henley Passport Index, bestselling author and the Founder and Managing Partner of FutureMap, Dr. Parag Khanna, says the combined effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health, the global economy, and social behavior could lead to much deeper shifts in our human geography and future distribution around the world. “This may seem ironic given today’s widespread border closures and standstill in global transportation, but as the curtain lifts, people will seek to move from poorly governed and ill-prepared ‘red zones’ to ‘green zones’ or places with better medical care. Alternatively, people may relocate to places where involuntary quarantine, whenever it strikes next, is less torturous.

In the US, both domestic and international migration were surging before the pandemic, with Gen-Xers and millennials shifting to cheaper, second-tier cities in the Sun Belt or abroad to Latin America and Asia in search of an affordable life.

Once quarantines lift and airline prices stand at rock bottom, expect more people across the globe to gather their belongings and buy one-way tickets to countries affordable enough to start fresh.”

This is supported by emerging research and analysis commissioned by Henley & Partners, which suggests that despite freedom of movement currently being restricted as a temporary measure, there is a risk that this will negatively affect international mobility in the long run. Political science researchers Uğur Altundal and Ömer Zarpli of Syracuse University and the University of Pittsburgh, respectively, note that public health concerns have historically been used to justify restricting mobility, but governments usually adopt travel restrictions temporarily, in response to short-term health needs. Until now, health security has not been a significant determinant or requirement when negotiating visa waivers, but Altundal and Zarpli warn that “increasing public health concerns due to the outbreak of COVID-19 may change thisthe quality and level of health security of a country could be a significant consideration for visa waivers in future”. The unprecedented and overwhelming focus on health security and pandemic preparedness we now see may change the face of global mobility forever.

On the other hand, Prof. Simone Bertoli, Professor of Economics at CERDI, Université Clermont Auvergne in France, says that the necessity of international collaboration in fighting the pandemic could ultimately reduce current barriers to international mobility. “Humanity is confronted with a truly global challenge against which no country — irrespective of its level of income — can fully protect itself. This pandemic could therefore trigger renewed and more intense international cooperation, something that has (so far) not happened with the other main global challenge that the world is currently facing, namely climate change.”

No Official Travel Ban In The U.S., But Isn't It Time To Self-Ban?

Brexit, travel bans, and changing timelines

The chaos caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has cast further doubt on the timeline for the implementation of the UK’s post-Brexit immigration system, according to Madeleine Sumption, Director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford. The UK, currently in 7^th place on the Henley Passport Index, with citizens theoretically able to access 185 destinations without acquiring a visa in advance, was set to end free movement with the EU in January 2021. However, as Sumption says, “The UK can only implement its new immigration system when the post-Brexit ‘transition period’ is over, and if this is extended to give negotiators more time to discuss trade and other issues, we may not be seeing the end of free movement with the EU quite yet.”

In the US, also in 7^th place on the Henley Passport Index, the impact of travel bans implemented at the beginning of the year appear to have been compounded by the pandemic, according to Greg Lindsay, Director of Applied Research at NewCities. “For the children of a rising global middle class with more and more options, this pandemic may prove to be the tipping point in terms of choosing educational destinations. When the world gradually recovers with China, South Korea, and Singapore already succeeding in slowing the outbreak through effective quarantines don’t be surprised if the best and brightest take coronavirus responses into consideration when deciding on their future options.”

A unique hedge against volatility in an uncertain future

Commenting on the ever-expanding growth and popularity of the investment migration industry, Dr. Juerg Steffen, CEO of Henley & Partners, says: “We believe that in the post COVID-19 environment, investment migration will take on a dramatically enhanced importance for both individual investors and sovereign states. Acquiring alternative residence or citizenship will act as a hedge against the significant macro-economic volatility that is predicted, creating even more sovereign and societal value across the world.” For the Silo, by Sarah Nicklin.

Supplemental

Global Headlines for Q2 2020: growth in travel freedom over past decade

Japan retains its top spot on the Henley Passport Index, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 191. Over the past decade its travel freedom score has increased by 31 points: in 2010, the country was ranked 6^th worldwide, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 160.
Singapore continues to hold onto 2^nd place, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 190. Over the past decade Singapore’s travel freedom score has increased by 35 points: in 2010, the country was ranked 11^th worldwide, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 155.
Germany remains in 3^rd place, with access to 189 destinations compared to the 161 destinations its passport holders were able to access a decade ago. It shares 3^rd position with South Korea, which has increased its travel freedom score by 38 points: in 2010, South Korea was ranked 13^th worldwide, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 151.
The UK is currently ranked 7^th on the index, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 185. Over the past decade the UK’s travel freedom score has increased by 19 points: in 2010, the country was ranked 1^st worldwide, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 166.
The US is also currently ranked 7^th on the index, with a score of 185. Over the past decade, the US’s travel freedom score has increased by 26 points: in 2010, the country was ranked 7^th worldwide, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 159.
The UAE has seen the biggest increase in travel freedom over the past 10 years. In 2010, the country was ranked 65^th worldwide, with a visa-free/visa-on-arrival score of 64. It is now ranked 18^th, with a score of 171  which means the country has added a remarkable 107 visa-free travel destinations over that period.