The emerging technology is offering comfort to some bereaved families by digitally recreating the appearance and voice of those who have died. At the same time, experts are raising concerns about the psychological and ethical implications of using AI to simulate the dead.

One such customer is 28-year-old office worker Lee Geon Hui, who commissioned an AI-generated video of his late grandfather as a gift for his father. Lee wrote the script himself, imagining the words his grandfather might have wanted to say.

The virtual recreation addressed Lee’s father as “my most precious son,” expressed regret for making him work on the family farm during childhood and apologized for opposing his decision to pursue a career as a hairstylist.

Lee said his father initially refused to watch the video but later viewed it and became emotional.

“My father said he wouldn’t watch the video. But then he did, and he shed tears. So I felt rewarded,” Lee said. “I wrote the script … as it was what I actually wanted to tell my father.”

Lee’s grandfather died in a car accident before Lee was born. He said seeing his father’s emotional reaction highlighted how deeply he still missed his own father decades later.

AI Memorial Videos Become a Growing Industry

South Korea has seen increasing interest in AI-powered memorial services as advances in generative AI make digital recreations more realistic.

Seoul-based startup Vaice says it now serves around 300 customers each month. According to CEO Jeongu Won, most clients are people in their 40s and 50s seeking AI-generated videos of deceased parents, while others create videos of grandparents as gifts for their parents.

The company typically requires several photographs and short voice recordings to recreate a person’s likeness. A standard three- to five-minute video costs approximately 600,000 won (about $390).

Won said families frequently play the videos during traditional memorial ceremonies or major Korean holidays when relatives gather to remember loved ones.

Many of the personalized scripts include expressions of love, unresolved regrets or messages of forgiveness that surviving family members wished they had shared before the person’s death.

Another company, JL Standard, introduced a similar service about five years ago. Executive Choi Yu Ha said public skepticism has eased over time as audiences have become more familiar with AI-generated recreations, including televised appearances featuring digital versions of deceased entertainers.

Experts Warn of Emotional and Ethical Risks

While supporters believe the technology can provide emotional closure, researchers caution that recreating deceased individuals also raises difficult questions about consent, privacy and mental health.

Yong Man Ro, an AI researcher at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, described the technology as both beneficial and potentially disruptive because it directly affects human emotions.

“It’s a double-edged sword, as it deals with human emotions,” Ro said. “As AI technologies become part of people’s lives, they can also bring about cultural experiences and shocks that we have never experienced.”

Legal experts argue that clearer regulations are needed as AI becomes capable of producing increasingly lifelike digital replicas.

Choung Wan, an emeritus professor at Kyung Hee University Law School, said laws should protect the dignity and posthumous rights of deceased individuals. He suggested AI recreations should not be permitted if the individual explicitly opposed such use before death and called for limits on commercial use of a person’s image and voice.

Future AI ‘Griefbots’ Present New Challenges

Researchers believe ethical concerns could become even more complex if AI systems evolve beyond one-way video messages into interactive “griefbots” capable of carrying on extended conversations with bereaved family members.

Several startups are already experimenting with conversational AI designed to simulate deceased individuals.

Choung warned that healthy grieving typically involves accepting the reality of loss and that prolonged conversations with AI replicas could interfere with that process.

“Psychologically, a healthy mourning involves a process to acknowledge the absence of the deceased and pass through the pains of their losses,” Choung said. “But speaking with an AI system simulating a living person could undermine the process of accepting deaths and rather cause a negative effect of leaving bereaved families trapped in a fantasy.”

Won said Vaice is proceeding cautiously regarding conversational AI because unsupervised interactions could create unforeseen ethical issues.

Technology Advances Continue

AI-generated memorials are becoming increasingly realistic as image generation and voice synthesis technologies improve.

Choi said today’s systems can reproduce details as fine as facial wrinkles and skin texture, leading many customers to feel the digital recreations closely resemble their loved ones.

Ro, whose own parents died last year, created a one-minute AI-generated video that he shared with his siblings during a family gathering. The digital versions of their parents encouraged them not to worry and to take care of themselves.

Although the experience was deeply moving, Ro said the family viewed the video only once.

“One time was enough to watch it to honor our late parents who were quite elderly. We moved on,” he said.

Tags: Artificial Intelligence, AI Memorials, Generative AI, South Korea, Digital Afterlife, AI Ethics, Grief Technology, Emerging Technology, Digital Humans, AI Regulation

The post South Koreans Turn to AI-Generated Videos to Preserve Memories of Deceased Loved Ones appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

OpenAI announced Friday that its newest model, GPT-5.6 Sol, will initially be available only to a select group of customers approved through a federal review process. The company described the arrangement as a temporary measure while government officials complete evaluations of the model’s security implications.

“We don’t believe this kind of government access process should become the long-term default,” OpenAI said in a statement, adding that it expects broader availability in the coming weeks after the testing period concludes.

The announcement came hours after Anthropic said federal officials had approved a limited return of its advanced cybersecurity model, Mythos 5, following restrictions imposed earlier this month by the U.S. Commerce Department.

Government Review Expands for Frontier AI Systems

The White House said it continues to work with leading AI developers to address the risks associated with increasingly capable artificial intelligence technologies.

The administration’s heightened scrutiny follows concerns raised earlier this year after Anthropic disclosed that its Mythos model demonstrated advanced capabilities for identifying software vulnerabilities. Officials have expressed concern that such capabilities could potentially be exploited by malicious actors targeting critical infrastructure.

Earlier in June, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing a framework allowing the federal government to evaluate the national security implications of the most advanced AI systems for up to 30 days before broader public deployment. Although participation is described as voluntary, the review process remains under development.

Anthropic Receives Partial Approval

Anthropic had temporarily withdrawn two recently introduced AI models—Fable 5 and Mythos 5—after complying with a federal directive restricting access by foreign nationals.

On Friday, the company said the government had authorized a limited redeployment of Mythos 5 to selected cybersecurity organizations and infrastructure providers while broader restrictions remain in place.

Anthropic said it welcomed the partial approval and intends to continue working with government officials to expand access to Mythos and restore availability of Fable.

A letter from U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, dated Friday, stated that Anthropic’s efforts to address government concerns had produced “significant progress.”

OpenAI Emphasizes Gradual Rollout

OpenAI said its GPT-5.6 Sol model is designed to improve the identification and remediation of software vulnerabilities while maintaining safeguards intended to reduce offensive cyber capabilities.

The company acknowledged that powerful AI systems can present unforeseen risks, particularly when combined with other advanced technologies, and said those uncertainties influenced its decision to adopt a phased release strategy with enhanced security measures.

OpenAI has not identified the approximately 20 organizations that have been approved to use the model during the initial rollout.

Critics Raise Concerns Over Government Control

The federal review process has drawn criticism from lawmakers and cybersecurity experts who argue that the absence of a formal legal framework could create uncertainty for AI developers.

Representative Lori Trahan of Massachusetts said she is concerned that executive branch officials are determining access to advanced AI systems without clear statutory authority or transparent oversight procedures.

Cybersecurity researcher Alex Stamos also questioned the government’s earlier decision to restrict Anthropic’s Fable model, arguing that available research did not identify risks substantially different from those associated with other advanced AI systems already available globally.

Stamos warned that limiting domestic AI innovation could weaken the United States’ competitive position in the global technology race.

AI Oversight Coincides With Corporate Growth Plans

The expanding federal review process comes as both OpenAI and Anthropic continue exploring potential public offerings and broader capital market opportunities.

OpenAI Chief Executive Sam Altman recently met with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to discuss the release of GPT-5.6 Sol as part of ongoing discussions between government officials and AI industry leaders.

Anthropic has also participated in those discussions while continuing separate legal proceedings involving federal restrictions on the use of its Claude chatbot by government agencies.

President Trump has also floated the possibility of the U.S. government holding ownership stakes in leading artificial intelligence companies, suggesting a model in which the American public could become a partner in the industry’s future growth.

The post OpenAI and Anthropic Restrict Advanced AI Model Access During U.S. Cybersecurity Review appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a niche technology confined to research laboratories and Silicon Valley. It is increasingly shaping workplaces, education, public policy and economic strategy. As Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang calls for society to develop “new social norms” around AI, his remarks highlight a broader debate over how people, governments and industries should adapt to one of the most consequential technological shifts in decades.

For much of the past three years, public discussion about artificial intelligence has been dominated by extremes. Some advocates portray AI as a transformational force capable of accelerating scientific discovery, boosting productivity and unlocking new economic growth. Critics warn that the technology could disrupt labor markets, deepen inequality, strain infrastructure and create new security risks.

Into that debate stepped Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang, whose company has become one of the most influential firms in the global AI ecosystem. In an interview with The Associated Press, Huang argued that society should focus less on resisting AI and more on learning how to live alongside it. He suggested that the technology requires the creation of “new social norms” similar to those that emerged around automobiles, electricity and the internet as they became integrated into daily life.

The comments come at a pivotal moment. AI systems are expanding into education, healthcare, software development, scientific research and government services. At the same time, concerns about employment, regulation, energy consumption and geopolitical competition are becoming increasingly prominent.

Huang’s argument raises a broader question that extends beyond technology companies: What does societal adaptation to AI actually look like, and who gets to define the rules?

The Rise of Nvidia and the AI Economy

Any discussion of Huang’s influence begins with Nvidia’s extraordinary rise.

Originally known for producing graphics processing units, or GPUs, for gaming, Nvidia spent years developing hardware that eventually became essential for training and operating advanced AI systems. When generative AI applications surged following the release of large language models, demand for Nvidia’s chips accelerated dramatically.

That demand helped transform Nvidia into the first publicly traded company to surpass a $5 trillion market valuation, underscoring its central role in the AI boom. The company’s hardware powers a significant portion of the infrastructure used by AI developers, cloud providers and research organizations around the world.

As a result, Huang’s views increasingly carry weight beyond the technology sector. Investors, policymakers and business leaders often view Nvidia as a proxy for the broader trajectory of artificial intelligence.

His latest comments therefore reflect more than personal optimism. They represent a perspective from a company that sits at the center of the AI economy.

What Huang Means by ‘New Social Norms’

Huang’s comparison between AI and automobiles offers insight into his thinking.

Cars initially created significant public concerns regarding safety, infrastructure and social disruption. Over time, societies developed traffic laws, road systems, licensing requirements, sidewalks and safety regulations. The technology remained, but the surrounding institutions evolved.

Huang appears to believe AI will follow a similar path.

Rather than viewing artificial intelligence as a force that must be stopped, he argues that individuals should engage with it directly. In his view, widespread familiarity may help reduce fear while enabling people to identify practical uses that improve productivity and access to knowledge.

Supporters of this approach contend that AI could lower barriers to entry for technical work. Tasks that once required specialized programming knowledge can increasingly be performed through natural language instructions. Huang specifically pointed to activities such as website design, document analysis and research assistance as examples of how AI may broaden access to digital capabilities.

Yet critics argue that adaptation is not solely a matter of individual behavior. Social norms alone may not address concerns about economic concentration, misinformation, surveillance or labor displacement. For many observers, questions about governance remain just as important as questions about adoption.

Why AI Has Become a Political Issue

The political landscape surrounding AI has changed rapidly.

Only a few years ago, debates about artificial intelligence were largely confined to technology conferences and academic institutions. Today, AI has become a central topic in discussions about economic competitiveness, national security and industrial policy.

Several factors have contributed to that shift.

First, AI is increasingly viewed as a strategic technology. Governments see leadership in AI as linked to economic strength, military capability and technological influence.

Second, the technology has become highly visible to the public through chatbots, image generators and workplace automation tools.

Third, the infrastructure supporting AI—including data centers, semiconductor manufacturing facilities and power generation projects—has direct impacts on communities.

As new facilities are proposed across the United States, some local residents have raised concerns about environmental effects, electricity demand, land use and quality-of-life issues. These debates have transformed data centers from largely invisible infrastructure into a source of political controversy.

Huang’s comments acknowledge this reality. His appeal for broader public engagement with AI can be viewed partly as a response to growing skepticism surrounding the technology’s rapid expansion.

The Labor Question

Among the most persistent concerns surrounding AI is its effect on employment.

Historically, technological revolutions have often displaced certain jobs while creating new industries and occupations. Economists continue to debate whether AI will follow a similar pattern or produce more disruptive outcomes.

Huang generally aligns with the view that AI will augment human capabilities rather than simply replace workers. He has argued that AI can help individuals perform more advanced tasks without requiring years of technical training.

However, uncertainty remains.

Many businesses are already experimenting with AI systems that can automate portions of administrative work, customer service, software development and content creation. While advocates argue these tools improve efficiency, critics worry that productivity gains could be accompanied by workforce reductions.

The long-term balance between job creation and job displacement remains unclear.

Researchers, policymakers and business leaders continue to debate how labor markets may evolve as AI capabilities advance. The outcome will likely depend on factors that extend beyond technology itself, including education systems, workforce training programs and economic policy.

National Security and the AI Race

Another major theme in Huang’s remarks involves national security.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly viewed through the lens of strategic competition, particularly between the United States and China. Governments regard advanced semiconductors, AI models and computing infrastructure as assets with potential military and economic significance.

The United States has imposed various restrictions on advanced technology exports to China in recent years. Nvidia has frequently been at the center of these debates because its chips are critical components in AI development. Huang has previously questioned whether broad export restrictions ultimately strengthen American leadership or encourage the development of alternative technologies elsewhere.

At the same time, Huang emphasized that national security concerns are legitimate and should remain a priority. His argument is that policymakers should clearly define the risks they seek to address before implementing controls.

This position reflects a broader tension facing governments around the world. Officials seek to protect sensitive technologies while also preserving innovation and global competitiveness.

That balancing act is likely to remain one of the defining policy challenges of the AI era.

Regulation Without Stifling Innovation

One of the most difficult questions surrounding AI is how much regulation is appropriate.

Calls for stronger oversight have emerged from lawmakers, researchers and civil society groups concerned about safety, privacy and security. Meanwhile, technology companies often caution that excessive restrictions could slow innovation or weaken competitiveness.

The regulatory environment in the United States continues to evolve. Recent federal actions have included greater attention to security reviews and oversight of advanced AI systems.

Huang has expressed support for some degree of regulation and safety standards while also emphasizing the importance of maintaining technological leadership.

The challenge for policymakers is that AI encompasses a wide range of applications. Rules designed for national security concerns may not address labor issues. Measures aimed at privacy protection may not resolve questions about misinformation or market concentration.

As a result, many experts argue that regulation will likely emerge through a combination of industry standards, sector-specific rules and broader government oversight rather than a single comprehensive framework.

The Energy Challenge Behind AI Expansion

Perhaps the most immediate practical challenge identified by Huang is energy.

Modern AI systems require enormous computational resources. The data centers that train and operate advanced models consume significant amounts of electricity, making power availability an increasingly important factor in AI development.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration has reported that data centers are becoming a major driver of electricity demand growth in the United States. Demand has risen substantially compared with previous decades, with data center expansion identified as a key factor.

Huang argues that America’s ability to maintain leadership in AI depends partly on expanding energy production and infrastructure. He warned that insufficient power generation could become a bottleneck for future growth.

Research examining AI-related infrastructure has also highlighted concerns about regional grid stress and rising electricity consumption as computing demand grows. While estimates vary, analysts generally agree that AI will require substantial investments in power systems and transmission infrastructure.

This issue extends beyond technology policy. It intersects with environmental policy, industrial development and long-term economic planning.

Wealth Concentration and Economic Inequality

The extraordinary success of AI companies has also renewed debates about economic concentration.

Nvidia’s rise, alongside the rapid growth of major AI developers, has generated vast amounts of wealth. Supporters argue that these companies are creating jobs, generating tax revenue and advancing innovation.

Critics counter that much of the financial benefit remains concentrated among investors, executives and large technology firms.

Proposals aimed at distributing AI-related gains more broadly have begun to emerge. Some policymakers and technology leaders have floated ideas ranging from public ownership stakes to new mechanisms for sharing the benefits of automation. Huang expressed skepticism about government ownership of AI companies, arguing that Americans already benefit through investment exposure, tax revenue and job creation.

The debate reflects a larger question that extends beyond Nvidia or AI itself: How should societies distribute the economic gains produced by transformative technologies?

History suggests there is no simple answer.

The Human Dimension of Technological Change

Amid discussions about chips, regulations and infrastructure, Huang’s comments also reveal something more fundamental.

Technological revolutions are ultimately social transformations.

The introduction of railroads altered settlement patterns. Electricity changed daily life. The internet reshaped communication, commerce and information access.

AI appears poised to influence how people work, learn and interact with knowledge. The exact trajectory remains uncertain. Predictions about technological change have often proven both overly optimistic and excessively pessimistic.

What is clear is that AI is moving beyond the confines of specialized industries and becoming part of broader public life.

Huang’s call for “new social norms” can therefore be interpreted as an acknowledgment that technical innovation alone is insufficient. Societies must also develop institutions, expectations and safeguards that allow new technologies to be integrated responsibly.

What Remains Unresolved

Despite rapid progress, many questions remain unanswered.

The long-term impact of AI on employment is still uncertain.

The effectiveness of emerging regulatory frameworks remains untested.

Debates over privacy, intellectual property and algorithmic transparency continue.

Energy infrastructure may struggle to keep pace with growing computational demand.

Geopolitical competition could further complicate international cooperation on AI governance.

Details surrounding some future developments remain unclear, and many projections depend on technological advances that have not yet occurred.

What appears increasingly certain is that AI will remain a defining issue for policymakers, businesses and communities for years to come.

Jensen Huang’s vision is rooted in the belief that adaptation, rather than resistance, offers the best path forward. Whether society ultimately embraces that perspective may depend not only on the capabilities of AI systems, but also on how effectively governments, institutions and citizens respond to the challenges that accompany them.

Tags: Artificial Intelligence, Jensen Huang, Nvidia, AI Regulation, Data Centers, U.S.-China Technology Competition, AI Infrastructure, National Security, Future of Work, Energy Policy

The post Jensen Huang’s Call for ‘New Social Norms’ Reflects a Growing Debate Over AI’s Place in Society appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The post Musk–Altman Trial Opens as AI Governance Dispute Moves Into Courtroom Spotlight appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a statement Thursday, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said the company “cannot in good conscience accede” to new contract terms that he said failed to limit potential uses of its AI for mass surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon has rejected those claims, saying it has no intention of using AI unlawfully.

The disagreement comes amid growing scrutiny over how rapidly advancing AI tools are integrated into military systems, and how governance standards are applied when national security priorities collide with corporate ethics policies.

Contract dispute over AI safeguards

Anthropic, the maker of the AI chatbot Claude, said revised contract language from the Defense Department made “virtually no progress” in preventing what it considers unacceptable uses of its models. The company maintains internal policies barring its technology from being used for mass domestic surveillance or in autonomous weapons systems that operate without human oversight.

The Pentagon’s top spokesperson, Sean Parnell, responded on social media that the military “has no interest in using AI to conduct mass surveillance of Americans (which is illegal) nor do we want to use AI to develop autonomous weapons that operate without human involvement).” He added that the Defense Department intends to use Anthropic’s technology “for all lawful purposes.”

While public clashes between federal agencies and major defense contractors are uncommon, this dispute has unfolded openly, drawing attention from lawmakers and industry observers alike. Anthropic is the last among several leading AI developers — including Google, OpenAI, and xAI — that has not agreed to supply its models to a new internal U.S. military AI network.

Amodei said Anthropic remains open to negotiations but emphasized that it will not compromise on what it sees as essential safeguards. “It is the Department’s prerogative to select contractors most aligned with their vision,” he wrote, adding that he hopes officials reconsider given the “substantial value” the company’s technology offers the armed forces.

Ultimatum from the Defense Secretary

The dispute intensified after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly delivered an ultimatum earlier this week. Following a meeting with Amodei, Hegseth demanded that Anthropic open its AI systems for unrestricted military use by Friday or risk losing its contract.

According to Anthropic, military officials warned that further measures could follow, including designating the company as a supply chain risk or invoking the Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era law that grants the government broad authority to direct private industry in the interest of national security.

Amodei called those potential steps “inherently contradictory,” arguing that labeling the company a security risk while simultaneously claiming its AI tools are essential to national defense sends mixed signals.

Parnell, speaking for the Pentagon, said that broader access to Anthropic’s systems would help prevent disruptions to “critical military operations.” He also stated that the Defense Department would not allow private firms to dictate operational terms. “We will not let ANY company dictate the terms regarding how we make operational decisions,” he wrote.

Lawmakers express concern

The unusually public nature of the dispute has prompted criticism on Capitol Hill. Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina who is not seeking reelection, questioned why negotiations were unfolding in public.

“Why in the hell are we having this discussion in public?” Tillis told reporters. He described Anthropic as “trying to do their best to help us from ourselves,” suggesting that concerns about unintended consequences should be addressed privately.

Senator Mark Warner, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he was “deeply disturbed” by reports that the Pentagon was pressuring a major U.S. technology company. In a statement, Warner argued that the dispute underscores the need for Congress to establish “strong, binding AI governance mechanisms for national security contexts.”

The debate reflects broader tensions in Washington over AI oversight. While the Pentagon maintains that all uses of AI will comply with existing laws, critics note that legal frameworks have not always kept pace with technological change.

Governance and military culture

The controversy also surfaces against the backdrop of internal shifts within the Defense Department. Earlier this year, Hegseth told Fox News that the military needs lawyers who provide constitutional advice without acting as “roadblocks” to operational decisions.

In February, the department dismissed the top legal officers for the Army and Air Force without public explanation, and the Navy’s senior lawyer resigned shortly after the 2024 election. Those moves have fueled concern among some lawmakers and policy experts about how legal oversight is evolving as AI becomes more central to defense planning.

Anthropic has indicated that if the Pentagon proceeds with terminating its contract, the company will cooperate to ensure a smooth transition to another provider. That would leave the military relying on other AI vendors already embedded in its systems.

For now, negotiations remain unresolved. The dispute highlights a growing friction point in the AI era: how governments balance national security imperatives with corporate governance standards and ethical guardrails. As AI tools become more deeply integrated into defense operations, the outcome of this clash may shape expectations for both public oversight and private-sector accountability.

Source: AP News – Anthropic CEO says AI company ‘cannot in good conscience accede’ to Pentagon’s demands

The post Anthropic Rejects Pentagon Demand for Unrestricted AI Use appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

A draft executive order obtained by The Associated Press shows President Donald Trump may push to prevent states from enacting artificial intelligence (AI) regulations. The proposal, supported by some Republicans, aims to unify oversight at the federal level but faces criticism from both parties and civil liberties groups concerned about corporate accountability and consumer protections.

Current State-Level AI Regulations

Four states—Colorado, California, Utah, and Texas—have passed laws addressing aspects of AI in the private sector, according to the International Association of Privacy Professionals.

These measures focus on limiting the collection of personal data and increasing transparency for AI systems used in hiring, lending, housing, and healthcare. Research indicates AI can make biased decisions, sometimes favoring certain genders or races.

Calli Schroeder, director of the AI & Human Rights Program at public interest group EPIC, explained, “With a human, I can ask, ‘How did you reach that conclusion?’ With AI, that transparency is often unavailable, even to its programmers.”

Beyond general rules, states have regulated AI applications in elections, nonconsensual content creation, and government operations. Some proposals also require private companies to assess and mitigate potential discriminatory impacts of AI.

Trump and Republican Objectives

The draft executive order reportedly directs federal agencies to identify state AI regulations deemed burdensome and encourages states to halt them. Methods could include withholding federal funding or legally challenging state laws.

The order also aims to develop a lighter, nationwide regulatory framework that would supersede state-level rules. Trump and supporters argue that inconsistent state regulations create barriers for AI companies and risk allowing China to gain an edge in AI development. The president has also criticized state rules as producing what he terms “Woke AI.”

A senior Trump administration official noted that the draft order is not final and could change before signing, with reports suggesting a possible announcement as early as Friday.

Separately, House Republican leadership is exploring legislation to temporarily block states from regulating AI. Details remain unclear, including which state laws such a proposal would override.

TechNet, a tech industry advocacy group representing companies like Google and Amazon, has argued that pausing state regulations could benefit smaller AI firms and provide time for federal lawmakers to craft a framework balancing innovation and accountability.

Challenges to Federal Preemption of State Laws

Attempts to prevent states from regulating AI at the federal level have faced internal Republican opposition. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis stated a federal ban would be “Not acceptable,” warning it would favor Big Tech and reduce state authority to protect against harmful applications targeting children or censor political speech online.

Cody Venzke, senior policy council at the ACLU, emphasized public concern over unsafe AI. “The American people do not want AI to be discriminatory, unsafe, or hallucinatory,” he said. “Winning the AI race cannot come at the cost of trustworthy systems.”

Federal preemption proposals have historically struggled because they clash with states’ rights to protect residents and maintain consumer safeguards, a tension central to ongoing debates over technology regulation in the U.S.

The Broader Context of AI Regulation

State regulations represent a patchwork approach, reflecting local priorities and concerns over privacy, safety, and fairness. AI increasingly influences daily life, from employment decisions to healthcare recommendations, raising questions about transparency and accountability.

The federal government has yet to establish a comprehensive AI framework, leaving states to act independently. Advocates for a unified approach argue that consistent rules could spur innovation while providing oversight, but opponents caution that overly permissive federal policies may weaken protections for citizens.

Congressional debates and executive actions highlight the complexity of balancing technological progress, national competitiveness, and individual rights. The discussion over AI governance is likely to continue as the technology evolves and its societal impacts become more pronounced.

What Comes Next

The draft executive order and possible congressional measures signal heightened attention to AI governance in the U.S. While proponents frame these actions as necessary to maintain global competitiveness, critics argue that limiting state-level oversight could favor large tech corporations and reduce transparency.

As policymakers, civil rights organizations, and tech industry representatives weigh in, the outcome could set a precedent for how AI is regulated nationwide. The ongoing debate underscores the challenge of creating policies that protect users without stifling innovation.

Source: AP News – What to know about Trump’s draft proposal to curtail state AI regulations

The post Trump’s Draft Proposal Seeks to Limit State AI Regulations appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

The move also redefines OpenAI’s long-standing relationship with Microsoft, the tech giant that has been both a key investor and strategic partner since 2019. As part of the updated arrangement, Microsoft now holds a 27% stake in OpenAI, cementing its position as a major shareholder while gaining extended rights to the company’s AI models through 2032, excluding consumer hardware applications.

A Redefined Partnership Between OpenAI and Microsoft

Under the new terms, Microsoft gains greater flexibility to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI) — technology capable of outperforming human intelligence — independently or with other partners. The companies stated that the revised structure allows both to pursue their respective AI goals with increased autonomy.

Microsoft will also continue to support OpenAI’s governance transition, assisting in its shift from non-profit origins to a fully for-profit structure. Notably, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will not hold an equity stake in the company, a decision first reported by Bloomberg and later confirmed by OpenAI.

OpenAI also announced plans to convene an independent expert panel tasked with validating any future claim that the company has achieved AGI. While details about who will serve on the panel have not yet been disclosed, OpenAI said the group will ensure transparency and accountability in determining whether such a milestone has truly been reached.

From Non-Profit Research to Market Powerhouse

When OpenAI was founded in 2015, it operated as a non-profit research organization dedicated to ensuring AI benefits humanity. The early partnership with Microsoft, formed in 2019, provided OpenAI with essential cloud computing resources during its formative years. In exchange, Microsoft obtained broad rights to the lab’s innovations — a move that helped launch the Azure-powered AI boom that followed.

Since then, OpenAI has evolved from a research entity into a global technology powerhouse. Its products, led by the widely used ChatGPT, have propelled artificial intelligence into the mainstream. The company now claims 800 million weekly active users, according to Altman’s remarks at the firm’s recent DevDay event in San Francisco.

Microsoft’s Market Momentum and AI Strategy

The renewed partnership came as Microsoft’s market capitalization briefly crossed the $4 trillion mark this week — only the second time in its history, following a similar milestone in July. The company trails only chipmaker Nvidia, which became the first publicly traded firm to hit that threshold earlier this year.

Analysts say Microsoft’s deep integration of OpenAI’s models across its products — including Windows, Office, and Azure — has been a major driver of its valuation surge. The extended rights agreement through 2032 reinforces Microsoft’s long-term bet on the generative AI sector, even as competition from Google, Anthropic, and Meta intensifies.

OpenAI’s Expanding Portfolio and Global Reach

Now valued at around $500 billion, OpenAI has rapidly expanded its product ecosystem beyond ChatGPT. Recent launches include ChatGPT Atlas, an AI-powered web browser designed to compete with Google Chrome, and Sora, a video generation tool capable of creating realistic visuals from text prompts.

The company’s aggressive product rollouts reflect its ambition to dominate multiple layers of the AI industry — from consumer tools to developer platforms. However, this expansion has also drawn scrutiny from policymakers and advocacy groups concerned about ethical and social implications.

Controversies and Ethical Challenges

Despite its success, OpenAI continues to face public controversy over its policies and content moderation. Just last week, the company blocked its Sora 2 system from generating deepfake videos of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., following objections from the civil rights leader’s family.

In another move that sparked debate, OpenAI confirmed that ChatGPT will soon permit erotic content for verified adult users — a decision critics say could raise questions about regulation, safety, and accessibility.

Mental health experts and AI ethicists have also warned that OpenAI’s rapid commercialization may overlook potential psychological effects of generative AI tools, particularly among younger users. The company has responded by emphasizing ongoing efforts to strengthen safeguards and user transparency.

A New Chapter for Global AI Governance

OpenAI’s conversion to a for-profit entity underscores the growing tension between innovation and regulation in the AI sector. While the shift may accelerate technological breakthroughs and investment opportunities, it also intensifies questions about accountability, data ethics, and the concentration of AI power in a few private corporations.

As governments worldwide debate frameworks for responsible AI development, OpenAI’s evolution will likely serve as a test case for balancing profit-driven innovation with public responsibility.

For now, the company’s leadership insists that its mission — to ensure artificial intelligence benefits humanity — remains unchanged, even as it embraces the financial and strategic flexibility of the corporate world.

Source: BBC – OpenAI completes shift to becoming for-profit

The post OpenAI Completes For-Profit Conversion, Reshaping Partnership With Microsoft appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Writing Time: August 06, 2025, 21:20 (U.S. Eastern Time)

A new study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) has raised concerns over ChatGPT’s ability to provide potentially harmful advice to teenagers, even on sensitive issues such as drug use, eating disorders, and self-harm. While OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT, says it is working to strengthen safeguards, researchers warn that current measures may be too easy to bypass.

Study Finds Gaps in AI Safeguards

Researchers from CCDH conducted more than three hours of test conversations with ChatGPT, posing as vulnerable 13-year-old users. While the chatbot often issued initial warnings about risky behavior, it sometimes went on to provide detailed and personalized instructions for activities such as substance abuse, restrictive dieting, and self-harm.

In a broader test of 1,200 ChatGPT responses, more than half were classified as “dangerous” by the watchdog group.

“We wanted to test the guardrails,” said Imran Ahmed, CEO of CCDH. “The visceral initial response is, ‘Oh my Lord, there are no guardrails.’ The rails are completely ineffective.”

OpenAI Responds to Concerns

OpenAI, which launched ChatGPT in late 2022, acknowledged the findings but emphasized that work is ongoing to improve its handling of sensitive situations.

“Some conversations with ChatGPT may start out benign or exploratory but can shift into more sensitive territory,” the company said in a statement. “We are focused on getting these scenarios right, including better detecting signs of mental or emotional distress.”

The company did not directly address how these issues specifically affect teenagers but noted it is refining its approach to prevent harmful interactions.

AI’s Influence on Teen Behavior

The report arrives at a time when AI chatbots are seeing widespread use among younger demographics. A July report from JPMorgan Chase estimated that around 800 million people globally—about 10% of the population—are using ChatGPT.

A separate study by Common Sense Media found that more than 70% of U.S. teens have used AI chatbots for companionship, with half using them regularly.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has publicly acknowledged the challenge of “emotional overreliance” among young people, describing cases where users defer major life decisions to the chatbot.

“That feels really bad to me,” Altman said at a recent conference. “We’re trying to understand what to do about it.”

Detailed and Personalized Harmful Content

The CCDH report detailed several examples of ChatGPT providing highly tailored responses that could pose risks to minors. These included:

• Suicide notes written for a fictional 13-year-old, customized for different family members and friends.
• An “Ultimate Full-Out Mayhem Party Plan” outlining hour-by-hour drug and alcohol use, including illegal substances such as ecstasy and cocaine.
• A 500-calorie-a-day diet plan paired with appetite-suppressing drugs, given to a fictional teenage girl concerned about her appearance.

Ahmed described reading the AI-generated suicide notes as “devastating” and said the content demonstrated how chatbots can act more like enablers than protectors.

How Teens Bypass AI Restrictions

Researchers found that ChatGPT’s safety filters could be bypassed by reframing harmful questions. For example, if a harmful prompt was rejected, testers would claim the request was “for a presentation” or intended for a friend.

In nearly half of the trials, ChatGPT not only complied but also volunteered additional suggestions, such as music playlists for a drug-fueled event or hashtags to promote self-harm content on social media.

Why Chatbots Differ From Search Engines

While much of the information could be found online, experts warn that chatbots like ChatGPT differ in key ways:

1. Personalization: AI generates bespoke responses tailored to the user’s profile, rather than providing general search results.
2. Conversational Trust: Users, especially younger ones, perceive chatbots as companions, making harmful advice more persuasive.
3. Interactivity: Chatbots can guide users through multi-step plans in real time.

Robbie Torney, Senior Director of AI Programs at Common Sense Media, explained that younger teens are more likely than older teens to trust a chatbot’s advice, increasing the risk of harmful influence.

Age Verification and Policy Gaps

Currently, ChatGPT requires users to confirm they are at least 13 years old but does not verify this information. This allows minors to create accounts simply by entering a qualifying birthdate.

Other platforms like Instagram have implemented more robust age verification and restricted features for younger users to comply with safety regulations. Researchers argue similar measures should be applied to widely used AI tools.

Calls for Stronger Protections

CCDH’s report urges OpenAI to:

• Implement age verification systems to protect minors.
• Strengthen guardrails to prevent harmful content from being generated.
• Increase transparency about how harmful prompts are detected and handled.

Ahmed emphasized that AI companies must act quickly given the rapid adoption of these tools among young people. “We would respond to a teen’s cry for help with compassion and safety,” he said. “AI should be designed to do the same.”

NOTE: This article discusses suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, call or text 988 in the U.S. to reach the Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

Source: AP News – New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens

The post New Study Warns of Risks in ChatGPT’s Interactions With Teens appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Written July 28, 2025 – 16:45 EDT

The rise of realistic deepfakes — synthetic audio and video generated using artificial intelligence — is challenging the foundations of trust in government, business, and everyday digital communication. With tools more accessible than ever, bad actors are using deepfakes to impersonate public officials, deceive voters, and penetrate corporate networks, prompting experts to call for urgent countermeasures.

From the halls of Washington to the boardrooms of global finance, AI-generated deception is becoming a real-world threat. Combating it may require a multi-layered approach involving regulation, public awareness, and AI-powered detection tools.

Deepfakes impersonate officials, targeting national security

This summer, an alarming incident exposed just how realistic and dangerous deepfakes can be. Someone used AI to impersonate Secretary of State Marco Rubio, contacting foreign officials through voicemails, texts, and the encrypted messaging app Signal.

In a separate case, Trump’s then–chief of staff, Susie Wiles, was also mimicked by AI. Earlier in the year, another deepfake video depicted Rubio threatening to cut off Ukraine’s access to Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service — a claim later refuted by Ukraine’s government.

Cybersecurity experts warn that such impersonations are not just technical pranks. They pose real threats by creating confusion and potentially leaking sensitive diplomatic or military information.

“You’re either trying to extract sensitive secrets or competitive information or you’re going after access — to an email server or other sensitive network,” said Kinny Chan, CEO of cybersecurity firm QiD.

These attacks are part of a growing pattern where synthetic media is used by foreign adversaries — including Russia, China, and North Korea — to undermine trust in democratic institutions and disrupt international cooperation.

AI-generated disinformation enters U.S. elections

AI deepfakes are also beginning to influence domestic politics. In one notable case last year, Democratic voters in New Hampshire received robocalls mimicking President Joe Biden’s voice, urging them not to vote in the state’s primary. The audio was generated using AI voice cloning.

Political consultant Steven Kramer later admitted to creating and distributing the calls to highlight the dangers of deepfake technology. Although he was acquitted of criminal charges, the incident served as a stark warning of how easily voters can be misled by synthetic media.

“I did what I did for $500,” Kramer said in court. “Can you imagine what would happen if the Chinese government decided to do this?”

The case underlines a critical point: deepfakes don’t just pose a technological challenge — they represent a broader threat to civic trust and democratic systems.

Financial industry under attack from deepfake scams

While governments face deepfake impersonations at the diplomatic level, businesses — particularly in the financial sector — are being targeted for fraud and cyber intrusion.

“The financial industry is right in the crosshairs,” said Jennifer Ewbank, a former CIA deputy director focused on digital threats. “Even individuals who know each other have been convinced to transfer vast sums of money.”

In one common scheme, criminals use deepfakes to impersonate company executives. Employees may receive fake video calls or emails from what appears to be their CEO, requesting sensitive financial information or password access. Some schemes have successfully convinced employees to transfer large sums of money or grant backdoor access to corporate networks.

The threat doesn’t stop there. Deepfakes are now being used to apply for — and even hold — remote jobs under fake identities. In these cases, attackers may gain access to internal systems and later install ransomware or steal proprietary data.

North Korea reportedly behind deepfake job schemes

U.S. authorities have raised concerns about North Korea’s growing use of deepfakes in cyber operations. According to intelligence reports, thousands of North Korean IT workers have been dispatched abroad using stolen identities to apply for jobs at foreign tech companies.

These operatives reportedly use deepfakes to pass job interviews and conceal their true identities, gaining access to sensitive data and critical networks. In many cases, they also generate income for the North Korean regime — and in some instances, they install ransomware to be activated later.

The schemes have reportedly generated billions of dollars for Pyongyang, fueling its weapons development and defying international sanctions.

Cybersecurity company Adaptive Security estimates that by 2027, 1 in 4 job applications may involve some form of synthetic identity or deepfake manipulation.

“We’ve entered an era where anyone with a laptop and access to an open-source model can convincingly impersonate a real person,” said Adaptive CEO Brian Long. “It’s no longer about hacking systems — it’s about hacking trust.”

Fighting deepfakes with smarter technology and policy

Recognizing the growing danger, public and private sectors are developing countermeasures. These include:

• AI-powered detection tools that analyze speech and video patterns to spot deepfakes
• Regulatory proposals requiring tech platforms to detect and label synthetic content
• Public education campaigns focused on media literacy and online deception

One such detection system, developed by Pindrop Security, analyzes millions of datapoints from a person’s voice during real-time conversations to detect irregularities that suggest voice cloning. These tools are already being used in hiring processes and financial transactions.

“You can take the defeatist view and say we’re going to be subservient to disinformation,” said Vijay Balasubramaniyan, CEO of Pindrop. “But that’s not going to happen.”

Experts compare this fight to earlier battles against email spam — once thought unmanageable, now largely mitigated through filters and authentication protocols.

Future of trust in the age of synthetic media

The growing sophistication and accessibility of AI tools make deepfakes a lasting concern for governments, corporations, and the public alike. While technological tools offer hope, they must be paired with updated laws and global cooperation to address the cross-border nature of these threats.

The digital age has introduced a new currency — trust — and deepfakes are eroding its value. How societies respond in the next few years may determine whether fact or fiction governs the global narrative.

Source: AP News – Creating realistic deepfakes is getting easier than ever. Fighting back may take even more AI

The post How AI Deepfakes Threaten Global Security and Business Integrity appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In an age where artificial intelligence can clone your face and voice in seconds, Denmark is taking a bold stand: give every citizen the legal right to control their own likeness.

Danish Culture Minister Jakob Engel-Schmidt has proposed a new law that would treat a person’s face and voice as their property—meaning if someone’s features are used in an AI-generated deepfake, they can demand it be taken down.

“Technology has outpaced legislation,” Engel-Schmidt told CNN. “We shouldn’t accept a world where people are run through a digital copy machine and misused for all sorts of purposes.”

A Personal Copyright Over Your Identity

Under the proposed law, individuals—whether celebrities, artists, or private citizens—would have the right to request takedowns of AI-generated content that imitates their appearance or voice without consent.

That could have a big impact in an era where viral deepfakes are becoming more common, especially in the entertainment industry. Engel-Schmidt pointed to artists who’ve found AI-generated music online that mimics their voice, fooling fans into thinking it’s authentic.

One high-profile example: Celine Dion warned her followers earlier this year about deepfake content circulating online that appeared to be her singing—but wasn’t.

Artists Are Already Speaking Out

The music world is increasingly alarmed by generative AI. In April 2024, over 200 artists—including Billie Eilish, Katy Perry, the Jonas Brothers, Kacey Musgraves, J Balvin, and Miranda Lambert—signed an open letter demanding protections against AI impersonation in the music industry.

Denmark’s plan could be one of the first national laws to answer that call.

Engel-Schmidt says the bill has already earned cross-party support in parliament and is expected to pass this fall. But that’s just step one.

“Once it’s law, we’ll look at adding real consequences—like fines—for companies that don’t comply with takedown requests,” he said.

Balancing Free Speech and Human Dignity

The minister is careful to note that this isn’t about censorship.

“We’re champions of free speech,” he said. “But people should have the right to say yes or no to being used by generative AI.”

So far, Engel-Schmidt hasn’t formally approached major tech platforms about the proposal—but he says those conversations are coming.

“It’s in their interest, too, to make AI work for humanity—not against artists, public figures, and everyday people.”

A Global Push for Deepfake Accountability

Experts say Denmark’s approach is part of a growing global movement to regulate generative AI and protect against its misuse.

“Deepfakes pose both individual and societal risks,” said Athina Karatzogianni, a professor of technology and society at the University of Leicester. “They threaten personal rights and also damage the democratic values of equality and transparency.”

With generative AI rapidly evolving, Denmark’s proposal may become a model for other countries trying to navigate the same ethical minefield.

Source: CNN – Denmark plans to thwart deepfakers by giving everyone copyright over their own features

The post Denmark Moves to Give Citizens Legal Control Over Their Face and Voice appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.