UPSC Final Result of various Posts of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (Tech), IB, MHA
Dated: 12-7-23
For Final Result of various Posts of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (Tech), IB, MHA click link below:
Final Result: 10 Posts of Deputy Central Intelligence Officer (Tech), IB, MHA
Install “Sarkari Naukri, Pvt Jobs, Trusted & Breaking News App” Highest Installs in J&K – Click me to Install
Install The News Caravan App for Android and Iphone
JKSSB Govt Jobs – Check Updates Bank Jobs, IBPS, All Banks Updates Jammu & Kashmir News Check All Latest News from J&K Government Jobs, Private Jobs – Check All Jobs Updates
[ad_2]
#UPSC #Final #Result #Posts #Deputy #Central #Intelligence #Officer #Tech #MHA( With inputs from : The News Caravan.com )
New Delhi: The generative AI era came fast. However, the government scrutiny into Big Tech on AI came much faster to promote responsible innovation and risk mitigation as AI chatbots begin to worry lawmakers and regulators worldwide.
The governments feel that companies have a fundamental responsibility to make sure their AI products are safe and secure before they are deployed or made public.
In the US, Vice President Harris and senior Administration officials met with CEOs of four American companies at the forefront of AI innovation this week to share concerns about the risks associated with AI.
President Biden dropped by the meeting to underscore that companies have a fundamental responsibility to make sure their products are safe and secure before they are deployed or made public.
Harris told top Big Tech CEOs, including Microsoft Chairman and CEO Satya Nadella, Alphabet and Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI (ChatGPT fame), that the private sector has an ethical, moral, and legal responsibility to ensure the safety and security of their products.
She stressed that in order to realise the benefits that might come from advances in AI, “it is imperative to mitigate both the current and potential risks AI poses to individuals, society, and national security”.
“Every company must comply with existing laws to protect the American people. I look forward to the follow through and follow up in the weeks to come,” Harris said.
She told the CEOs that advances in technology have always presented opportunities and risks, and generative AI is no different.
“AI is one of today’s most powerful technologies, with the potential to improve people’s lives and tackle some of society’s biggest challenges. At the same time, AI has the potential to dramatically increase threats to safety and security, infringe civil rights and privacy, and erode public trust and faith in democracy,” she stressed.
Meanwhile, the UK’s competition watchdog this week launched an initial review of “AI foundational models” like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Microsoft’s Bing and Google’s Bard, saying the move will help create an early understanding of the market for AI models and what opportunities and risks these could bring.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said the initial piece of work will help create competition and consumer protection principles to best guide the development of AI-driven markets going forward.
“AI has burst into the public consciousness over the past few months but has been on our radar for some time. It’s a technology developing at speed and has the potential to transform the way businesses compete as well as drive substantial economic growth,” said Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA.
“Our goal is to help this new, rapidly scaling technology develop in ways that ensure open, competitive markets and effective consumer protection,” she added.
In a white paper, the UK government in March asked regulators, including the CMA, to think about how the innovative development and deployment of AI can be supported in line with the 5 overarching principles of: safety, security and robustness; appropriate transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress.
In line with the government’s AI white paper and the CMA’s role to support open, competitive markets, the review seeks to understand how foundation models are developing and produce an assessment of the conditions and principles that will best guide the development of foundation models and their use in the future.
The development of AI touches upon a number of important issues, including safety, security, copyright, privacy, and human rights, as well as the ways markets work.
The Indian government also wants Big Tech to create a responsible and ethical AI.
“AI is a kinetic enabler of the digital economy and innovation ecosystem. Government is harnessing the potential of AI to provide personalized and interactive citizen-centric services through digital public platforms,” according to the Ministry of Electronics and IT.
Union Minister of State for Electronics and IT, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, has broadly outlined the IndiaAI programme and how it will help the country build world-class platforms, solutions and tools to not only solve local issues but also help the world.
“We aim to build commercially deployable AI platforms and solutions, developed by a vibrant startup ecosystem in the country which is our primary goal,” according to the minister.
India aims to become a global powerhouse of AI which does not just stop at integrating foreign chatbots but building next-generation AI-based innovations to empower billions of citizens.
Hyderabad: To revive the engineering course in mining technology, Osmania University’s College of Engineering has received sponsorship for two of its professor chairs from Coal India Ltd and Singareni Collieries Company Ltd (SCCL).
View Post
The varsity’s alumni association president D Vijay Kumar, while speaking at the global alumni meet of its engineering college on Sunday, said that SCCL has also funded the construction of the classroom complex for the Department of Electronics and Communication.
The event saw the participation of around 500 alumni and students.
Highlighting the formation of the Osmania Foundation as an umbrella organization for all alumni associations of colleges under OU, Kumar said, “The alumni association along with the mining engineers’ fraternity managed to get two professor chairs.”
Northern Power Distribution Company Limited (NPDCL), Warangal, chairman and managing director (CMD) A Gopal Rao, who was also present at the event, appreciated the efforts of the alumni in giving back to their alma mater and recalled incidents during his college days at OU.
OU vice-chancellor D Ravinder, meanwhile, has appealed to the alumni to also share their intellectual knowledge and mentor the university to make it compete globally.
The announcement of the demise of BuzzFeed News last week felt unlike the cavalcade of media closures and layoffs of the past decade. In a sense, it represented the death of an entire era.
BuzzFeed News, launched in 2011, imagined a format which would marry the intense virality and relentless social media focus of digital native publications with the serious reporting of major mastheads. The bet was that the site’s endless fountain of Harry Potter quizzes, viral news stories, celebrity gossip and pop culture gifs could subsidise a serious news operation, which would in turn lend real credibility to BuzzFeed as a whole.
The timing was perfect. Legacy media, already shaky after the financial crisis, was increasingly finding itself at the mercy of Facebook and Google, who had reshaped content distribution and the ad industry in their favour. Digital-only upstarts such as BuzzFeed, Mashable and Business Insider had built themselves to take advantage of those same trends and had secured a dominant share of millennial eyeballs as a result.
Suddenly, BuzzFeed News and a legion of imitators – buoyed by venture capital investment and the seemingly bottomless Facebook audience spigot – were making significant plays into the world of real news reporting; breaking stories left and right and adroitly packaging them for an extremely online audience. In those heady days, you could even imagine I Can Haz Cheeseburger opening a national security desk.
It’s difficult to understate the panic BuzzFeed’s foray into hard news inaugurated among the media old guard. In 2014, The New York Times distributed a “dire” internal report sounding the warning bell about the paper’s struggles to adapt to journalism’s digital revolution, which mentioned BuzzFeed two dozen times. (True to form, the existence of this report was first detailed by BuzzFeed.) Even the most storied news brands found themselves following the BuzzFeed playbook for distribution. Even the NYT was doing listicles!
Over the years, the cracks in BuzzFeed’s model started to show. The grand vision of a serious news organisation precariously balanced on top of a viral content shop was always a challenging one, and the company found it increasingly difficult to build a sustainable business. The venture capital injections weren’t enough, and it didn’t help that BuzzFeed’s advertisers were much happier to see their content run alongside the fun quizzes than, say, the Kevin Spacey exposé.
Another problem was talent. While BuzzFeed served as an incubator for some incandescently skilled young reporters with both a keen eye for the online world and classic reporting chops, it became clear to the old publications that they could simply… poach them. And so they did: the past few years has seen a generation of wunderkinds graduate from the BuzzFeed News universe into the old-school news businesses it once planned to topple.
But the bigger story here is one largely outside BuzzFeed’s control. It, alongside the tranche of other digital media startups of its era, threw in its lot vigorously with Facebook. It heartily embraced the new distribution model which had so frightened old-school publishers, surfing the waves of traffic generated by Facebook and other social apps such as Snapchat – which at one point evinced similar ambitions towards being a news platform.
This worked extremely well right up until it didn’t. While Mark Zuckerberg once saw news content as an excellent way to juice Facebook’s platform credibility and user engagement, escalating scandals eventually turned it into a serious political liability. The axe came down. As the Warren Buffet saying goes: only when the tide goes out do you learn who has been swimming naked. BuzzFeed needed Facebook far more than Facebook needed BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed News is ultimately a casualty of that lopsided relationship. It never built a subscriptions business to account for the decline in social media traffic, and its model made less and less sense in an industry that was turning away from social media advertising dollars towards paywalls and good-old-fashioned direct monetary relationships with readers.
It’s quite likely we will remember BuzzFeed News and its ilk not as the revolutionary disrupters of the industry they were once thought to be, but as a decade-long intermission to the whim of the famously mercurial tech titans who briefly offered them patronage.
But that’s the nature of the news business. What BuzzFeed News did very successfully was change the way news was reported for the digital age, and it quite successfully bridged the gap between what was happening in real life and what was happening online. It helped train a generation of journalists who innately understood how those two worlds could speak to one another, and the reverberations of that understanding will be felt through the media for some time to come.
That will be BuzzFeed News’ ultimate legacy, even as its business model turns to dust.
James Hennessy is the co-host of the podcast Down Round, and writes The Terminal, a newsletter about tech culture
[ad_2]
#BuzzFeed #News #business #model #turned #dust #whim #mercurial #tech #titans #James #Hennessy
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
London: The UK government on Tuesday introduced a new legislation to tame Big Tech from abusing market power and ensure businesses and consumers are protected from rip-offs and can reap the full benefits of the digital economy with confidence.
Fake reviews that cheat customers, subscription traps that cost more than a billion pounds a year, and new powers for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to tackle businesses that breach consumer rights law are all elements of the far-reaching bill.
The new powers are aimed at boosting competition in digital markets currently dominated by a small number of firms and tackling fake reviews so customers aren’t cheated by bogus ratings.
“From abuse of power by tech giants, to fake reviews, scams and rip-offs like being caught in a subscription trap – consumers deserve better. The new laws we’re delivering will empower the CMA to directly enforce consumer law, strengthen competition in digital markets and ensure that people across the country keep hold of their hard-earned cash,” Business and Trade Minister Kevin Hollinrake said.
As part of the bill, a Digital Markets Unit (DMU) within the CMA will be given new powers to tackle the excessive dominance that a small number of tech companies have held over consumers and businesses in the UK.
“This market dominance has stifled innovation and growth across the economy, holding back start-ups and smaller firms from accessing markets and consumers,” said the government.
The new digital regime will give the DMU powers to ensure that businesses and consumers are not unfairly disadvantaged by the biggest players, allowing them access to dynamic and thriving digital markets that will ultimately support the economy to grow.
For example, the biggest tech firms may be instructed by the DMU to provide more choice and transparency to their customers. If firms don’t abide by these rules, the DMU will have the power to fine them up to 10 per cent of their global turnover.
Firms may be told to give customers greater flexibility when purchasing products online and to break down restrictive technical barriers that block users from using products on different devices and systems.
“Today’s announcement shows we are proudly pro-growth and pro-innovation across the board in the tech sector, seeking to open up new opportunities for all firms, however small or large they are, while empowering consumers,” Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy Paul Scully said.
The new powers in this bill help the CMA take swift, decisive action to tackle rip offs, protecting consumers whether they are shopping online or on the high street.
“The new fining powers will provide an important deterrent to businesses seeking to take advantage of people while also ensuring fair dealing businesses can thrive,” Chief Executive of the CMA Sarah Cardell said.
New measures will come into effect as soon as possible following parliamentary approval, subject to secondary legislation and the publication of guidance.
For some scientists, they are the inevitable next stage of staving off the existential threat of climate chaos. For others, they should not even be talked about.
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies, which provide a means of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere, are one of the hottest areas of climate research, but also the most controversial.
The debate over whether and how to develop CDR has been ignited by the release last month of the final section of the comprehensive review of climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report found that ways of capturing and storing carbon dioxide, though expensive, might play a role in trying to keep global temperatures within safe bounds.
But scientists and policymakers are divided. Some say the technology must be the immediate priority for research. Others urge caution, and warn against putting faith in untested technology before we have even fully deployed the reliable low-carbon technologies, such as renewable energy, that we already have.
David King is working with Cambridge University’s department of engineering to try to find ways of refreezing the Arctic Photograph: NurPhoto/Getty Images
John Kerry, the US special presidential envoy for climate, talked of his concerns. “Some scientists suggest that it’s possible there could be an overshoot [of global temperatures, beyond the limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels that governments are targeting] and you could clawback, so to speak; you have technologies and other things that allow you to come back.
“The danger with that, which alarms me the most and motivates me the most, is that according to the science, and the best scientists in the world, we may be at or past several tipping points that they have been warning us about for some time,” he said. “That’s the danger, the irreversibility.”
The former UK government chief scientific adviser Sir David King strenuously disagrees. He believes CDR of many kinds will be needed, along with the means to “repair” the climate, such as by refreezing the ice caps, because the world is almost certain to overshoot the global target limit of 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
“We are already at 1.35C above pre-industrial levels today,” he said. “We are already experiencing massive warming in the Arctic, where it’s more than 3C above the pre-industrial average.”
A rash of new technology startups bears witness to the potential business opportunity that many companies and investors see in CDR. These fledgling companies are exploring everything from “scrubbers” that chemically remove carbon dioxide from the air, to “biochar”, which creates fertiliser from burning wood waste without oxygen, and carbon capture and storage (CCS) by which carbon dioxide is liquefied and pumped into underground geological formations. They have taken the IPCC report as a spur to investment, and a stamp of approval.
“Growing carbon removal to be in line with the IPCC requires a massive scale-up in the next decade. Startups are meeting this climate challenge by developing a suite of approaches that can make a gigaton impact,” said Tania Timmermann, the chief technology officer of Andes, a company that plans to use micro-organisms to sequester carbon in soil.
Ben Rubin, the executive director of the Carbon Business Council, which represents several CDR specialists, said: “The IPCC report makes clear that the window of opportunity is closing quickly, highlighting the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing emissions is crucial but not enough: the report affirms that gigatonnes of carbon removal are required to help restore the climate,” he said. “Innovators are actively working to meet this climate challenge, by finding cost-effective and responsible ways to deploy carbon removal.”
But the key section of the IPCC report, which ignited the controversy, was fiercely fought over by scientists and governments up until the last moments before the document was finalised. The handful of mentions of CDR in the final 36-page summary for policymakers – which distils the key messages and is compiled by scientists alongside government representatives from any UN member that wants to take part – were only inserted after hours of desperate wrangling.
Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries were most insistent that CDR and CCS should be included and emphasised. In the end, nine references to CDR were left in the summary, and several more to CCS.
“Saudi Arabia brought 10 very experienced negotiators,” said one person. “They tried to take out references to renewable energy and tried to insist that references to carbon capture should be in there instead of, or at least as well as, renewables.”
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
A CCS facility in Alberta, Canada. Photograph: Todd Korol/Reuters
But many scientists, campaigners and green experts are unhappy with the references. They fear that giving the impression there are viable options for removing carbon dioxide might engender a false sense of security. Most CDR technologies are unproven, are likely to be limited in scope, take years to develop and will cost large amounts of money.
Lili Fuhr, the director of the climate and energy programme at the Center for International Environmental Law, said: “We need to challenge the idea that we have to do less now, because we can do more later, with technofixes. This is a dangerous idea.”
Friederike Otto, a lead author of the IPCC, and senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London, said: “My feeling about CDR is that we should pretend it is not an option. We should act as if CDR will never be achievable. We do not have a technology at the moment that works at scale … so we should make our policies as if CDR is not an option.”
She said pursuing CDR could be a dangerous distraction, and questioned whether it was a good idea to spend money on technologies that offered highly uncertain future benefits, when viable ways of reducing emissions now were not being deployed fast enough. “CDR has already been used as an excuse to dither and delay,” she said.
Otto said: “It’s very important to highlight that we still can keep to 1.5C – we have the knowledge and the tools to do it. But what we do not have is a sense of urgency and political will.”
King acknowledges that some scientists have concerns about CDR, but he believes it is needed because of the failure to act before now. “[Those who object] are taking the exact position I took in 2015, when I was leading global negotiations for the UK,” he said. “But there is no time for messing about now.”
King, who is working with Cambridge University’s department of engineering to try to find ways of refreezing the Arctic, points out that the IPCC report found only a narrow opportunity for the world to limit heating to 1.5C, that relies on massive reductions in greenhouse gases in the next few years, which is unlikely to happen.
“The IPCC does not go nearly far enough on CDR,” he said. “I believe it is more than likely we will hit 1.5C by the end of the decade. It’s false thinking, that the IPCC is saying we can manage [to stay below that level] with reducing emissions. The carbon we have put up [in the atmosphere] will have to be removed. It may cost a fortune, but we have to recognise that the alternative is to lose our civilisation.”
[ad_2]
#Carbon #dioxide #removal #tech #polarising #climate #science
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
San Francisco Board President Aaron Peskin announced the suspect’s arrest in Emeryville, a San Francisco suburb.
Police found Lee with stab wounds in the Rincon Hill neighborhood of San Francisco at 2:30 a.m. April 4. He died at a hospital.
Lee is known for creating the widely used mobile payment service Cash App while working as chief technology officer of the payment company Square, now known as Block. He was the chief product officer for the cryptocurrency firm MobileCoin at the time of his death.
On his LinkedIn profile, Momeni describes himself as an “IT Consultant/Entrepreneur” as well as “owner” at a company called Expand IT.
It was not immediately clear whether Momeni has an attorney who can speak on his behalf.
“I hope today’s arrest can begin a process of healing and closure for all those touched by this tragedy,” Matt Dorsey, another San Francisco supervisor, tweeted Thursday morning.
Prominent tech leaders took to social media to mourn Lee’s death and blame San Francisco for what they call the city’s lax attitude toward crime. Scott and Jenkins pushed back against that narrative on Thursday, with the prosecutor specifically naming tech billionaire Elon Musk for commenting on the case.
“This doesn’t have to do with San Francisco, this has to do with human nature,” Scott said.
Mission Local first reported Momeni’s arrest.
[ad_2]
#Tech #consultant #arrested #killing #Cash #App #founder #Lee
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
New York: Amid massive ongoing layoffs in the tech sector, the top 30 H-1B visa employers hired 34,000 new workers in 2022 and laid off at least 85,000 workers in 2022 and early 2023, an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analysis found.
According to EPI researchers, tech and outsourcing companies are exploiting the highly-skilled H-1B visa program, created to fill labor shortages in professional fields, by laying-off a bevy of workers employed in firms like Meta, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc.
“Most employers hire H-1B workers because they can be underpaid and are de facto indentured to the employer,” the EPI research said.
Also, 13 of the top 30 H-1B visa employers were outsourcing firms that underpay migrant workers and offshore US jobs to countries where labor costs are much lower.
“Its implementation has been bungled by the US Departments of Labor and Homeland Security,” the analysis said, adding that since employers aren’t required to test the US labor market to see if any workers are available before hiring an H-1B worker or pay their H-1B workers a fair wage, employers have exploited the program.
ECI said, in 2022, 48,000 employers registered with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in hopes of hiring at least one H-1B worker, and nearly 30,000 employers ultimately hired at least one new H-1B worker.
Citing an example, the ECI research said Amazon was at the top of the list in terms of both new H-1B workers and layoffs. It hired 6,400 new H-1B workers in 2022, and hired the most new H-1B workers in 2021 as well, when it hired nearly 6,200 workers. The tech giant has either recently laid off or plans to lay off 27,150 of its employees — more than twice the number of H-1B workers it hired in 2021 and 2022 combined.
Google and Meta, both long-time top H-1B employers, together hired over 3,100 new H-1B workers last year.The duo laid off 33,000 employees, almost 11 times the number of new H-1B workers they hired in 2022.
The H-1B program is the largest US temporary work visa program, with a total of approximately 600,000 workers employed by 50,000 employers.
Most of these workers are employed in occupations like computer systems analysis and software development.
Visas for new workers are capped at 85,000 per year, but many employers are exempt from that annual cap, including universities and their affiliated nonprofit entities, nonprofit research organizations, and government research organizations.
The study urged President Joe Biden to “implement regulations and policy guidance to prevent misuse of the program, stop the exploitation of college-educated migrant workers, and ensure the program is consistent with congressional intent”.
Price: [price_with_discount] (as of [price_update_date] – Details)
[ad_1]
The electronic organizer bag is designed to make optimum use of space. The padded dividers are adjustable and you can customize them as per your needs. Equipped with SD and SIM card slots, mesh zippered pockets and mesh pockets of various sizes, now you can store chargers, USB drives, power bank organizers and other important items. Enables you to keep all gadgets in one place, without chasing cords in your backpack anymore. Our travel electronic organizer bag has multiple storage spaces that keep your items separated and accessible. The travel organizer conveniently stores cords, external batteries, chargers, earphones, memory cards, leads, laptop adapter, mouse, and a host of other electronic accessories. It can also be used to store cosmetics, school stationery, toys and other general items. This electronics organizer is a perfect gift for men and women to use as travel kit.
