Artificial Intelligence Has Come for Our…Beauty Pageants? – Glamour

First, artificial intelligence (AI) came for our jobs. Now, its coming for beauty standards by way of AI content creators."

Solely digital renderings and not real people, AI-generated influencers have become brand ambassadors and digital creators, amassing thousands of dollars in revenue through subscription-based content. Apparently, the natural next step was to have them compete in a beauty pageant.

Creator platform Fanvue, whose user base includes both real creators and AI ones, recently announced the Fanvue World AI Creator Awards (WAICAs): the worlds first ever beauty pageant for AI-generated influencers. According to the brand, they've seen exponential growth in AI-generated creators joining its platform since the end of 2023, with digital superstars garnering millions of followers on their platform, Instagram, and elsewhere.

It's true. Digital models Emily Pellegrini and Aitana Lopez, who are AI and not real people, have a combined 591 million followers on Instagram, real-life brand deals, and thousands of loyal subscribers who pay for exclusive content. FanVue says that Lopez earns over $10,000 monthly, and she's far from the only one: their Instagram comments are inundated with thousands of fellow AI-generated content creators promoting access to their private pages for a price.

Remarkably, it's paying off. FanVue expects the AI creator economy, which theyve helped pioneer, to exceed the $1 billion mark this year. This hasnt been possible until recently, the technology simply wasnt there, a FanVue spokesperson tells Glamour. With the help of monetization platforms such as Fanvue, theres been exponential growth in AI creators entering the space, growing their fanbases, and monetizing the connections theyre building with their audiences.

Aitana Lopez . Courtesy of FanVue.

Hence: the creation of the Miss AI pageant, in which AI-generated contestants will be judged on some of the classic aspects of pageantry and the the skill and implementation of AI tools used to create" the contestants. Also being considered is the AI creators social media clout"meaning theyre not just crowning the most beautiful" avatar, but also the most influential."

Read the original post:

Artificial Intelligence Has Come for Our...Beauty Pageants? - Glamour

Posted in Uncategorized

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous – El Paso Inc.

BEIJING (AP) The hunt for the origins of COVID-19 has gone dark in China, the victim of political infighting after a series of stalled and thwarted attempts to find the source of the virus that killed millions and paralyzed the world for months.

The Chinese government froze meaningful domestic and international efforts to trace the virus from the first weeks of the outbreak, despite statements supporting open scientific inquiry, an Associated Press investigation found. That pattern continues to this day, with labs closed, collaborations shattered, foreign scientists forced out and Chinese researchers barred from leaving the country.

The investigation drew on thousands of pages of undisclosed emails and documents and dozens of interviews that showed the freeze began far earlier than previously known and involved political and scientific infighting in China as much as international finger-pointing.

As early as Jan. 6, 2020, health officials in Beijing closed the lab of a Chinese scientist who sequenced the virus and barred researchers from working with him.

Scientists warn the willful blindness over coronavirus origins leaves the world vulnerable to another outbreak, potentially undermining pandemic treaty talks coordinated by the World Health Organization set to culminate in May.

At the heart of the question is whether the virus jumped from an animal or came from a laboratory accident. A U.S. intelligence analysis says there is insufficient evidence to prove either theory, but the debate has further tainted relations between the U.S. and China.

Unlike in the U.S., there is virtually no public debate in China about whether the virus came from nature or from a lab leak. In fact, there is little public discussion at all about the source of the disease, first detected in the central city of Wuhan.

Crucial initial efforts were hampered by bureaucrats in Wuhan trying to avoid blame who misled the central government; the central government, which muzzled Chinese scientists and subjected visiting WHO officials to stage-managed tours; and the U.N. health agency itself, which may have compromised early opportunities to gather critical information in hopes that by placating China, scientists could gain more access, according to internal materials obtained by AP.

In a faxed statement, China's Foreign Ministry defended Chinas handling of research into the origins, saying the country is open and transparent, shared data and research, and made the greatest contribution to global origins research. The National Health Commission, China's top medical authority, said the country invested huge manpower, material and financial resources and has not stopped looking for the origins of the coronavirus.

It could have played out differently, as shown by the outbreak of SARS, a genetic relative of COVID-19, nearly 20 years ago. China initially hid infections then, but WHO complained swiftly and publicly. Ultimately, Beijing fired officials and made reforms. The U.N. agency soon found SARS likely jumped to humans from civet cats in southern China and international scientists later collaborated with their Chinese counterparts to pin down bats as SARS natural reservoir.

But different leaders of both China and WHO, Chinas quest for control of its researchers, and global tensions have all led to silence when it comes to searching for COVID-19s origins. Governments in Asia are pressuring scientists not to look for the virus for fear it could be traced inside their borders.

Even without those complications, experts say identifying how outbreaks begin is incredibly challenging and that its rare to know with certainty how some viruses begin spreading.

Its disturbing how quickly the search for the origins of (COVID-19) escalated into politics, said Mark Woolhouse, a University of Edinburgh outbreak expert. Now this question may never be definitively answered.

Secrecy clouds the beginning of the outbreak. Even the date when Chinese authorities first started searching for the origins is unclear.

The first publicly known search for the virus took place on Dec. 31, 2019, when Chinese Center for Disease Control scientists visited the Wuhan market where many early COVID-19 cases surfaced.

However, WHO officials heard of an earlier inspection of the market on Dec. 25, 2019, according to a recording of a confidential WHO meeting provided to AP by an attendee. Such a probe has never been mentioned publicly by either Chinese authorities or WHO.

In the recording, WHOs top animal virus expert, Peter Ben Embarek, mentioned the earlier date, describing it as an interesting detail. He told colleagues that officials were looking at what was on sale in the market, whether all the vendors have licenses (and) if there was any illegal (wildlife) trade happening in the market.

A colleague asked Ben Embarek, who is no longer with WHO, if that seemed unusual. He responded that it was not routine, and that the Chinese must have had some reason to investigate the market. Well try to figure out what happened and why they did that.

Ben Embarek declined to comment. Another WHO staffer at the Geneva meeting in late January 2020 confirmed Ben Embareks comments.

The Associated Press could not confirm the search independently. It remains a mystery if it took place, what inspectors discovered, or whether they sampled live animals that might point to how COVID-19 emerged.

A Dec. 25, 2019, inspection would have come when Wuhan authorities were aware of the mysterious disease. The day before, a local doctor sent a sample from an ill market vendor to get sequenced that turned out to contain COVID-19. Chatter about the unknown pneumonia was spreading in Wuhans medical circles, according to one doctor and a relative of another who declined to be identified, fearing repercussions.

A scientist in China when the outbreak occurred said they heard of a Dec. 25 inspection from collaborating virologists in the country. They declined to be named out of fear of retribution.

WHO said in an email that it was not aware of the Dec. 25 investigation. It is not included in the U.N. health agencys official COVID-19 timeline.

When health officials from Beijing arrived in Wuhan on Dec. 31, they decided to disinfect the market before collecting samples, destroying critical information about the virus. Gao Fu, head of the China CDC, mentioned it to an American collaborator.

His complaint when I met him was that all the animals were gone, said Columbia University epidemiologist Ian Lipkin.

Robert Garry, who studies viruses at Tulane University, said a Dec. 25 probe would be hugely significant, given what is known about the virus and its spread.

Being able to swab it directly from the animal itself would be pretty convincing and nobody would be arguing about the origins of COVID-19, he said.

But perhaps local officials simply feared for their jobs, with memories of firings after the 2003 SARS outbreak still vivid, said Ray Yip, the founding head of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outpost in China.

They were trying to save their skin, hide the evidence, Yip said.

The Wuhan government did not respond to a faxed request for comment.

Another early victim was Zhang Yongzhen, the first scientist to publish a sequence of the virus. A day after he wrote a memo urging health authorities to action, Chinas top health official ordered Zhangs lab closed.

They used their official power against me and our colleagues, Zhang wrote in an email provided to AP by Edward Holmes, an Australian virologist.

On Jan. 20, 2020, a WHO delegation arrived in Wuhan for a two-day mission. China did not approve a visit to the market, but they stopped by a China CDC lab to examine infection prevention and controlprocedures, according to an internal WHO travel report. WHOs then-China representative, Dr. Gauden Galea, told colleagues in a private meeting that inquiries about COVID-19s origins went unanswered.

There are a few cadres who have performed poorly, President Xi Jinping said in unusually harsh comments in February. Some dare not take responsibility, wait timidly for orders from above, and dont move without being pushed.

The government opened investigations into top health officials, according to two former and current China CDC staff and three others familiar with the matter. Health officials were encouraged to report colleagues who mishandled the outbreak to Communist Party disciplinary bodies, according to two of the people.

Some people both inside and outside China speculated about a laboratory leak. Those suspicious included right-wing American politicians, but also researchers close to WHO.

The focus turned to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, a high-level lab that experimented with some of the worlds most dangerous viruses.

In early February 2020, some of the Wests leading scientists, headed by Dr. Jeremy Farrar, then at Britains Wellcome Trust, and Dr. Anthony Fauci, then director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, banded together to assess the origins of the virus in calls, a Slack channel and emails.

They drafted a paper suggesting a natural evolution, but even among themselves, they could not agree on the likeliest scenario. Some were alarmed by features they thought might indicate tinkering.

There have (been) suggestions that the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, Holmes, the Australian virologist, who believed the virus originated in nature, wrote in a Feb. 7, 2020, email. I do a lot of work in China, and I can (assure) you that a lot of people there believe they are being lied to.

American scientists close to researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology warned counterparts there to prepare.

James DeLuc, head of a Texas lab, emailed his Wuhan colleague on Feb. 9, 2020, saying hed already been approached by U.S. officials. Clearly addressing this will be essential, with any kind of documentation you might have, he wrote.

The Chinese government was conducting its own secret investigation into the Wuhan Institute. Gao, the head of the China CDC, and another Chinese health expert revealed its existence in interviews months and years later. Both said the investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing, which Holmes, the Australian virologist, also heard from another contact in China. But Gao said even he hadn't seen further details, and some experts suspect they may never be released.

WHO started negotiations with China for a second visit with the virus origins in mind, but it was Chinas Foreign Ministry that decided the terms.

Scientists were sidelined and politicians took control. China refused a visa for Ben Embarek, then WHOs top animal virus expert. The itinerary dropped nearly all items linked to an origins search, according to draft agendas for the trip obtained by the AP. And Gao, the China CDC head who is also a respected scientist tasked with investigating the origins, was left off the schedule.

Instead, Liang Wannian, a politician in the Communist Party hierarchy, took charge of the international delegation. Liang is an epidemiologist close to top Chinese officials and China's Foreign Ministry who is widely seen as pushing the party line, not science-backed policies, according to nine people familiar with the situation who declined to be identified to speak on a sensitive subject.

Most of the WHO delegation was not allowed to go to Wuhan, which was under lockdown. The few who did learned little. They again had no access to the Wuhan Institute of Virology or the wildlife market and obtained only scant details about China CDC efforts to trace the coronavirus there.

On the train, Liang lobbied the visiting WHO scientists to praise Chinas health response in their public report. Dr. Bruce Aylward, a senior adviser to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, saw it as the best way to meet Chinas need for a strong assessment of its response.

The new section was so flattering that colleagues emailed Aylward to suggest he dial it back a bit.

It is remarkable how much knowledge about a new virus has been gained in such a short time, read the final report, which was reviewed by Chinas top health official before it went to Tedros.

As criticism of China grew, the Chinese government deflected blame. Instead of firing health officials, they declared their virus response a success and closed investigations into the officials with few job losses.

There were no real reforms, because doing reforms means admitting fault, said a public health expert in contact with Chinese health officials who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

In late February 2020, the internationally respected doctor Zhong Nanshan appeared at a news conference and said that the epidemic first appeared in China, but it did not necessarily originate in China.

Chinese officials told WHO that blood tests on lab workers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were negative, suggesting they hadnt been previously infected with bat coronaviruses. But when WHO pressed for an independent audit, Chinese officials balked and demanded WHO investigate the U.S. and other countries as well.

By the time WHO led a third visit to Wuhan in January 2021, a year into the pandemic, the atmosphere was toxic.

Liang, the Chinese health official in charge of the first two WHO visits, continued to promote the questionable theory that the virus was shipped into China on frozen food. He suppressed information suggesting it could have come from animals at the Wuhan market, organizing market workers to tell WHO experts no live wildlife was sold and cutting recent photos of wildlife at the market from the final report. There was heavy political scrutiny, with numerous Chinese officials who werent scientists or health officers present at meetings.

Despite a lack of direct access, the WHO team concluded that a lab leak was extremely unlikely. So it came as an infuriating surprise to Chinese officials when, months later, WHO chief Tedros said all origins hypotheses, including the lab leak theory, remained on the table.

China told WHO any future missions to find COVID-19 origins should be elsewhere, according to a letter obtained by AP. Since then, global cooperation on the issue has ground to a halt; an independent group convened by WHO to investigate the origins of COVID-19 in 2021 has been stymied by the lack of cooperation from China and other issues.

Chinese scientists are still under heavy pressure, according to 10 researchers and healthofficials. Researchers who published papers on the coronavirus ran into trouble with Chinese authorities. Others were barred from travel abroad for conferences and WHO meetings. Gao, the China CDC director, was investigated after U.S. President Joe Biden ordered a review of COVID-19 data, and again after giving interviews on the virus origins.

New evidence is treated with suspicion. In March 2023, scientists announced that genetic material collected from the market showed raccoon dog DNA mixed with COVID-19 in early 2020, data that WHO said should have been publicly shared years before. The findings were posted, then removed by Chinese researchers with little explanation.

The head of the China CDC Institute of Viral Disease was forced to retire over the release of the market data, according to a former China CDC official who declined to be named to speak on a sensitive topic.

It has to do with the origins, so theyre still worried, the former official said. If you try and get to the bottom of it, what if it turns out to be from China?

Other scientists note that any animal from which the virus may have originally jumped has long since disappeared.

There was a chance for China to cooperate with WHO and do some animal sampling studies that might have answered the question, said Tulane Universitys Garry. The trail to find the source has now gone cold.

Cheng reported from Geneva.

See original here:

Toxic: How the search for the origins of COVID-19 turned politically poisonous - El Paso Inc.

Palia studio Singularity 6 is the latest studio to suffer layoffs – PC Gamer

Singularity 6, the studio behind the cosy MMO Palia, is the latest developer to suffer layoffs. Just under 50 developers, around one third of the company, have been let go according to Polygon reporter Nicole Carpenter.

Environmental artist Daphne Fiato tweeted "Whelp, I've been laid off," following up with "49 people Thanos snapped". Other Singularity 6 folk joined to reveal they'd also been laid off, including Brian Ernst who tweeted they'd been with the developer for five years. One developer revealed via LinkedIn that they'd been given the news while on vacation, according to MMORPG.com.

Singularity 6 is yet to publicly address the layoffs, with its last Twitter post happening on April 3, one day before they occurred. It's the same situation for the official Palia account.

Palia only just arrived on Steam on March 25, following a stint as an Epic exclusive. The free-to-play MMO has generated some praise for its cosy vibes and its stress-free cycle of farming and building, but it's also been criticised for its slow progression, reliance on timers and limited multiplayer elements. Its development status has also led to some confusionit's not in early access, and the store page implies a feature-complete game, when in reality it is still in beta. On Steam, it's currently sitting at just over 3,700 user reviews with a "Mixed" rating.

The studio joins a painfully long line of developers to have nixed a portion of its staff this year. Despite only being four months into the year, the number of layoffs are close to reaching last year's count. It was estimated that around 10,500 developers lost their jobs last year, according to the Game Industry Layoffs tracker. The number is already up to around 8000 estimated job losses right now, with more undoubtedly on their way given the volatility of the industry.

We compiled our own layoff chart earlier this year, showing the trajectory of 16,000 layoffs from January 2023 to January 2024. Since the chart was published, companies like Relic, Certain Affinity, Sony and Blackbird Interactive have joined the list.

Sign up to get the best content of the week, and great gaming deals, as picked by the editors.

Continue reading here:

Palia studio Singularity 6 is the latest studio to suffer layoffs - PC Gamer

Civic Nebraska hosts AI and democracy summit at UNL ahead of legislative hearing – Nebraska Examiner

LINCOLN Just days before lawmakers consider the possible impacts of artificial intelligence on Nebraskas upcoming elections, at least one state senator says the conversations are just beginning.

State Sen. Tom Brewer, who represents north-central Nebraska, joined Civic Nebraskas community forum Saturday on AI and democracy, stating bluntly that AI is scary and that multiple University of Nebraska professors, who detailed possible impacts of the technology, scared the hell out of me.

Theyre talking about things that if you stop, pause and think about, how do you stop it? Brewer told a group of about three dozen people at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

Heidi Uhing, director of public policy for Civic Nebraska, moderated the event. She pointed to January robocalls using President Joe Bidens voice to trick voters ahead of the New Hampshire primary. In 5,000 AI-generated calls, people were discouraged from voting.

That was sort of the first shot over the bow when it comes to artificial intelligence used in our elections, Uhing said.

Brewer, a two-time Purple Heart recipient who chairs the Legislatures Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee, suggested lawmakers come together to learn more about AI after the 2024 session and after the May primary election to examine whether there are any issues.

He suggested that the Government and Judiciary Committees should investigate AI, possibly providing momentum to propel 2025 legislation up the food chain.

We need smart folks all along the way to make sure as we build it, as we write it, that end product is good to go, Brewer said.

Brewer said there is a chance but a remote one that AI-related legislation could become law in 2024, since none of the bills has been prioritized.

Gina Ligon, director of the University of Nebraska at Omahas National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology and Education Center, said Saturday that NCITE has started to examine how terrorist or non-state actors might be using AI.

Previous thinking was terrorists needed specific expertise for attacks, but AI is closing the gap.

Ligon said terrorists are using AI to find information, and in just the last week shared manuals of how to use it on the dark web among terrorist organizations.

U.S. election hardware and systems are methodical and more protected than elsewhere in the world, Ligon said, but she cautioned that election officials and workers are not protected.

If you get enough of these threats, enough of these videos made about you, youre maybe not going to volunteer to be an election official anymore, Ligon said.

Thats what keeps me up at night is how we can protect election officials here in Nebraska from what I think is an imminent concern of how terrorists are going to use this technology, Ligon continued.

NCITE has also been looking at threats to election officials, with a record number in 2023, double from when the center started investigating a decade ago. However, Ligon said, thats just the tip of the iceberg through federal charges focused on violence.

Ligon said Nebraska lacks specific language related to election worker harassment, which could degrade and erode election workers ability to come to work and to protect elections. She said she would like to see enhanced penalties should someone attempt to harass an election official.

Local threats to local officials, to me, is national security, Ligon said.

Nebraska election officials in 2022 said their jobs were more stressful and under the spotlight.

Douglas County Election Commissioner Brian Kruse said Saturday his biggest concern is bad actors attempting to use AI to sow misinformation or disinformation about elections, such as changes to voting deadlines or polling places.

The only thing that has changed is we now have voter ID in Nebraska, Kruse said.

Its always good to have the conversation about election safety, Kruse said, because he and his office try to be proactive. He added that in daily journals he reads, not a day goes by without an AI-related article.

Legislative Bill 1390, from Lincoln State Sen. Eliot Bostar and endorsed by Civic Nebraska, would prohibit deep fakes, or deceptive images or videos, of election officers. It also would crack down on threats and harassment of election officials or election workers and requires an annual report. It will be considered at a Government Committee hearing Wednesday.

LB 1203, by State Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha, will also be considered Wednesday. It would have the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission regulate AI in media or political advertisements.

UNL Professor Matt Waite, who taught a fall 2023 course on AI and journalism, said it might be impossible to escape the damage that AI could cause and said the field is changing so fast his course was like flying a plane with duct tape and prayer.

I get six different AI newsletters a day, and Im not even sure Im keeping up with it, Waite said.

In one example, Waite described creating an AI-generated clip of UNL radio professor Rick Alloway for his class. He and students asked dozens of people to listen to two audio clips of the same script and decide which was AI-generated and which was read by Alloway.

About 65% of those responding to the poll had heard Alloway before or had taken one of his classes. More than half, 55%, thought the AI-generated clip was actually the professors voice.

The AI inserted breath pauses you can hear the AI breathing, Waite said. It also went um and ah twice.

The Nebraska Examiner published the findings of a similar experiment with seven state lawmakers last month. Senators similarly expressed concern or hesitation with where to begin to address AI issues.

Waite said lawmakers are in an arms race that you cannot possibly win and have tried to legislate technology before but have often run aground on First Amendment or other concerns.

Its not the AI thats the problem, Waite said. Its the disruption of a fair and equitable election.

Professor Bryan Wang, who teaches public relations at UNL and studies political advertising, explained that social media has created echo chambers and niche connections, which complicates AI use.

AI is already changing the production, dissemination and reception of information, Wang said, such as users in a high choice environment where they may choose to avoid political information incidentally being exposed and sharing information within their bubble.

That process isnt random, Wang continued, as social media works off algorithms that feed off peoples distrust, which extends to all sectors of life.

We also need to work on restoring that trust to build more empathy among us, to build more data and understanding among us, Wang said. Research does show that having that empathy, having that dialogue, does bridge gaps, does help us understand each other and does see others views as more legitimate that way.

Kruse said the mantra of see something, say something also applies to elections and said his office and others around the state stand ready to assist voters.

Wang said theres a need for media literacy, too.

State Sen. Tony Vargas of Omaha introduced LB 1371, to require media literacy in K-12 schools and set a graduation requirement. The Education Committee considered the bill Feb. 20.

At the end of the event, Uhing and panelists noted that AI is not all bad in the realm of democracy. Waite said AI could expand community news, which has been shrinking nationwide, or could be used to systematically review voter rolls.

Kruse said voters in Douglas County recently asked for a remonstrance petition to stop local government from doing something. AI could help teach staff about such a petition.

He also said quasi-public safety tools could review Douglas Countys 13 dropboxes and associated cameras to identify a suspect should there be an issue.

I dont have the staff, the time or the funds to sit there and monitor my cameras 24/7, Kruse said.

Waite said AI is not all evil and encouraged people to play around with it for themselves.

Youre not giving away your moral soul if you type into a chat window, Waite said. Try a few things out and see what happens.

Editors note: Reporter Zach Wendling was a student in Waites fall class on AI.

Originally posted here:

Civic Nebraska hosts AI and democracy summit at UNL ahead of legislative hearing - Nebraska Examiner