|
 |
 |
“Artificial intelligence (AI) is a potential threat to democracy. AI algorithms can manipulate and amplify information to suit a particular agenda or ideology. This can create a distorted reality that undermines democratic principles such as transparency and accountability. AI algorithms can also contribute to the polarization of society by recommending content that reinforces existing beliefs and opinions, and filtering out dissenting views. This can lead to echo chambers, where people are exposed only to information that confirms their biases, and an erosion of the shared understanding necessary for democracy to function. AI algorithms are only as good as the data they are trained on, and if that data contains biases or reflects historical inequalities, the algorithm will perpetuate those biases. This can result in discriminatory decision-making in areas such as criminal justice, lending, and hiring, which can disproportionately affect marginalized groups and undermine democratic ideals of fairness and equal treatment under the law. AI systems can collect vast amounts of personal data, which can be used for surveillance, monitoring, and social control. This can limit individuals' freedom of expression and association, and undermine democratic values such as privacy and autonomy. AI systems are often developed and controlled by large tech companies and governments, giving them immense power and influence over people's lives. This concentration of power can undermine democratic institutions and values by allowing these entities to shape public opinion, influence elections, and suppress dissent. Overall, AI can pose a significant threat to democracy if it is not developed and regulated responsibly. It is essential to ensure that AI is used in ways that uphold democratic principles, protect individual rights and freedoms, and promote social equality and justice.”
The introduction above was written entirely by ChatGPT, an amazing generative AI chatbot, responding to the prompt “How does AI threaten democracy?” Some national security experts have pointed out a few of the serious challenges AI poses, and AI itself can name them, as it did here. What’s your opinion? Is artificial intelligence a boon to human progress, a threat, or maybe a little of both? Why? Let us know what you think. —Melissa Amour, Managing Editor
 |
Silicon Valley Bank seized after run by depositors —Associated Press
Biden’s $6.8 trillion budget proposes new social programs and higher taxes —The New York Times
U.S. adds a robust 311,000 jobs despite Fed's rate hikes —Associated Press
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy declines President Volodymyr Zelensky's invite to visit Ukraine —USA Today
Ukraine commits more resources to Bakhmut defense as Russia advances —The Wall Street Journal
McConnell suffered concussion in fall, will remain hospitalized for several days —CBS News
Seven main findings from the DOJ report into Louisville Police Department —The Courier-Journal
Court orders delay of additional footage as DOJ announces review of Memphis Police Department —CNN
Washington assault weapons bill would ban AR-15s and AK-47s —Time
DeSantis indicates privately he intends to run for president in 2024 as allies prepare —The Washington Post
 |
 |
Focus on national security
The war in Ukraine didn’t prevent its aggressor from trying to meddle in U.S. elections. Russia’s malign influence operations continued in 2022, according to the Director of National Intelligence’s annual report on national security threats. Ahead of the midterm elections, Russian operatives used social media accounts to stoke partisan anger and undermine trust in the electoral process. Russia’s influence actors operate via a “vast ecosystem of Russian proxy websites, individuals, and organizations that appear to be independent news sources.” The report added that Moscow is using increasingly clandestine means to “penetrate the Western information environment,” and working to “strengthen ties” to Americans in media and politics as it works to carry out “future influence operations.” —CNBC
“It’s the Wild West right now.” Another concern of natsec experts is the growth of artificial intelligence and generative technology. The tools are being rolled out quickly with guardrails largely set by the tech industry, raising concerns about how they could be abused by malicious actors or otherwise go awry. The Senate Homeland Security Committee held a hearing about the risks and opportunities of generative AI on Wednesday morning, with policymakers expressing a host of national security concerns. —The Hill
“The most consequential threat.” At a Senate Intelligence Committee meeting that same day, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines testified that the nation’s top national security threat is China and its global ambitions. "In brief, the CCP represents the leading…threat to U.S. national security and leadership globally, and its intelligence-specific ambitions and capabilities make it for us our most serious and consequential intelligence rival," Haines said. —CBS News
“It screams out with national security concern." So said FBI Director Christopher Wray regarding the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok. At the same Senate hearing, Wray testified that the FBI is concerned that the Chinese government could have the ability to control the app’s recommendation algorithm, “which allows them to manipulate content, and if they want to, to use it for influence operations.” He also asserted that China could use the app to collect data on its users that could be used for traditional espionage operations. —Associated Press
MORE: TikTok's data security plan is 'deeply flawed,' whistleblower claims —The Washington Post
Joscelyn: What Tucker Carlson isn’t telling you about Jan. 6
“There is much evidence against the Proud Boys. Some members of the group have already pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy and other charges, admitting that their comrades planned to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. And the Proud Boys were not the only far-right extremists involved. Members of two anti-government groups, the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, attacked the Capitol as well. Some Oath Keepers have pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy, while juries convicted the group’s leader and other members of the same crime. White nationalists were also among the extremists who stormed the Capitol.
The Fox News audience did not hear any of this. Nor did they hear how Trump summoned these extremists to Washington, D.C., for Jan. 6 via his tweets and statements. This part of the story is explained at great length in the Select Committee’s final report. Tucker Carlson wants people to believe that phantom government agents were responsible. No one who relies on facts and logic will be fooled.” —Tom Joscelyn in Politico
Tom Joscelyn is a former senior professional staff member on the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol and has testified before Congress on more than 20 occasions.
MORE: Tucker Carlson's airing of security footage spills into Jan. 6 criminal court cases —CNN
Charges for Trump imminent?
Manhattan prosecutors have invited Donald Trump to appear before a grand jury, indicating a decision on charging the ex-president may come soon. The investigation relates to a payment made to adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016 to silence her from going public about an alleged affair. Prosecutors could potentially charge Trump with falsifying business records with respect to the reimbursement of the payment to his former attorney Michael Cohen, and with falsifying a record with the intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime—in this case, a violation of campaign finance laws. Trump would be the first former president ever indicted and also the first major presidential candidate under indictment seeking office. He has said he “wouldn’t even think about leaving” the race if charged. —CNN
MORE TRUMP NEWS:
Who's probing Trump allies’ effort to access voting systems? —Los Angeles Times
Former Trump lawyer censured on 2020 election false statements —Axios
The legal challenges Rudy Giuliani faces over 2020 election —Time
House plots bipartisan deal on Trump and Biden family finances —Axios
 |
Bullock & Johnson: Beat extremism with primary runoffs
“[A] runoff primary system would in the long term serve the country well. Successful candidates should have to demonstrate their ability to appeal across a broad spectrum of citizens in their party. A competition for majority support…would be likely to tamp down extremism in the GOP nomination contests for the nation’s highest office.” —Charles S. Bullock III & Loch K. Johnson in The xxxxxx
Charles S. Bullock III is the Richard B. Russell Professor and Distinguished University Professor of Public and International Affairs at the University of Georgia. Loch K. Johnson is Regents Professor of Public and International Affairs Emeritus at the University of Georgia. They are co-authors of “Runoff Elections in the United States.”
MORE: Mark Barabak: Where’s decency? In today’s politics it’s all about nastiness and party loyalty —Los Angeles Times
AZ sues over ‘unqualified handover’
On Tuesday, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a lawsuit against the state’s Cochise County after it transferred voting oversight to the county’s election-denying Republican recorder, David Stevens. A deeply Republican area where Donald Trump won nearly 60% of the 2020 vote, the county’s nonpartisan elections director resigned due to threats she received after refusing to comply with rogue election directives from Republicans in county government. The county’s board of supervisors replaced her with Stevens. The lawsuit claims, “The board and recorder repeatedly flouted the law with respect to the November 2022 general election, first by attempting to engage in an illegal hand count of ballots and then by the board violating its duty to canvass the election within the statutory time frame.” Stay tuned. —The New York Times
MORE: No Labels Party qualifies for Arizona ballot in 2024 —The Hill
Blake: Why it’s so hard to run as a third party
“Longtime third-party ballot-access expert and advocate Richard Winger has in the past argued that only two states have sore-loser laws that explicitly and definitely apply to presidential candidates: South Dakota and Texas. Most of the others with potentially applicable laws, he has noted, have allowed failed major-party candidates to appear elsewhere on the general election ballot. … What a Harvard study seeks to add to the debate is laws that would appear, on paper at least, to prevent [candidates] from running third-party. That’s even if they are not explicitly sore-loser laws, and even if they haven’t been applied to presidential candidates in the past. … These realities include filing deadlines that would be very difficult or impossible to meet.” —Aaron Blake in The Washington Post
Aaron Blake is a senior political reporter, writing for “The Fix.”
MORE: Larry Hogan doesn’t rule out third-party 2024 campaign in bid to stop Trump —The Guardian
 |
When I read about what is going on in the nation's capital with people like Marjorie Taylor Greene and others, I wonder if it’s like a case of the patient running the clinic. —John C., Florida
 |
The views expressed in "What's Your Take?" are submitted by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial staff or the Renew America Foundation.
Did you like this post from The Topline? Why not share it?
 |
Got feedback about The Topline? Send it to Melissa Amour, Managing Editor, at [email protected].
 |
