A Conservative Group Is Trying to Get Prince Harry’s Drug-Related Immigration Records Released

A federal court on Friday will hear a lawsuit brought by the conservative Heritage Foundation against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to obtain the immigration records of Prince Harry, who has lived in the U.S. since 2020, over concerns about his admitted use of illegal drugs.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In suing the DHS, the Heritage Foundation is seeking clarity on whether proper protocols were followed in granting the Duke of Sussex entry into the U.S. The move comes in the wake of revelations from Harry’s memoir Spare, where he candidly discusses his past drug use, including cocaine, marijuana, and magic mushrooms. The Heritage Foundation contends that such admissions raise serious questions about the prince’s eligibility for a U.S. visa under immigration law.

Although critics have dismissed the lawsuit as political theater, the Heritage Foundation has said that the public should understand the circumstances surrounding Harry’s admission into the country. “Given Harry’s extensive drug use admissions, normally disqualifying for entry into the United States, Americans deserve to know if Prince Harry lied on his application and DHS looked the other way or gave him otherwise preferential treatment,” Nile Gardiner, director of the foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, wrote in a media advisory Thursday.

The Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank in Washington, had previously filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for Harry’s immigration file. DHS denied the request in June and has asked for the case to be thrown out, asserting that immigration records are usually exempt from FOIA.

“Widespread and continuous media coverage has surfaced the question of whether DHS properly admitted the Duke of Sussex in light of the fact that he has publicly admitted to the essential elements of a number of drug offenses,” the foundation stated in its lawsuit.

Harry, who now lives with his American wife Meghan Markle and two children in Southern California, likely entered the U.S. on either a spousal visa or an O-1 visa, which are reserved for individuals with “extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics.” However, the Heritage Foundation has argued that even if Harry was eligible for these visas, his history of drug use could have posed a barrier to his admission.

The U.S. typically asks about drug use on visa applications, which has caused travel complications for other public figures, but admitting to past drug consumption doesn’t automatically prevent individuals from entering or remaining in the country, especially if the applicant is in remission.

TIME has reached out to Harry’s representatives.

Asked recently by Good Morning America if he has thought about becoming a U.S. citizen, he said that “American citizenship is a thought that has crossed my mind but isn’t something that’s a high priority for me right now.”

The Duke of Sussex wrote in his memoir, released in January 2023, that he first did cocaine at the age of 17 and has used it sparingly since. “It wasn’t much fun, and it didn’t make me particularly happy, as it seemed to make everyone around me, but it did make me feel different, and that was the main goal,” he wrote.

Harry also admitted to using marijuana and mushrooms to deal with emotional challenges and the pressures of royal life, describing himself as a “deeply unhappy 17-year-old boy willing to try almost anything that would alter the status quo.” He told Oprah in 2021 that he would drink and use drugs to numb the pain of his mother Princess Diana’s death. “I was willing to drink, I was willing to take drugs,” he said. “I was willing to try and do the things that made me feel less like I was feeling.”

source https://time.com/6800736/prince-harry-immigration-drug-lawsuit-heritage-foundation/

The Confusion About the U.S. Economy Reveals Everything About Politics Today

The U.S. economy is doing better. But President Joe Biden does not appear to be benefitting. His approval remains flat to declining. Biden has trailed Trump by about two percentage points consistently since October.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Many pundits ask: when will Biden start to benefit from an improving economy?

They are asking the wrong question. Presidential approval once corresponded to changing economic conditions. This link is now broken. It probably has been for two decades. Biden’s 2024 chances do not depend on the economy.

This is bad news for our democracy. It means that performance doesn’t matter for presidential incumbents. This undermines a fundamental premise of accountability.

This de-linking between economic performance and presidential approval follows from changes in partisanship and media. As the public has become more polarized, and media more fragmented, political reality has split into three: a Democratic Reality, a Republican Reality, and a Politically Disengaged Reality.

In the Democratic Reality, Democrats are the good people, and Republicans are the bad people. When a Democrat like Joe Biden is in the White House, the Democratic Reality has confidence in the administration. Biden and his administration deserve credit for the good news in the economy and the world more broadly. Bad news, like a rough economic patch, however, is not Biden’s  fault. They are due to circumstances beyond his control, and he and his administration are doing the best they can.

Sometimes, Democratic Reality will be critical of Biden and his administration. But the starting premise in Democratic Reality is that Biden’s doing the best he can, and nobody is perfect. And good news should be shared and discussed widely. In Democratic Reality, Biden’s approval remains high. It has nothing to do with the economy.

In Republican Reality, Democrats are the enemy, and Republicans are the heroes. In Republican Reality, as long as Joe Biden is in the White House, America is at risk (though at risk of what depends on the day or week). If anything bad happens, it is clearly Biden’s fault. If anything good happens, it is in spite of Biden. But mostly, Republican Reality tries to ignore the good things that happen, and focus on all the bad things.

In Republican Reality, disapproval of Joe Biden is a first premise. The rest of reality must be made to fit that first premise. This means that among Republicans, approval of Joe Biden will always be in the single digits. The same can be said of any Democrat. It has nothing to do with the economy.

But there is also a third reality: The Politically Disengaged Reality. In this reality, politics and political events exist on the margins, only occasionally interjecting themselves into awareness. This is the reality where news comes through TikTok, Instagram, and other social media. It is a reality where other passions—pop culture, sports, video games, etc—dominate attention. It is a reality for people who don’t care about politics. Increasingly, it’s full of people who feel like the whole system is so corrupt and broken that there is no point in being engaged. There is plenty of evidence to suggest they might be right.

In Politically Disengaged Reality, little political news breaks through. Mostly it’s bad news, since bad news is stickier and more interesting than good news. Conflict also breaks through, since conflict is more interesting than compromise. Bad news and conflict also confirms the pre-existing expectations of those who inhabit this reality: that American politics is deeply broken. Nobody represents them; nobody cares about them. Strong anti-system vibes infuse this reality. I call the voters who inhabit this reality “Shrug Emoji Voters.”

These “Shrug Emoji Voters”  sometimes vote, and sometimes don’t. They can be convinced to vote against a candidate they see as a major threat. And they might even get excited about a new candidate, especially a fresh new face (hope springs eternal). But fresh faces constantly disappoint. And once a politician disappoints, there are few second chances. Approval ratings steadily dry up among this group. Like a desert, very little will grow on barren soil once it cracks and craters. If the economy is doing better, they will be the last to know and attribute it to Joe Biden.

It wasn’t always this way. In an earlier era, the realities were much more overlapping because the parties themselves were more overlapping. We once had something more like a four-party system, with liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, alongside conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. More voters were open to at least supporting either party.

And the news environment was less fragmented. Most people read a local paper and a national news magazine, and they saw the same political news, more or less. They could give it a Republican spin or a Democratic spin, but it was still the same news.  Even if you weren’t particularly interested in politics, you still had to get the local newspaper to read the sports scores or the movie listings. It was harder to avoid national political news because you still saw the front page, even if you skipped past it.

Now, Democrats and Republicans are more socially and geographically segregated than ever before, and this social and geographic segregation is amplified and exacerbated by the fragmented media landscape It is easier than ever to construct your own reality through À la carte media consumption.

It is also easier than ever to avoid political news altogether, and to thus remain completely ignorant of the state of the economy, or the state of the world. And it may be more rational to do so today, as well. Most of the news is bad. Especially in an era in which each individual article gets its own web-traffic stats, conflict-driven, emotional content is more prized than ever.

Tell me what you think about Joe Biden, and I’ll tell you what you’re going to think of the economy in October. If you like Biden, you’ll like the economy. If you don’t like Biden, you won’t like the economy. People already know what they think. They can now choose the reality to reflect what they already think. LOL. Nothing matters. Shrug.

The era of shared media is not coming back anytime soon. Our best hope lies in more overlapping partisan realities, through more political parties. With two separate partisan realities, the world splits apart. With multiple overlapping partisan realities, perspectives can shift. Different citizens can find different points of entry. We don’t have to agree on everything. But we should at least be able to agree that the world is complex, with multiple perspectives. When reality is bifurcated, politics becomes zero-sum and destructive. If our side is always good, and their side is always bad, the compromise necessary for a healthy democracy becomes impossible.

source https://time.com/6727243/u-s-economy-biden-approval-2024/

U.S. and E.U. Pile New Sanctions on Russia for Ukraine War Anniversary and Navalny’s Death

WASHINGTON — The United States and the European Union are piling new sanctions on Russia on the eve of the second anniversary of its invasion of Ukraine and in retaliation for the death of noted Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny last week in an Arctic penal colony.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The U.S. Treasury, State Department and Commerce Department plan Friday to impose roughly 600 new sanctions on Russia and its war machine in the largest single tranche of penalties since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. They come on the heels of a series of new arrests and indictments announced by the Justice Department on Thursday that target Russian businessmen, including the head of Russia’s second-largest bank, and their middlemen in five separate federal cases.

The European Union announced Friday that it is imposing sanctions on several foreign companies over allegations that they have exported dual-use goods to Russia that could be used in its war against Ukraine. The 27-nation bloc also said that it was targeting scores of Russian officials, including “members of the judiciary, local politicians and people responsible for the illegal deportation and military re-education of Ukrainian children.”

“The American people and people around the world understand that the stakes of this fight extend far beyond Ukraine,” President Joe Biden said in a statement announcing the sanctions. “If Putin does not pay the price for his death and destruction, he will keep going. And the costs to the United States — along with our NATO Allies and partners in Europe and around the world — will rise.”

While previous sanctions have increased costs for Russia’s ability to fight in Ukraine, they appear to have done little so far to deter Putin’s aggression or ambitions. The Biden administration is levying additional sanctions as House Republicans are blocking billions of dollars in additional aid to Ukraine.

The war is becoming entangled in U.S. election-year politics, with former President Donald Trump voicing skepticism about the benefits of the NATO alliance and saying that he would “encourage” Russia to “do whatever the hell they want” to countries that, in his view, are not pulling their weight in the alliance.

Many of the new U.S. sanctions announced Friday target Russian firms that contribute to the Kremlin’s war effort — including drone and industrial chemical manufacturers and machine tool importers — as well as financial institutions, such as the state-owned operator of Russia’s Mir National Payment System.

In response to Navalny’s death, the State Department is designating three Russian officials the U.S. says are connected to his death, including the deputy director of Russia’s Federal Penitentiary Service, who was promoted by Putin to the rank of colonel general on Monday, three days after Navalny died.

The sanctions would bar the officials from traveling to the U.S. and block access to U.S.-owned property. It is unclear, however, how many of the sanctioned officials travel to or have assets or family in the West. If they do not, the sanctions may be largely symbolic.

The U.S. also will impose visa restrictions on Russian authorities it says are involved in the kidnapping and confinement of Ukrainian children.

In addition, 26 third-country people and firms from across China, Serbia, the United Arab Emirates, and Liechtenstein are listed for sanctions, for assisting Russia in evading existing financial penalties.

The Russian foreign ministry said the EU sanctions are “illegal” and undermine “the international legal prerogatives of the UN Security Council.” In response, the ministry is banning some EU citizens from entering the country because they have provided military assistance to Ukraine. It did not immediately address the U.S. sanctions.

The U.S. specifically was to target individuals associated with Navalny’s imprisonment a day after Biden met with the opposition leader’s widow and daughter in California. It was also hitting “Russia’s financial sector, defense industrial base, procurement networks and sanctions evaders across multiple continents,” Biden said. “They will ensure Putin pays an even steeper price for his aggression abroad and repression at home.”

The EU asset freezes and travel bans constitute the 13th package of measures imposed by the bloc against people and organizations it suspects of undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

“Today, we are further tightening the restrictive measures against Russia’s military and defense sector,” EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said. “We remain united in our determination to dent Russia’s war machine and help Ukraine win its legitimate fight for self-defense.”

In all, 106 more officials and 88 “entities” — often companies, banks, government agencies or other organizations — have been added to the bloc’s sanctions list, bringing the tally of those targeted to more than 2,000 people and entities, including Russian President Vladimir Putin and his associates.

Companies making electronic components, which the EU believes could have military as well as civilian uses, were among 27 entities accused of “directly supporting Russia’s military and industrial complex in its war of aggression against Ukraine,” a statement said.

Those companies — some of them based in India, Sri Lanka, China, Serbia, Kazakhstan, Thailand and Turkey — face tougher export restrictions.

The bloc said the companies “have been involved in the circumvention of trade restrictions,” and it accuses others of “the development, production and supply of electronic components” destined to help Russia’s armed forces.

Some of the measures are aimed at depriving Russia of parts for pilotless drones, which are seen by military experts as key to the war.

Since the start of the war, U.S. Treasury and State departments have designated over 4,000 officials, oligarchs, firms, banks and others under Russia-related sanctions authorities. A $60 per barrel price cap has also been imposed on Russian oil by Group of Seven allies, intended to reduce Russia’s revenues from fossil fuels.

Critics of the sanctions, price cap and other measures meant to stop Russia’s invasion say they are not working fast enough.

Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that primarily sanctioning Russia’s defense industry and failing to cut meaningfully into Russia’s energy revenues will not be enough to halt the war.

“One way or another, they will have to eventually address Russia’s oil revenues and have to consider an oil embargo,” Snegovaya said. “The oil price cap has effectively stopped working.”

Treasury Deputy Secretary Wally Adeyemo, in previewing the new sanctions, told reporters that the U.S. and its allies will not lower the price cap; “rather what we’ll be doing is taking actions that will increase the cost” of Russia’s production of oil.

He added that “sanctions alone are not enough to carry Ukraine to victory.”

“We owe the Ukrainian people who have held on for so long the support and resources they desperately need to defend their homeland and prove Putin wrong once and for all time.”

source https://time.com/6798160/us-eu-sanctions-russia-ukraine-war-navalny-death/

As Russia’s Full-Scale Invasion Enters Its Third Year, Optimism for Ukraine Sinks

Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, support for Kyiv has remained relatively durable across Europe and the U.S. But as the full-scale war enters its third year—and as fears about the adverse effect of flagging American support and a potential second Trump presidency on the Ukrainian war effort—pessimism about the chances of Ukraine successfully repelling Russia from its territory have grown.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Even in Europe, where support for Ukraine is widely seen as less divisive than it is across the Atlantic, an average of 10% of Europeans believe that Ukraine will win the war, according to a recent pan-European study by the European Council on Foreign Relations, while twice as many expect a Russian victory. The prevailing view (37% on average) anticipates that the war will most likely end in some kind of settlement. 

“On this question of what you expect to happen, there is quite a lot of unity across Europe,” says Pawel Zerka, a Paris-based senior policy fellow at ECFR, noting that even in countries considered among Kyiv’s staunchest supporters, such as Poland and Sweden, only 17% believe a Ukrainian victory is possible. It’s only when the study—which is based on a survey of 17,023 people across 12 E.U. countries—asks about preference that you begin to see a divergence.

Indeed, nearly a third of all respondents said that Europe should support Ukraine until it regains all of its territory (a position that was most strongly backed by respondents in Sweden, Portugal, and Poland). More (41%) would prefer Europe to push Kyiv towards negotiating a peace deal with Moscow (a position that is most popular among respondents in Hungary, Greece, and Italy).

This shrinking optimism in Europe coincides with growing doubts over the reliability of the U.S., where support for Ukraine appears to be dwindling both in Congress (where Republicans continue to stall billions of dollars in vital military aid earmarked for Ukraine) and the wider public. Roughly a third of Americans now believe that the U.S. is providing too much support for Ukraine, according to a December poll by the Pew Research Center, up from 26% a year ago. Meanwhile, only a third of Americans consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to be a major threat to U.S. interests, down from half who thought so when the war began.

While the majority of Americans continue to believe that the U.S. should continue to support Ukraine until it reclaims its territory (54%, down from 66% in 2022), according to a November poll by Gallup, a growing number (43%, up from 31%) favor the U.S. trying to end the war as quickly as possible, even if it results in Ukraine ceding some of its territory.

U.S. and European leaders continue to stress the importance of supporting Ukraine, framing the war—as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has done—as a fight not just for Ukrainian sovereignty, but for the security of the wider West. But even their sense of optimism appears to have taken a hit. This was most acutely observed at this year’s Munich Security Conference, where efforts to shore up support for Ukraine was overshadowed by reports of Russia’s capture of the critical eastern city of Avdiivka as well as the shocking news of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s death.

Read More: ‘Nobody Believes in Our Victory Like I Do.’ Inside Volodymyr Zelensky’s Struggle to Keep Ukraine in the Fight

With both Europe and the U.S. facing key elections this year, public opinion on Ukraine could prove decisive. In the U.S., restoring American isolationism has become one of the hallmarks of former President and current Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s campaign—which, if successful, would almost certainly result in Washington turning its back on Ukraine (he has repeatedly criticized U.S. involvement in the war, which he said he could resolve within a day) and the wider NATO alliance (he recently invited Moscow “to do whatever they hell they want” with NATO allies that fail to spend 2% of their GDP on defense).

Dissonance between expectations and preferences notwithstanding, the ECFR study finds that Europeans are not necessarily inclined to appease Russian President Vladimir Putin, especially if Trump secures another presidential term in November. In the event that the U.S. were to rollback support for Ukraine, 41% said that Europe should maintain or increase its support for Kyiv (21% and 20%, respectively), compared to a third who say that Europe should follow Washington’s lead in withdrawing support.

Zerka says that the threat of a seachange is less likely in Brussels, noting that even if parties opposed to supporting Ukraine make inroads in the European elections, “I don’t expect them to get a sufficiently strong result in order to use the European Parliament as a platform to question the European position on the war in Ukraine.” Still, he adds, a strong showing of parties that are antagonistic to Ukraine could prompt the continent’s leaders to “feel more restraint in continuing their support,” especially if those parties’ try to frame themselves as the parties of peace.

If Western leaders wish to shore up their public’s willingness to back Ukraine, as well as their optimism in Kyiv’s ability to succeed, it will require “a paradigm shift,” says Orysia Lutsevych, the deputy director of the Russia and Eurasia Programme and head of the Ukraine Forum at the London-based Chatham House think tank—one in which in supporting Ukraine is tantamount to protecting oneself.

“We are in the difficult period of this war where we are at a crossroads,” she says. “Either the current strategy of just denying Putin a victory in Ukraine prevails and actually we will have some indecisive outcome—possibly a ceasefire and then more war after that—or the other path, [which] is to actually mobilize more resources to prepare for a much more intensive campaign in 2025 and to defeat Russian troops on Ukrainian territory.”

Read More: Russia’s ‘Space-Based Weapon’ Raises Fresh Fears About an Old Threat

As Lutsevych sees it, growing support for pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table presents a false promise of peace. Quite aside from the fact that Putin would be unlikely to want to negotiate with Kyiv ahead of the U.S. election (in anticipation that he would get a better deal under a Trump administration), she says that it also presents a misreading of Putin’s own track record.

“Putin has invaded Abkhazia, he has invaded Ossetia, he has invaded Georgia, he has invaded Crimea, he has invaded Ukraine—this is a consistent pattern,” she says. “If he is not defeated in Ukraine, if there is some kind of truce or a ceasefire, it means that his campaign to a degree succeeded because he enlarged Russian territory, he annexed more land, he caused huge destruction to Ukraine, and he’s allowed to consolidate that.”

source https://time.com/6796917/ukraine-russia-invasion-us-support-anniversary/

The Algorithm for Equality

In our fast-paced digital age, artificial intelligence (AI) is not just transforming our world; it’s reshaping how we see and engage with each other. AI has the power to unlock incredible opportunities, but it also holds a mirror to our society’s imperfections. Bias in AI, whether hidden or overt, is not just a glitch in the system; it’s a reflection of our collective history, prejudices, and oversights.

The reality of the progress AI brings though, is that it’s built with foundational bias. When these algorithms are built on flawed data, they don’t just process information; they process our past biases, assumptions, and blind spots. It’s a scenario where limited and skewed inputs lead to biased and unjust outputs, perpetuating historical biases in a new digital guise. This isn’t just a replication of the past; it’s amplifying our history’s inequalities into the future.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Think about AI-based recruitment software with its bias towards male candidates, or the U.S. justice system’s AI that recommended harsher sentences for Black offenders than white offenders convicted of the same crimes. These aren’t just coding errors; they are deep-rooted societal issues playing out on a new digital stage. Look what happens when AI chat-bots learn from a biased world, they can become a mouthpiece for hate within hours, spreading disinformation globally.

To rectify this, we need more than just algorithms; we need to revolutionize our approach to AI as a whole. We need AI systems designed with the richness of human diversity at their23 core. It’s time for AI to not just reflect our world but to help reimagine and rebuild it more equitably. This is our moment to pivot – to transform AI from a mere digital tool to a catalyst for social change.

Read More: The Case Against AI Everywhere, Everything

The potential of unbiased AI stretches beyond our imagination. From education systems that adapt to every learner’s needs to hiring practices that see beyond demographics to the heart of talent and potential. This isn’t just about correcting biases; it’s about unlocking new horizons of possibility and innovation in AI.

This is why we are designing the Algorithm for Equality Manifesto, by all of us, without bias. Embracing inclusive AI is our only chance to reshape the technological landscape. By eliminating biases in AI, we create a platform for true innovation and fairness. Imagine AI that doesn’t just reflect every voice but elevates it. This isn’t just an opportunity; it’s a responsibility and a promise for a better tomorrow.

Take, for instance, the field of healthcare. An AI-driven diagnostic system that prioritizes inclusivity can ensure that medical decisions are not skewed by gender, ethnicity, or socio-economic factors. This can lead to better healthcare outcomes for all, reducing disparities that have plagued the healthcare system for generations.

Another area where the Algorithm for Equality matters profoundly is in financial services. In a world where access to loans, credit, and financial opportunities can determine the trajectory of people’s lives, AI has the potential to level the playing field. By designing an AI experience that considers a wider range of factors beyond traditional credit scores, we can enable more equitable access to financial resources, especially for historically marginalized communities.

Education, too, stands to benefit immensely from inclusive AI. With personalized learning systems that adapt to individual needs and backgrounds, students from diverse backgrounds can receive tailored support, bridging the achievement gap and unlocking their full potential. Inclusive AI can ensure that every student, regardless of their socio-economic status or learning challenges, has an equal chance to succeed. This is how we democratize education and create equity for all.

As we move towards an increasingly globalized world, language translation tools powered by inclusive AI can break down communication barriers, fostering collaboration and understanding among people of different languages and cultures. This not only enhances our ability to work together on global challenges but also promotes cultural exchange and mutual respect.

So how can an equitable AI experience become a reality? It really doesn’t have to be that hard. If anyone using AI can simply question the results of AI created works, practice prompt engineering to help reshape AI’s response, or even publicly celebrate and memorialize trailblazers from underrepresented groups to ensure AI recognition, we will be one step closer to an AI that’s truly reflective of our world.

Our quest to eliminate bias from AI is both a technological endeavor and a reflection of our commitment to equality and justice. It’s about creating a future where AI not only mirrors our world but also plays a pivotal role in crafting a more inclusive, equitable, and inspired reality. Let’s commit to this vision of AI, where technology is not just advanced and intelligent but also empathetic and equitable, truly serving the needs of all. This is the future we must shape together, where inclusive AI and the Algorithm of Equality are the cornerstones of progress and fairness for generations to come.

source https://time.com/6756770/ai-bias-algorithm-for-equality/

Google Pauses AI-Made Images of People After Race Inaccuracies

Alphabet Inc.’s Google said it will pause the image generation of people for Gemini, a powerful artificial intelligence model, after criticism about how it was handling race.

“We’re already working to address recent issues with Gemini’s image generation feature,” Google said in a post on X on Thursday. “We’re going to pause the image generation of people and will re-release an improved version soon.”

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

We're aware that Gemini is offering inaccuracies in some historical image generation depictions. Here's our statement. pic.twitter.com/RfYXSgRyfz

— Google Communications (@Google_Comms) February 21, 2024

The misstep comes as Google has increasingly focused on AI after progress by rivals Microsoft Corp. and OpenAI potentially threatened its core internet search business. Advances in AI have led to concerns that the technology will enable deepfakes, misinformation and bias. 

Earlier this week, Google said it was aware Gemini was offering what it called “inaccuracies in some historical image generation depictions.”

The move came after critics on X posted numerous examples from the model that appeared to feature historically inaccurate images in regards to the race of the subjects.

"Medieval king of England", according to Google Gemini 🤡 pic.twitter.com/foWX2ptPWY

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) February 22, 2024

The updated AI model, called Gemini 1.5 Pro, was released last week to cloud customers and developers so they can test its new features and eventually create new commercial applications. Google and its rivals have spent billions of dollars to ramp up their capabilities in generative AI and are keen to attract corporate clients to show their investments are paying off.

source https://time.com/6755968/google-gemini-images-race/

Here’s Why the Maker of Stanley Tumblers Is Being Sued

A Seattle-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Pacific Market International (PMI), the parent company of Stanley, which manufactures the viral Stanley tumblers. The class action lawsuit alleges that Stanley deceived customers by not adequately disclosing that there was lead in its products. 

“As the manufacturer and designer of these products, the Stanley Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, about this lead issue for years but chose to conceal it from the public presumably to avoid losing sales,” the suit states, per NBC News.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In January, TikTok influencers began testing the surfaces of Stanley tumblers using at-home testing kits. Many found that the tumblers contained lead, and posted their findings online. 

Stanley responded saying that while lead is used in the manufacturing process, it is covered by stainless steel and is therefore unlikely to contaminate the drinks inside, unless the barrier at the bottom of the tumbler is removed.

“At Stanley, one of the key features of our products is our vacuum insulation technology, which provides consumers with drinkware that keeps beverages at the ideal temperature. Our manufacturing process currently employs the use of an industry standard pellet to seal the vacuum insulation at the base of our products; the sealing material includes some lead. Once sealed, this area is covered with a durable stainless steel layer, making it inaccessible to consumers,” Stanley wrote in a statement on its website. 

The colorful Stanley “quencher” tumblers have become a favorite among online influencers and have been touted for their ability to keep drinks at a consistent hot or cold temperature for hours on end. In 2023, Stanley saw its revenue increase by tenfold as the product was hyped across social media.

PMI has not yet responded to TIME’s request for comment regarding the lawsuit.

source https://time.com/6751384/stanley-tumblers-company-sued-lead-concerns/