What to Know About the Government Response to the Maui Wildfires

As the Maui wildfires’ death toll approaches 100—and is expected to increase—Hawaii’s governor ordered an official review amid criticism that government officials didn’t do enough to save lives.

Maui County officials have been criticized for failing to activate sirens to warn the population about the flames last week despite the state’s comprehensive emergency warning system for natural disasters. The New York Times confirmed that the island did not activate any of the 80 warning sirens.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

On Friday, Hawaii’s attorney general announced an investigation into the decision-making related to the Maui fires, including the choice to not sound the alarms. The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency spokesman confirmed last week that they were not activated and added that sirens alone—without additional information—would not have been enough information for residents to evacuate. There are roughly 1,600 people in evacuation shelters on the island, the governor said on Aug. 13. Airlines have evacuated more than 32,000 people, per NBC News.

The wildfires, which destroyed most of the historic town of Lahaina, have been the deadliest in the U.S. in more than a century. County officials had previously been warned by wildlife researchers that dangerous blazes could occur.

Read More: Why the Maui Wildfire Was So Deadly

In an interview with CBS on Monday, Hawaii Governor Josh Green suggested researchers will probably take about 10 more days to search for casualties and expect to find the remains of 10 to 20 people per day until they finish. Green said about 1,300 people were still considered missing and that most of the more than 2,200 structures destroyed by fires were residential. He expressed frustration that there was not a better system to alert residents to leave. The governor said displaced locals had been moved into hotels on Monday and that 500 rooms were available for them and another 500 for workers from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The federal government has also been involved in relief efforts. FEMA has said that more than 3,000 people have registered for federal assistance and that it has provided $700 to displaced residents for short-term costs such as food, water, and medical supplies. FEMA is also providing temporary housing. Almost 500 federal personnel are on the ground, according to a statement on Tuesday from the Biden Administration.

The Small Business Administration says low-interest disaster loans are available for homeowners, businesses, renters, and non-profits. The Department of Defense said on Aug. 10 it had activated 134 National Guard troops to help state and local officials with wildfire response and search and recovery efforts. The Department of Transportation has said it is evacuating tourists by coordinating with commercial airlines. The U.S. Coast Guard says it has helped saved 17 lives and assisted 40 survivors in getting to shore.

The Biden Administration issued a federal disaster declaration last week and is asking Congress for $12 billion more for the disaster relief fund. President Joe Biden does not currently have plans to visit Hawaii, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Monday.

Maui County officials have advised survivors to use bottled water to drink, brush teeth, make ice, and prepare food, because surrounding municipal water systems were destroyed by the fire and may have contaminated the local water supply. “Residents are unable to treat the water in any way to make it safe,” they said. Local officials are also are taking donations, running six emergency shelters, and providing health care services.

Read More: How to Help Those Affected by the Maui Wildfires

Firefighters are still working to contain fires. As of Monday night, the Kula fire was 65% contained, the Lahaina fire is 85% contained, the Pulehu fire is 100% contained, and the Pu’ukoli’i fire has been extinguished, according to a Facebook post from Maui County officials. (Containment does not mean fully extinguished but rather that firefighters have the blaze fully surrounded by a perimeter.)

As of Monday night, power had been restored to 10,400 of the 12,400 customers who lost power in West Maui; that total does not include the roughly 2,000 destroyed homes and businesses.

source https://time.com/6305152/maui-wildfires-government-response-fema/

Why the Maui Wildfire Was So Deadly

The devastating Maui wildfire have killed at least 99 people so far, and have burned more than 2,500 acres across historic towns like Lahaina, destroying homes and businesses in the region. It is now the deadliest wildfire in the U.S. in over a century, and the worst natural disaster in Hawaii’s history.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The catastrophe began on Aug. 8. High winds, that some officials say may have been as strong as 60-81 mph, engulfed the area in flames at a rate that was difficult to escape. A lagging emergency warning system caused chaos on the island, with anecdotes of survivors running to the ocean to escape the flames. More than a thousand people remain unaccounted for. 

A week later, officials still do not know what the exact cause of the fires were, but experts say that the wildfire’s devastation is due to a mix of high temperatures, strong winds from a Category 4 storm near the islands, and drought conditions that dried out grasses on the island.

Annually, about 0.5% of Hawaii’s total land area burns due to wildfires, according to the Hawaii Wildfire Management Organization. Seventy-five percent of these fires are caused by humans and therefore preventable, but none have ever been as devastating as the Maui wildfire.

Read more: What Remains After the Flames: Scenes From the Ash-Colored Streets of Maui

Experts warn that extreme weather conditions and disasters like this wildfire will occur more frequently and with greater intensity due to climate change, though that is not the only contributing factor at hand. “When the air is hotter it can hold more water vapor, so that means you get more water evaporating from plants, and that dries them out,” says Jeff Masters, a meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections. “But you can’t blame it just on climate change, that’s for sure. Humans are causing this wildfire risk in multiple ways.”

What caused the fires? 

Officials are still unclear on what exactly sparked the fire in Maui, though focus has turned towards the state’s biggest power utility company, Hawaiian Electric, to assess their role in the wildfire. 

Lahaina residents are suing the company because they allege Hawaiian Electric’s equipment was not strong enough to withstand such fast winds, and that the company should have shut down the power before winds reached such high levels—a common practice in states like California, which experiences the most wildfires nationwide. 

Regardless, the deadly blazes were also caused by a combination of conditions including hot weather, strong winds, and a drought that has been affecting the state since the month of May. 

The island was under high alert because of Hurricane Dora, a Category 4 storm that traveled hundreds of miles away from the island, making its closest approach to the islands on Aug. 8. The exact effect Hurricane Dora had on the wildfire remains unclear. Hurricane Expert Phillippe Papin from the National Weather Service’s National Hurricane Center tweeted that the hurricane may have played a minor role in the fires because it had a small wind field, which is the area that is potentially affected by the storm’s sustained winds. But other experts like Masters note that the tropical storm still created a “very strong high pressure system” that may have contributed to the high gusts of wind.  

“If you give a spark in those kinds of conditions, drought plus heat plus wind, it can lead to very rapid fire spread and very intense fires,” Masters says.

Read more: How to Help Those Affected by the Maui Wildfires

Temperatures on the day of the fire were also up to 90°F, which dries out vegetation and makes it more fire prone, according to Masters.   

He adds that the presence of invasive grasses, like guinea grass, also fueled the fires forward. Nonnative grasses that were used to feed livestock or for ornamental purposes were brought to the island decades ago, and are now posing hazardous risks because they are highly flammable.    

[video id=39nuB2ks]

Was the community prepared for it?

Questions related to the preparedness of the state have risen as details about the day of the fire revealed that emergency sirens did not alert residents to what was happening. 

“I don’t think we were ready for it,” Maximus Yarawamai, a 63-year-old gardener, tells TIME. Yarawamai, who traveled from his home on the Big Island to Lahaina to help the community in need, compares the damage he’s seen to what he imagines Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers to have looked like after those catastrophes. “I think we never thought that this would happen in Hawaii. We’ve had fires but not this magnitude.” 

Yarawamai’s words echo the sentiments not just of many Hawaiian residents, but likely also of officials who may have been unprepared for a fire of this magnitude. A February 2022 emergency management plan by the state of Hawaii rated wildfires as low and medium risk across the board for its effect on people, property, the environment, and emergency management program operations. 

[video id=NTPnBVK2]

A 2021 Maui County report found that the number of incidents caused by fires on the island has increased over the years. While there are annual fluctuations in the destruction caused by fires, Hawaii’s acre burnage before the Maui wildfire peaked at more than 50,000 acres in 2019 compared to slightly over 10,000 in 2007. That report also pointed out potential issues in times of emergency, including limited roads in and out of Maui County that make it more difficult to provide emergency care, and also limit escape routes for residents. 

“The investigation revealed that current budgets, combined with County and State access to Federal emergency relief funding, are adequate to meet the current fire threat, but are inadequate for an effective fire prevention and mitigation program,” the report says. 

Now, residents like Yarawamai are asking for the government to think of long term solutions. “I think the immediate needs [for disaster recovery] are there,” he says, “but what’s the next move? What’s the next thing we need to do?”

source https://time.com/6305113/maui-wildfire-cause-hawaii/

We Can Prevent Overdose Deaths If We Change How We Think About Them

I’ve been living in recovery from opioid use disorder for eight and a half years, and this might be a weird thing to say about addiction, but I feel lucky—like I dodged a bullet. I was addicted to opioids in Florida throughout the early 2000s, during the heyday of pill mills that flooded the streets with powerful pharmaceuticals like OxyContin. I say I’m lucky because this was just before the drug supply turned into a toxic sludge of potent fentanyl analogues, mysterious tranquilizers, and deadly counterfeit pills. Sometimes I wonder what it would be like if I were using today. The chances of my survival in these dire conditions would be slim to none.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

There’s a saying that “dead people can’t recover,” and I know it’s true. In 2022, an average of 300 Americans died from an overdose every single day. That’s an average of 109,680 human souls. We’re losing far too many people to drugs because America has yet to fully commit to a culture, policy, and strategy focused on overdose prevention.

One of the hardest parts about being an activist is getting people to care about problems that appear distant and far away. It’s all too human to perceive danger as striking someone else, somewhere else. We saw this play out with the COVID-19 pandemic. But we’ve long seen this play out with the overdose crisis in America. In 2017, the federal government declared overdoses a “public health emergency,” and ever since, the death rate has steadily ticked up and up. This was in large part due to the three waves of the “opioid epidemic” and the greed of the Sackler family that peddled OxyContin.

However, calling this an “opioid epidemic” is to mislabel and misunderstand the actual root of the problem we face: Overdose deaths are preventable; we just haven’t had the tools to efficiently do it—until now. Many users die alone in their homes, apartments, cars, in gas station bathrooms, or on the street. Families and entire communities have been shattered by loss. In a fog of pain, grief, and anger, we’re also losing the plot. The focus of drug policy right now should be on preventing as many fatal overdoses as possible. Instead, America is once again trapped in a disastrous drug war that focuses on punishment and retribution over the goal of saving lives.

Read More: What 3 Grieving Dads Want You to Know About America’s Fentanyl Crisis

The very word “fentanyl” evokes scary visions of chemical warfare and “weapons of mass destruction.” The fury of living through so much loss has elevated a reactionary tendency to harshly criminalize drug use and reinforce lengthy mandatory minimum sentences. Politicians like Donald Trump, for instance, want to execute drug sellers. During his 2024 presidential campaign announcement, Trump said, “We’re going to be asking everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts.” Members of congress and dozens of states are moving toward with enacting harsher drug penalties, despite decades of evidence that severe punishments do little to deter drug use or drug dealing. The rhetoric has gotten so hot that lawmakers have introduced proposals to authorize military force against drug traffickers in Mexico, turning a metaphorical drug war into a literal war of bombing and invasion. Fear, anger, and political expediency are causing us to repeat failed strategies of the past.

But now is not the time to reach for easy answers and give into dark impulses. Instead, we must double down on overdose prevention using a public health and harm reduction framework to equip people who use drugs with practical tools and spaces that destigmatize the life-saving information they need for their journeys to find safety and community.

As someone who has lost well over three dozen people I loved and cared about to overdose deaths, I know how valuable these tools can be. Most of my friends died alone. Many of them were scorned because they returned to drug use. They weren’t offered compassion when they sought healthcare support. Some of them died after being released from jail on a simple possession charge. All of them would have benefitted from the wide availability of harm reduction services such as syringe exchange programs, free naloxone, drug checking equipment that screens for fentanyl analogues, and safer use spaces—without shame, and without judgement. Consistent data from Harvard’s Recovery Research Institute has shown that harm reduction works and is rooted in evidence.

If we don’t correct our current course, we’ll be stuck in this vicious cycle that leaves millions of people sick, alone, and at risk of fatally overdosing.

On March 29, the FDA approved the first-ever over-the-counter (OTC) naloxone product. In July, they approved a second OTC naloxone product. While this is welcome news and a substantial leap forward, the pricing of these products (averaging between $35-$65 per unit) is still out of reach for everyday Americans who need quick access to the lifesaving overdose reversal medication.

Read More: A Promising Way to Help Drug Users Is ‘Severely Lacking’ Around the World, Report Says

Naloxone should be free. It must be available and accessible everywhere—and for everyone, without any barriers. Most life-saving medical devices are uncontroversial and ubiquitous. It’s time we think about naloxone and overdose reversal the same way we think about EpiPens, defibrillators, vaccines, and testing. Nobody thinks the mere presence of an EpiPen encourages people severely allergic to peanuts to kick back and crush a bag of pistachios for fun. Unlike peanut allergies, addiction remains highly stigmatized. Some are under the false impression that naloxone “encourages” more risky drug use because they view addiction through a moral lens, not a healthcare challenge. This distorted logic, along with Big Pharma profiteering, hinders broad access to naloxone.

While changing policy and regulations is no small thing, changing cultural outlooks is something else entirely. The social scientist and historian Nancy Campbell called naloxone a “technology of solidarity.” For naloxone to work, someone has to be there to administer it to the person who is overdosing. With the recent expansion of naloxone access, it’s on all of us to step up and be ready to save a life. Instead of punishing and scorning those who are struggling, we must do the harder thing and actually show people that they are not alone.

Overdose prevention strategies also require tailored approaches to their culture and geography. Cities and urban centers where substance use is more concentrated can benefit from overdose prevention centers. More than 100 of these centers operate around the world in more than 60 cities. But America only has two that operate legally. The first sanctioned centers on U.S. soil opened in New York in 2021, and they’ve already rescued 1,000 people from fatal overdoses. Just two centers barely meet the demand. A New York City Health Department study found that opening four centers in the city would save up to 130 lives per year while saving $7 million in health care costs. It’s time for other major cities to follow New York’s lead.

Rural areas need a different kind of help covering vast distances. Traveling across the country, I’ve witnessed innovative grassroots overdose prevention solutions in rural towns that operate mobile harm reduction programs. A key tenet of harm reduction is “meeting people where they’re at.” In this case, that means literally. Big vans equipped with naloxone, clean syringes, HIV testing, drug checking, and perhaps most crucially, warm and kind people, are driving around throughout the week to deliver life-saving health care to people who have no other way to access it. Sadly, these programs are operating on shoestring budgets in extremely hostile political climates. Policymakers and communities must stand up and defend these frontline workers who are sacrificing their freedom for doing what they know is right.

You might’ve heard that harm reduction has failed. You might’ve heard that cities like San Francisco and Portland have gone all in on “radical” harm reduction strategies and implemented “pie-in-the-sky” policies like drug decriminalization, and all they have to show for it is death, despair, and abysmal outcomes. The truth is that no American city, not even the supposedly liberal strongholds like San Francisco, have fully committed to a focused strategy of overdose prevention and recovery support. Cutting social and housing services, refusing to reduce skyrocketing rents, all the while ramping up militarized policing is not radical harm reduction. In fact, these half-measures are actively contributing to crisis levels of overdose fatalities.

While politicians and sensational media outlets play up apocalyptic disaster porn, they never mention the success of states like Rhode Island. Rhode Island decided to double-down on overdose prevention and though it’s taken some time, it’s finally starting to pay off. Fentanyl and its potent analogues hit the small state early and hard. For several years, overdose deaths ticked up and up. But something changed. The number of fatal overdoses did not increase from 2021 to 2022. Then, there was a 13% drop in overdose deaths in the second half of 2022. How did they pull it off?

Rhode Island committed fully and firmly to effective overdose prevention strategies. Despite media backlash, they held strong when the going got tough—even when they weren’t sure if it would work. The state implemented mobile outreach programs that distributed harm reduction supplies, increased the availability of naloxone, expanded access to medication assisted treatment for opioid use disorder in jails and prisons, supported six community centers that offer peer-based recovery support services, and created a new evidence-based drug prevention curriculum for schools. Moving forward, Rhode Island will be opening overdose prevention centers like those in New York, which will ensure their fatal overdose trend reversal continues far into the future.

American drug policy is at an inflection point. For the first time in my life, overdose prevention is gaining acceptance as our culture of tough love and zero tolerance is slowly losing credibility. The basic problem we face today is that too many people are dying in isolation, alone in the shadows. The best thing we can do right now is show up for each other, offer compassion to those who are struggling, and stop politicizing something that isn’t political—saving as many lives as possible, with every tool we have at our disposal.

source https://time.com/6304772/preventing-overdose-deaths-harm-reduction-essay/

The Case for Why the Constitution Blocks Trump Being President Again

Does the Constitution permit Donald Trump to be on the 2024 Presidential ballot? The question arises because of a long-neglected part of the 14^th Amendment. Section Three provides that no person can hold political office if, having taken an oath to support the Constitution as a state or federal official, they “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Section Three was designed to respond to the danger that former Confederate states might (as indeed they did) elect former Confederates to Congress and pursue politics as the continuation of war by other means. But the century and a half after the Civil War, brought no insurrections, and Section Three lay moribund, an object of only historical interest.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

January 6, 2021 changed that. At least, it did if you accept the arguments put forward in the University of Pennsylvania law Review by leading conservative originalists William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen and in an article by Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi. Trump engaged in insurrection, they argue, and declaring him ineligible for the Presidency is no more than the Constitution demands. “[T]he case is not even close,” Baude and Paulsen declare. “All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.”

The counterargument, offered by another prominent conservative originalist, Michael McConnell, is that excluding Trump from the ballot is extreme, divisive, and anti-democratic. We should read Section Three as narrowly as we can, he says, in order to “allow the American people to vote for the candidates of their choice.”

Both sides appeal to important values. The proponents of disqualification call for fidelity to the Constitution; McConnell offers a plea for democracy. I do believe that some constitutional provisions are anti-democratic (I will discuss some later) and generally I am sympathetic to readings of the Constitution that promote democracy. But there’s an important question that comes first: is it anti-democratic to exclude some people from the political process? The answer, I think, is that it depends on who they are, and history has some things to teach us here.

Read More: Trials Are About Facts. That’s Bad for Trump

The Constitution written in 1787 was not as democratic as you might think. States were allowed to set their own rules for voting, excluding Black people, women, and even white men who didn’t own enough property. Even those who met the qualifications weren’t guaranteed the right to vote for President. The manner of appointing electors was up to the state legislature, and it wasn’t until after the Civil War that every state switched to a popular vote in choosing their electors. The Electoral College, which incorporated the notorious three-fifths compromise, detached the selection of the president further from the popular vote by giving enslavers greater political power.

Reconstruction—the process of rebuilding the nation after the Civil War, with the 13^th, 14^th, and 15^th Amendments—changed that. When we think about Reconstruction now, we often think about individual rights. That’s not wrong. The 13^th Amendment gave liberty to the formerly enslaved. The 14^th Amendment protected fundamental rights like speech and religious exercise from state infringement, and it guaranteed all people the equal protection of the laws.

But Reconstruction was something more than an expansion of individual rights. It was a new commitment to democracy. That commitment was manifested by some inclusive measures. Black people were guaranteed citizenship by the 14^th Amendment, and their right to vote was protected against racial discrimination by the 15^th. (But not against sex discrimination; women did not win the right to vote until the 19^th Amendment in 1919.) The 14^th Amendment also punished states that abridged the right to vote—a state legislature can still take away your right to vote for president, but the state will lose Representatives in Congress, and hence electoral votes.

Reconstruction protected democracy by exclusion, too. Inclusion and exclusion are two sides of the same coin: a political community is defined both by who it lets in and by who it keeps out. When Congress rebuilt the southern states with the Reconstruction Acts, telling their people to write new constitutions and elect new governments, it prescribed that the formerly enslaved could participate and the former confederates could not. Anyone who wanted to vote in these constitutional conventions had to swear that they had never taken an oath to support the Constitution “and afterwards engaged in insurrection.”

The Reconstruction Amendments are the constitutional version of these Acts. They include the formerly enslaved by making them citizens and giving them the right to vote. They exclude the former confederates, some of them. How should we construe these democracy-protecting provisions of our Constitution? As if anticipating McConnell’s concerns, the Reconstruction Act of July 19, 1867 told readers what to do: “all the provisions of [the Reconstruction acts] … shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out.”

That is the first thing history can teach us. We had anti-democratic exclusion before the Civil War. Only a true American, the Founders believed, had the right to participate in American self-governance. “True” for them meant “real,” and it had a racial element.  (Forget about holding office or voting; in the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court said that Black people could never be United States citizens.) But after the Civil War, the Reconstruction Congress used pro-democratic exclusion. “True” for them meant “loyal,” and the first Black Member of Congress was Hiram Revels of Mississippi, in 1870. Being a true American now is not about the color of your skin but the content of your character.

And this is the larger theme of American constitutionalism, that what unites us is not race or religion or loyalty to a person. It is loyalty to an idea, to the Constitution, and the Constitution is what we swear to support. If you are not loyal—if you are an oathbreaker and an insurrectionist—you are not one of us.

So what should we do with this legacy now? Should we fight for democracy by enforcing the exclusive provisions of the Constitution as well as the inclusive ones, or should we read them narrowly and pursue reconciliation? Everyone agrees the President has to be at least 35 and a natural born citizen; is it less important that he not be an insurrectionist oathbreaker?

History has something to tell us about this, too. We know what happened last time. Restraint and reunion led to the overthrow of Reconstruction, to segregation and Jim Crow. With the compromise of 1876, the North abandoned the integrated Reconstruction governments and welcomed back the defeated insurrectionists. Former Vice President Alexander Stephens represented Georgia in Congress; former General Wade Hampton represented South Carolina.

The period that followed Reconstruction saw former insurrectionists take back power in the South. There are echoes of that moment in the present day, but the question is not regional now; it is national. January 6 was not about one part of the country; it was about the whole thing.

“Fight like hell, or you won’t have a country anymore.” That was Donald Trump on January 6. He might have been right.

source https://time.com/6305003/trump-indictment-14th-amendment/

China Wants to Regulate Its Artificial Intelligence Sector Without Crushing It

Beijing is poised to implement sweeping new regulations for artificial intelligence services this week, trying to balance state control of the technology with enough support that its companies can become viable global competitors. 

The government issued 24 guidelines that require platform providers to register their services and conduct a security review before they’re brought to market. Seven agencies will take responsibility for oversight, including the Cyberspace Administration of China and the National Development and Reform Commission.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The final regulations are less onerous than an original draft from April, but they show China, like Europe, moving ahead with government oversight of what may be the most promising — and controversial — technology of the last 30 years. The U.S., by contrast, has no legislation under serious consideration even after industry leaders warned that AI poses a “risk of extinction” and OpenAI’s Sam Altman urged Congress in public hearings to get involved.

“China got started very quickly,” said Matt Sheehan, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace who is writing a series of research papers on the subject. “It started building the regulatory tools and the regulatory muscles, so they’re going to be more ready to regulate more complex applications of the technology.”

China’s regulations go beyond anything contemplated in Western democracies. But they also include practical steps that have support in places like the U.S.

Read More: Tech Leaders Warn the U.S. Military Is Falling Behind China on AI

Beijing, for example, will mandate conspicuous labels on synthetically created content, including photos and videos. That’s aimed at preventing deceptions like an online video of Nancy Pelosi that was doctored to make her appear drunk. China will also require any company introducing an AI model to use “legitimate data” to train their models and to disclose that data to regulators as needed. Such a mandate may placate media companies that fear their creations will be co-opted by AI engines. Additionally, Chinese companies must provide a clear mechanism for handling public complaints about services or content.

While the U.S.’ historically hands-off approach to regulation gave Silicon Valley giants the space to become global juggernauts, that strategy holds serious dangers with generative AI, said Andy Chun, an artificial intelligence expert and adjunct professor at the City University of Hong Kong.

“AI has the potential to profoundly change how people work, live, and play in ways we are just beginning to realize,” he said. “It also poses clear risks and threats to humanity if AI development proceeds without adequate oversight.”

Read More: How the World Must Respond to the AI Revolution

In the U.S., federal lawmakers have proposed a wide range of AI regulations but efforts remain in the early stages. The U.S. Senate has held several AI briefings this summer to help members come up to speed on the technology and its risks before pursuing regulations.

In June, the European Parliament passed a draft of the AI Act, which would impose new guardrails and transparency requirements for artificial intelligence systems. The parliament, EU member states and European Commission must negotiate final terms before the legislation becomes law.

Beijing has spent years laying the groundwork for the rules that take effect Tuesday. The State Council, the country’s cabinet, put out an AI roadmap in 2017 that declared development of the technology a priority and laid out a timetable for putting government regulations in place. 

Agencies like the CAC then consulted with legal scholars such as Zhang Linghan from the China University of Political Science and Law about AI governance, according to Sheehan. As China’s draft guidelines on generative AI evolved into the latest version, there were months of consultation between regulators, industry players and academics to balance legislation and innovation. That initiative on Beijing’s part is driven in part by the strategic importance of AI, and the desire to gain a regulatory edge over other governments, said You Chuanman, director of the Institute for International Affairs Center for Regulation and Global Governance at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in Shenzhen.

Now, China’s biggest AI players, from Baidu Inc. to Alibaba Group Holding and SenseTime Group Inc., are getting to work. Beijing has targeted AI as one of a dozen tech priorities and, after a two-year regulatory crackdown, the government is seeking private sector help to prop up the flagging economy and compete with the U.S. After the introduction of ChatGPT set off a global AI frenzy, leading tech executives and aspiring entrepreneurs are pouring billions of dollars into the field.

“In the context of fierce global competition, lack of development is the most unsafe thing,” Zhang, the scholar from China University of Political Science and Law, wrote about the guidelines. 

In a flurry of activity this year, Alibaba, Baidu and SenseTime all showed off AI models. Xu Li, chief executive officer of SenseTime, pulled off the flashiest presentation, complete with a chatbot that writes computer code from prompts either in English or Chinese.

Still, Chinese companies trail global leaders like OpenAI and Alphabet’s Google. They will likely struggle to challenge such rivals, especially if American companies are regulated by no one but themselves. 

“China is trying to walk a tightrope between several different objectives that are not necessarily compatible,” said Helen Toner, a director at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology. “One objective is to support their AI ecosystem, and another is to maintain social control and maintain the ability to censor and control the information environment in China.”

In the U.S., OpenAI has shown little control over information even if it’s dangerous or inaccurate. Its ChatGPT made up fake legal precedents and provided bomb-building instructions to the public. A Georgia radio host claims the bot generated a false complaint that accused him of embezzling money.

Read More: China Is Betting Big on Artificial Intelligence—Even as It Cracks Down on ChatGPT

In China, companies have to be much more careful. This February, the Hangzhou-based Yuanyu Intelligence pulled the plug on its ChatYuan service only days after launch. The bot had called Russia’s attack on Ukraine a “war of aggression” — in contravention of Beijing’s stance — and raised doubts about China’s economic prospects, according to screenshots that circulated online.

Now the startup has abandoned a ChatGPT model entirely to focus on an AI productivity service called KnowX. “Machines cannot achieve 100% filtering,” said Xu Liang, head of the company. “But what you can do is to add human values of patriotism, trustworthiness, and prudence to the model.”

Beijing, with its authoritarian powers, plays by different rules than Washington. When Chinese agencies reprimand and fine tech companies, the corporations can’t fight back and often publicly thank the government for its oversight. In the U.S., Big Tech hires armies of lawyers and lobbyists to contest almost any regulatory action. Alongside the robust public debate among stakeholders, this will make it difficult to install effective AI regulations, said Aynne Kokas, associate professor of media studies at the University of Virgina.

In China, AI is beginning to make its way into the sprawling censorship regime that keeps the country’s internet scrubbed of taboo and controversial topics. That doesn’t mean it is easy, technically speaking. “One of the most attractive innovations of ChatGPT and similar AI innovations is its unpredictability or its own innovation beyond our human intervention,” You, from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, said. “In many cases, it’s beyond control of the platform service providers.”

Some Chinese tech companies are using two-way keyword filtering, using one large language model to ensure that another LLM is scrubbed of any controversial content. One tech startup founder, who declined to be named due to political sensitivities, said the government will even do spot-checks on how AI services are labeling data.

“What is potentially the most fascinating and concerning time-line is the one where censorship happens through new large language models developed specifically as censors,” said Nathan Freitas, a fellow at Harvard University’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. 

The European Union may be the most progressive in protecting individuals from such overreach. The draft law passed in June ensures privacy controls and curbs the use of facial recognition software. The EU proposal would also require companies to perform some analysis of the risks their services entail, for, say, health systems or national security.

But the EU’s approach has drawn objections. OpenAI’s Altman suggested his company may “cease operating” within countries that implement overly onerous regulations. 

One thing Washington can learn from Chinese regulators is to be “targeted and iterative,” Sheehan said. “Build these tools that they can keep improving as they keep regulating.”

—With assistance from Emily Cadman, Alice Truong and Seth Fiegerman.

source https://time.com/6304831/china-ai-regulations/

The Blind Side Subject Michael Oher Says Family Lied About Adopting Him

On Monday, Michael Oher—a retired NFL star and the subject of the 2009 film The Blind Side—filed a 14-page petition to a probate court in Shelby County, Tenn. The petition contains allegations that Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy—the parents of the wealthy, white family that purportedly adopted Oher as a high school student—never actually did so. Rather, they deceived him into signing a document that placed him in a conservatorship, without his realization. They were then able to make millions at his expense. 

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“The lie of Michael’s adoption is one upon which Co-Conservators Leigh Anne Tuohy and Sean Tuohy have enriched themselves at the expense of their Ward, the undersigned Michael Oher,” reads the legal filing. “Michael Oher discovered this lie to his chagrin and embarrassment in February of 2023, when he learned that the Conservatorship to which he consented on the basis that doing so would make him a member of the Tuohy family, in fact provided him no familial relationship with the Tuohys.”

“Since at least August of 2004, Conservators have allowed Michael, specifically, and the public, generally, to believe that Conservators adopted Michael and have used that untruth to gain financial advantages for themselves and the foundations which they own or which they exercise control,” continues the filing. “All monies made in said manner should in all conscience and equity be disgorged and paid over to the said ward, Michael Oher.”

A representative for Leigh Anne Tuohy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Steve Farese, a lawyer representing the Tuohys, told the Associated Press they plan to file an answer to the allegations in court.

In 2006, author and financial journalist Michael Lewis, a former schoolmate of Sean Tuohy, published The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game, which includes Oher’s story. Three years later, Lewis’ book was adapted into a sports drama film of the same name. The movie told the story of an offensive lineman who overcame a poor upbringing to, with the help of his adoptive parents, to play in the NFL.

“Mike’s relationship with the Tuohy family started to decline when he discovered that he was portrayed in the movie as unintelligent,” Oher’s attorney, J. Gerard Stranch IV, told ESPN. “Their relationship continued to deteriorate as he learned that he was the only member of the family not receiving royalty checks from the movie, and it was permanently fractured when he realized he wasn’t adopted and a part of the family.”

Both the movie and the book found critical and financial success. The former became a #1 New York Times bestseller, while the latter grossed $309 million at the box office, received a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Picture, and won the Academy Award for Best Actress for Sandra Bullock’s performance as Leigh Anne Tuohy, Oher’s supposed adoptive mother.

The legal filing states that the Tuohys and their two biological children, Sean and Collins, were each paid $225,000 by the movie, on top of 2.5% of the film’s net proceeds. In a separate contract, according to the legal filing, Oher signed over the rights to his story without any payment. Oher says that he does not remember signing that contract, and that if he did, no one explained what it meant. 

Oher’s second book, When Your Back’s Against the Wall, was released last week. “There has been so much created from The Blind Side that I am grateful for, which is why you might find it as a shock that the experience surrounding the story has also been a large source of some of my deepest hurt and pain over the past 14 years,” he wrote in it. “Beyond the details of the deal, the politics, and the money behind the book and movie, it was the principle of the choices some people made that cut me the deepest.”

source https://time.com/6304738/michael-oher-blind-side-subject-adoption-lie/

Want to Give Your Life More Meaning? Think of It As a ‘Hero’s Journey’

You might not think you have much in common with Luke Skywalker, Harry Potter, or Katniss Everdeen. But imagining yourself as the main character of a heroic adventure could help you achieve a more meaningful life.

Research published earlier this year in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology touts the benefits of reframing your life as a Hero’s Journey—a common story structure popularized by the mythologist Joseph Campbell that provides a template for ancient myths and recent blockbusters. In his 1949 book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell details the structure of the journey, which he describes as a monomyth. In its most elementary form, a hero goes on an adventure, emerges victorious from a defining crisis, and then returns home changed for the better.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“The idea is that there’s a hero of some sort who experiences a change of setting, which could mean being sent off to a magical realm or entering a new thing they’re not used to,” says study author Benjamin A. Rogers, an assistant professor of management and organization at Boston College. “That sets them off on a quest where they encounter friends and mentors, face challenges, and return home to benefit their community with what they’ve learned.”

According to Rogers’ findings, perceiving your life as a Hero’s Journey is associated with psychological benefits such as enhanced well-being, greater life satisfaction, feeling like you’re flourishing, and reduced depression. “The way that people tell their life story shapes how meaningful their lives feel,” he says. “And you don’t have to live a super heroic life or be a person of adventure—virtually anyone can rewrite their story as a Hero’s Journey.”

The human brain is wired for stories, Rogers notes, and we respond to them in powerful ways. Previous research suggests that by the time we’re in our early 20s, most of us have constructed a narrative identity—an internalized and evolving life story—that explains how we became the person we are, and where our life might go in the future. “This is how we’ve been communicating and understanding ourselves for thousands of years,” he says. Rogers’ research suggests that if people view their own story as following a Hero’s Journey trajectory, it increases meaning regardless of how they initially perceived their lives; even those who thought their lives had little meaning are able to benefit.

While Rogers describes a “re-storying intervention” in his research, some psychologists have used the Hero’s Journey structure as part of their practice for years. Lou Ursa, a licensed psychotherapist in California, attended Pacifica Graduate Institute, which is the only doctoral program in the country focused on mythology. The university even, she notes, houses Campbell’s personal library. As a result, mythology was heavily integrated into her psychology grad program. In addition to reflecting on what the Hero’s Journey means to her personally, she often brings it up with clients. “The way I talk about it is almost like an eagle-eye view versus a snake-eye view of our lives,” she says. “So often we’re just seeing what’s in front of us. I think that connecting with a myth or a story, whether it’s the Hero’s Journey or something else, can help us see the whole picture, especially when we’re feeling lost or stuck.”

As Rogers’ research suggests, changing the way you think about the events of your life can help you move toward a more positive attitude. With that in mind, we asked experts how to start reframing your life story as a Hero’s Journey.

Practice reflective journaling

Campbell described more than a dozen key elements of a Hero’s Journey, seven of which Rogers explored in his research: protagonist, shift, quest, allies, challenge, transformation, and legacy. He says reflecting on these aspects of your story—even if it’s just writing a few sentences down—can be an ideal first step to reframe your circumstances. Rogers offers a handful of prompts that relate back to the seven key elements of a Hero’s Journey. To drill in on “protagonist,” for example, ask yourself: What makes you you? Spend time reflecting on your identity, personality, and core values. When you turn to “shift,” consider: What change or new experience prompted your journey to become who you are today? Then ponder what challenges stand in your way, and which allies can support or help you in your journey. You can also meditate on the legacy your journey might leave.

Ask yourself who would star in the movie of your life

One way to assess your inner voice is to figure out who would star in a movie about your life, says Nancy Irwin, a clinical psychologist in Los Angeles who employs the Hero’s Journey concept personally and professionally. Doing so can help us “sufficiently dissociate and see ourselves objectively rather than subjectively,” she says. Pay attention to what appeals to you about that person: What traits do they embody that you identify with? You might, for example, admire the person’s passion, resilience, or commitment to excellence. “They inspire us because there’s some quality that we identify with,” Irwin says. “Remember, you chose them because you have that quality yourself.” Keeping that in mind can help you begin to see yourself as the hero of your own story.

Go on more heroic adventures—or just try something new

In classic Hero’s Journey stories, the protagonist starts off afraid and refuses a call to adventure before overcoming his fears and committing to the journey. Think of Odysseus being called to fight the Trojans, but refusing the call because he doesn’t want to leave his family. Or consider Rocky Balboa: When he was given the chance to fight the world’s reigning heavyweight champion, he immediately said no—before ultimately, of course, accepting the challenge. The narrative has proven timeless because it “reflects the values of society,” Rogers says. “We like people who have new experiences and grow from their challenges.” 

He suggests asking yourself: “If I want to have a more meaningful life, what are the kinds of things I could do?” One possible avenue is seeking out novelty, whether that’s as simple as driving a new way home from work or as dramatic as finally selling your car entirely and committing to public transportation.

Be open to redirection

The Hero’s Journey typically starts with a mission, which prompts the protagonist to set off on a quest. “But often the road isn’t linear,” says Kristal DeSantis, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Austin. “There are twists, turns, unexpected obstacles, and side quests that get in the way. The lesson is to be open to possibility.”

That perspective can also help you flip the way you see obstacles. Say you’re going through a tough time: You just got laid off, or you were diagnosed with a chronic illness. Instead of dwelling on how unfortunate these hurdles are, consider them opportunities for growth and learning. Think to yourself: What would Harry do? Reframe the challenges you encounter as a chance to develop resilience and perseverance, and to be the hero of your own story.

When you need a boost, map out where you are on your journey

Once you find a narrative hero you can relate to, keep their journey in mind as you face new challenges. “If you feel stuck or lost, you can look to that story and be like, ‘Which part do I feel like I’m in right now?’” Ursa says. Maybe you’re in the midst of a test that feels so awful that you’ve lost perspective on its overall importance—i.e., the fact that it’s only part of your journey. (See: When Katniss was upset about the costume that Snow forced her to wear—before she then had to go fight off a pack of ferocious wolves to save her life.) Referencing a familiar story “can help you have that eagle-eye view of what might be next for you, or what you should be paying attention to,” Ursa says. “Stories become this map that we can always turn to.” Think of them as reassurance that a new chapter almost certainly awaits.

source https://time.com/6304708/heros-journey-psychology/