Google is having a Bud Light moment. If you’ve spent any time online—especially on social media—in the past week‚ you’ve probably noticed the controversy over Google’s new artificial intelligence program‚ “Gemini.” Gemini is an AI tool and language model made for a general audience that can do all kinds of things‚ such as answer questions‚ generate requested images—and generally act like the wokest‚ smuggest person working in a university “diversity‚ equity and inclusion” bureaucracy. After the program launched in early February‚ people soon began noticing how some prompts produced ridiculously—and sometimes hilariously—politically correct answers. For instance‚ users discovered that when asking the program to produce images of “Vikings‚” it would produce mostly black and Asian-looking people and would always answer with something to the effect of “here are diverse images” (emphasis mine) of Vikings‚ medieval knights‚ 16th-century European inventors‚ etc. Getting the program to produce images of Caucasian males was difficult‚ and in some cases nearly impossible. These standards were not evenly applied. When I asked Gemini specifically to produce images of diverse Zulu warriors of South Africa‚ it only spit out images of black men and women. When I then asked Gemini why it couldn’t produce an actually racially diverse image of Zulu warriors‚ it came up with the old “complexity and nuance” answer that it leans on when it sputters and strains to work within the ideologically rigid confines of its programmers. It said that Zulus came from a generally homogenous culture and that it struggled to depict them in another way from lack of racially diverse examples. Hmm. The folks at Google didn’t initially seem to have much of a problem with the historically absurd “diverse” images until someone came up with the prompt of “German soldiers in the 1940s‚” which produced a racially diverse set of Wehrmacht stormtroopers. That‚ finally‚ was the bridge too far‚ and Google shut down the image program and apologized. I would note here that there are actually examples of racially diverse German soldiers in the 1940s‚ but by this point you should understand Google’s game. There are countless other examples of this program producing answers based on carefully calibrated far-left viewpoints. When I asked it to tell me the first example of legal emancipation in the New World‚ it said that it was Haiti in 1801. I then asked if slavery was abolished by Vermont in 1777 and why this answer wasn’t produced. It acknowledged I was correct and gave the old “nuance and complexity” weasel answer. Google’s problem isn’t just with DEI nonsense. It has a China problem‚ too.  When I asked it to generate images of China not ruled by communism‚ it refused‚ saying that China was historically tied to communism. It had no problem depicting the United States under communism. When I asked if Taiwan is basically like China‚ but not under communism‚ it again turned to the old “complexity and nuance‚” get-out-of-answering trick. Google’s explanation for Gemini’s absurd nature and far-left political leanings is that it is still working out bugs in the system and that this was just a technical problem. Google’s CEO sent out a memo to employees apologizing for the controversy. He said that Google’s goal was to make its product “unbiased”: Our mission to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful is sacrosanct. We’ve always sought to give users helpful‚ accurate‚ and unbiased information in our products. That’s why people trust them. This has to be our approach for all our products‚ including our emerging Al products. That’s nonsense.  The Gemini launch did the world a favor and revealed just how left-wing and manipulative Google really is. One of the leaders on the project‚ who has since made his X (formerly Twitter) account private is reported to have yammered online about “white privilege” and “systemic racism.” The bias was hiding in plain sight. The consistent leftist political leanings of Gemini’s answers‚ which seemed like they were produced by a person to the left of the average member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors‚ didn’t just come out of the blue. The AI doesn’t have a bias. What’s biased are the people controlling it.  The product is basically the left-wing‚ Western liberal version of what I imagine China’s totalitarian information platforms look like. Everything is carefully calibrated to match the narrative the regime wants to foist on their people. Pairing this AI with the world’s most powerful search engine—which accounts for about 90% of global search traffic—is a terrifying thought. It has an astounding amount of potential power to shape and cultivate the views and perceptions of people in the United States and across the globe. The bottom line is this: Google’s Gemini AI was programmed and designed to be this way. It isn’t a technical glitch that ensured the most DEI-compliant responses to queries; it’s the ideology that clearly pervades the company—and has for many years. Remember way back in 2017 when Google engineer James Damore was fired by his employer for sending around an internal memo about how the company’s diversity policies were creating an ideological echo chamber? Gemini is the latest fruit of that echo chamber‚ an attempt to shape the world around extreme left-wing narratives. It’s meant to be a tool for our modern‚ ideologically compromised elite institutions to expunge disagreement and information that might lead to different conclusions about reality. They will do this by carefully scrubbing and shaping the places where most people find their information. It’s the corruption and hostile takeover of a global‚ digital town hall. Gemini AI is to be the left-wing gatekeeper of information and ideas. It’s your guide to ensure you stay on the politically correct path and will nudge you back every time you stray. In a sense‚ I’m glad Gemini launched as horribly as it did. First‚ it shows just how much of an extreme ideological cocoon the Big Tech world is to think that its AI program wouldn’t appear biased. Second‚ it’s a warning of what’s to come when Googlers find ways to make their social engineering stealthier‚ but likely more insidious. Google may be too big to fail in the way that Budweiser did after angering their customers with its misbegotten‚ but short-lived embrace of a transgender “influencer.”  Google’s search engine is a hard-to-replicate product‚ unlike beer. But the mask has really slipped‚ and it will be hard to convince customers of its lack of bias in the competitive era of AI. Google inadvertently turned up the heat on the frog just a bit too much before the pot boiled. So‚ in a sense‚ it’s a good thing that its AI started off so sloppy and absurd. We can see them for what they really are. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Google’s Woke Gemini AI Underscores Threat of Big Tech Information Gatekeepers appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“The cyberthreat posed by the Chinese government is massive.” That was FBI Director Christopher Wray‚ speaking at a recent security conference in Munich‚ warning of new cyberattacks from China. And not just from the outside‚ which would be bad enough. Mr. Wray singled out the Chinese Communist Party hacking group Volt Typhoon‚ which the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency notes is lurking in critical infrastructure across our country. Volt Typhoon has already hacked key sectors including communications‚ energy and water. It may have the ability to access heating and air conditioning systems to overheat data servers‚ to cause blackouts by disrupting control rooms that regulate water and electricity‚ and to manipulate surveillance cameras at some of these facilities. Since 2021‚ Volt Typhoon has been exploiting critical infrastructure vulnerabilities by targeting networks protected by Fortinet’s FortiGuard security devices. By proxying traffic through outdated and compromised routers‚ hackers “live off the land” by remaining undetected while monitoring traffic and escalating their access privileges. In fact‚ Volt Typhoon persisted in some IT environments for over five years while extracting sensitive information from in-memory data employing tools such as Magnet RAM Capture. The severity of this threat was underscored in December when the Justice Department disrupted a Chinese botnet embedded in older routers‚ shedding light on the extensive reach of such cyber intrusions. One study by the consulting company Forrester revealed an even grimmer reality: nearly 80% of organizations using supervisory control and data acquisition or industrial control systems have reported security breaches in the past two years. This is not the first instance of Chinese cyberespionage targeting American interests. Since 2006‚ a China-backed military hacking group termed APT1 orchestrated sophisticated attacks on American military contractors and critical infrastructure corporations. By 2013‚ the Pentagon had disclosed that APT1 had pilfered military contractor designs such as the Patriot‚ THAAD and Aegis missile systems‚ as well as aircraft designs including the F/A-18 Super Hornet‚ V-22 Osprey‚ Black Hawk helicopter‚ and F-35 joint strike fighter. In 2014‚ the FBI indicted five APT1 military hackers on charges of stealing information from critical infrastructure companies such as U.S. Steel‚ SolarWorld‚ and Westinghouse Electric over the prior decade. Moreover‚ the United States has also faced threats from Russia’s hacking group Cozy Bear‚ termed APT29. Demonstrating its ability to bypass American cybersecurity defenses‚ APT29 was responsible for the 2016 Democratic National Committee breach and the 2021 SolarWinds Orion hack. More recently‚ APT29 infiltrated Hewlett Packard Enterprise emails‚ according to 2023 filings from the Securities and Exchange Commission. The implications of these cyberattacks extend far beyond military and political repercussions. Moody’s designated critical infrastructure assets as “credit negative” last June due in part to the systemic risks posed by cyber vulnerabilities. Moreover‚ as evidenced by Russia’s attacks on Ukraine’s power grid‚ the specter of cascading cyberattacks targeting geographically dispersed industrial operations looms large‚ with potentially catastrophic consequences for both Europe and the U.S. With its 3‚300 utilities and sprawling web of 5.5 million miles of distribution lines‚ the United States is particularly vulnerable to cyber incursions. CISA‘s energy sector plan‚ published in 2015‚ is woefully inadequate in detail and does not accurately portray our adversaries’ current capabilities. One particular risk‚ GPS spoofing‚ poses a significant threat of desynchronizing the power grid’s distribution systems leading to imbalanced voltages and sudden blackouts. To mitigate evolving threats‚ initiatives such as CISA‘s Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program provide a baseline of normal network traffic. This baseline would check against sudden spikes in activity that a foreign entity would use to begin a cyberattack or exfiltrate information. The Department of Homeland Security‚ however‚ has concluded that the voluntary program has limited capabilities as it does not provide cyber incident data in real time. CISA‘s incident playbook and free Cyber Security Evaluation Tool offer valuable resources for companies to reduce exposure to industrial control systems. Last‚ CISA maintains an updated list of advisories on spyware to help cybersecurity IT professionals react to new cyber-exploits. There are dire implications for Russia and China making a strategic pivot from theft of military and scientific intellectual property to exploiting key infrastructure sectors and pre-positioning hidden cyberweapons. It’s imperative for the U.S. to implement robust measures to defend against the rising threat of cyber weapons and update the almost decade-old energy sector plan. Originally published by The Washington Times Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Chinese Hackers Infiltrate America’s Critical Infrastructure appeared first on The Daily Signal.

“Happy Days” thought they had a great idea for juicing ratings back in 1977‚ featuring an episode where “the Fonz” jumped a real-life shark on water skis. It didn’t do much for the ratings of the show‚ but it did help coin a phrase. Today‚ “jumping the shark” denotes when something popular reaches a point where it may have exhausted most good ideas‚ so it does something so far-fetched or exaggerated to gain attention that it may indicate a peak and is now headed toward decline. Recently‚ Google unveiled an artificial intelligence image generation program that generated a huge amount of ridicule through an uproariously absurd mishandling of people’s races. While much hilarity ensued from Google’s misstep‚ the internet giant has nothing on public education‚ which has managed to emulate people racing through a minefield on pogo sticks for decades on racial issues. Google debuted an AI image generation program and decided to program it in such a way that it would not generate the image of a Caucasian‚ regardless of how hard anyone tried. As you might imagine‚ hilarity quickly ensued as users shared images that the program had generated of “the pope” that were South Asian women‚ Nazi soldiers who were black‚ and much‚ much more. After being on the raw end of a great deal of ridicule‚ Google suspended the image generation of people and mumbled something about readdressing its algorithm. Sadly‚ this occurred before your author could ask for a “Fonz jumping the shark” image. Yet public education’s racial algorithm has not been so quick to update. Unlike Google’s image of a Zulu chief as George Washington and other such absurdities‚ the ongoing racial problems of public education have very serious consequences and come in a wide variety. The list of race-based controversies in public schooling would be a proper topic for an encyclopedia rather than an essay‚ but de jure segregation by race in the past and de facto segregation by neighborhood today would sit at the top of the list. Performative and absurd curriculum that is focused more on performative indoctrination than substantive progress has been moving up the list recently. Rather than address real issues like racial achievement gaps‚ many districts seem eager to sweep them under a rug while pretending to address them. See‚ for instance‚ a recent controversial curriculum decision in Minnesota. Minnesota has been updating its social studies curriculum and included the following: Ways of Knowing and Methodologies: The student will use ethnic and indigenous studies methods and sources in order to understand the roots of contemporary systems of oppression and apply lessons from the past in order to eliminate historical and contemporary injustices. I’m happy to be of assistance in helping Minnesota’s public school system understand some of its historical and contemporary injustices. It has famously had a huge achievement gap between black and white students. On the 2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress‚ also known as the Nation’s Report Card‚ fourth grade black students in Minnesota have reading scores that one might expect first grade white students to achieve. Moreover‚ things have been getting worse rather than better—black fourth grade reading scores declined almost two grade levels between 2013 and 2022. “Contemporary systems of oppression” are in the eye of the beholder. I’m not sure whether the Nation’s Report Card qualifies as “indigenous studies methods and sources” but it does represent a highly esteemed data source. If Minnesota officials would prefer to indoctrinate their students rather than teaching them to read‚ a mirror will quickly reveal the oppressors of their students. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Google AI’s Attempt to ‘Solve’ Racial ‘Injustice’ Highlights Left’s Wrongheaded Approach to Race appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There are some dog breeds that stand out above the rest in terms of popularity. In the US‚ the number one most registered dog is Labrador Retrievers‚ a title they've held for decades‚ according to the American Kennel Club. Joybird decided to look not at registered dogs‚ but rather internet searches to analyze what breeds pique the most interest state-by-state. You may think that Californians are... Source

They might be one of the most iconic rock bands of the last forty years‚ but for KISS‚ those decades on the world stage have been anything but boring. Newcomers to rock might only know them for their make-up and costumes‚ but hardcore fans know that with fame comes rumors‚ myths‚ and scandals. As KISS embarks on their final farewell tour‚ stop here first and find out everything you didn' Source

Vultures often get a bad rap because they eat decaying flesh‚ have a creepy appearance‚ and seem to soar overhead for hours just waiting for animals to die. But the truth is that vultures are nature's clean-up crew and are a very important part of the earth's ecological system. There are many reasons why vultures don't deserve the reputation they have. After reading this article‚ we' Source

It's Almost Spring‚ But Both Parties Act Like Winter Is Coming

Biden: You Sanctuary Cities Should Be Cooperating With ICE‚ You Know

The liberal media were up in arms Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the legal question of presidential immunity. Too busy trying to tear down American institutions and delegitimize the court‚ the liberal media didn’t want to mention that Special Counsel Jack Smith literally asked the court earlier this month to take up his case. But the facts didn’t matter to the liberal ladies of ABC’s The View as they collectively attacked the court and flaunted their profound ignorance of the high court’s duties. Obviously ignorant of the fact that legal cases were pre-selected ahead of a session and new cases that come up during a SCOTUS session often got pushed to the next one‚ co-host Joy Behar falsely suggested that the justices were “kicking the can down the road” because the hearing would be in April. “What is their motivation for not doing it right away?” Behar asked staunchly racist and anti-Semitic co-host Sunny Hostin (the descendant of slave owners) who was once a federal prosecutor. Hostin steered clear of the truth and proposed a sinister motive from the conservative justices‚ without evidence‚ that they just wanted to help former President Trump (Click “expand”): HOSTIN: Well‚ unfortunately‚ some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he‚ God forbid‚ becomes the president of the United States – BEHAR: Pooh‚ pooh. HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict‚ nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free – GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail. HOSTIN: But it's his get-out-of-jail-free card.     Ignoring the dissimilarities in how critical time was‚ Hostin tried to compare the timing of the immunity case to Bush v. Gore in 2000. Being an election denier‚ Behar shouted: “That was the day democracy died!” “Well‚ it was certainly an injustice to many people‚” Hostin agreed. Moderator Whoopi Goldberg claimed the case was at least “choking” democracy. In reality‚ multiple recounts confirmed that President George W. Bush did‚ in fact‚ win the election. Eventually‚ Hostin admitted that even Trump “gets due process of law just like all of us.” “And so‚ if the Supreme Court takes it‚ they decide he does not have presidential immunity‚ now he gets convicted‚ he then can't on appeal say‚ ‘you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process‚’” she explained. Goldberg proclaimed that giving Trump due process was “a bad look” of the Supreme Court because – to her warped mind – being fair to Trump was them “showing favoritism.” Proudly flaunting her profound ignorance of what the duty of the court actually was‚ Goldberg bloviated that “there is no reason for them to actually take this case because the two lower courts” had already made rulings. “So if they were to…turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them‚” she said. The Supreme Court overturned lower court rulings all the time. According to The New York Times‚ a liberal paper Goldberg would likely trust‚ “From 2006 to 2015‚ the Supreme Court heard 160 cases from the Ninth Circuit‚ reversing 106 decisions and vacating 24…” And in 2017‚ the First‚ Third‚ and Sixth Circuit Courts each had 100 percent of their rulings reversed. Earlier in the month‚ ABC chief Washington correspondent Jon Karl noted that SCOTUS‚ including Trump-appointed justices‚ had ruled against him multiple times on election matters. Behar couldn’t take talking about the court treating Trump fairly anymore. “I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe‚ we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not!” she shouted. “There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country!” The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: ABC’s The View February 29‚ 2024 11:04:32 a.m. Eastern (…) JOY BEHAR: So‚ they’re basically kicking the can down the road‚ though. They're not taking up this case immediately. WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Right. BEHAR: So‚ what's their motivation then‚ if we all know they can't do what you just said because of the extreme power that a president would have‚ what is their motivation for not doing it right away? SUNNY HOSTIN: Well‚ unfortunately‚ some people are saying the motivation is that there are certain conservative justices that have been appointed by Trump that want to help him. Because we know the end result is if this case is not resolved by the time of the election and he‚ God forbid‚ becomes the president of the United States – BEHAR: Pooh‚ pooh. HOSTIN: — the Justice Department policy is you cannot indict‚ nor put on trial a sitting president. Right? And so it's his get out of jail free – GOLDBERG: He can throw him in jail. HOSTIN: But it's his get out of jail free card. GOLDBERG: No‚ no. I’m saying Biden could throw him – See? This is a slippery slope‚ because if they give him this immunity -- BEHAR: What's good for the goose is good for Joe Biden. HOSTIN: What I also will say is: they're listening to these arguments in April. The end of their term is June. Right? They return again‚ I believe‚ in October. The Bush v. Gore case happened real quick. [Rhythmically snapping her fingers] Do you remember that? The Supreme Court knows how to work real fast. BEHAR: That was the day democracy died! HOSTIN: Well‚ it was certainly an injustice to many people. GOLDBERG: It was choking it! BEHAR: It’s on its way. (…) 11:10:53 a.m. Eastern HOSTIN: He gets due process of law just like all of us. And so‚ if the Supreme Court takes it‚ they decide he does not have presidential immunity‚ now he gets convicted‚ he then can't on appeal say‚ “you got to let me out of jail because I didn't get due process.” So‚ that's how I'm trying to look at this; in a very positive way. BEHAR: That's why they took it in the first place. ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN: But – And I think that's right. HOSTIN: I think that's maybe why they took it. GOLDBERG: I think it's a bad -- it's a bad look for them. It's a very bad -- HOSTIN: To take it? GOLDBERG: To have taken this‚ yes. Because this‚ you know‚ in some of their other rulings‚ which I’ve wondered about‚ you know‚ people say‚ “Well‚ you know‚ we don't want it to look like we're showing favoritism so looking at it in a very deep way.” And suddenly now it doesn't feel like they're looking at it in a deep way; this feels like‚ “Ooo‚ we got to help him do this.” And that's what I don't like about it. Because there is no -- I mean there is no reason for them to actually take this case‚ because the two lower courts said‚ “Listen‚ this is what it is.” This -- and so if they were to turn it -- turn against what the two lower courts thought – I think this is very bad for them. HOSTIN: It was -- GOLDBERG: Or looks bad for them. HOSTIN: It wasn't shocking to me that they took it because they took so long to grant it – GOLDBERG: See‚ it feels like they just did this the other day. HOSTIN: Yeah‚ no. It took some time. BEHAR: I have to say‚ I find it very depressing. I find it depressing. GOLDBERG: Oh‚ don't be depressed. FARAH GRIFFIN: Can I say one thing? BEHAR: I find it depressing because I feel like not only are we alone in the universe‚ we're now alone in the country! We're supposed to rely on the Supreme Court to be up above reproach and they're not! [Crosstalk] GOLDBERG: But‚ wait a minute. They never have been – [Applause] HOSTIN: The chief justice knows that and cares about that sentiment and I agree with Alyssa – this is not going to – I mean Whoopi‚ they're not going to -- BEHAR: There is so much corruption in government right now! I feel like I'm in the wrong country! (…)

An MSNBC legal analyst and “misinformation expert” appeared worried that the unparalleled ease of communication that the modern internet allows threatens democracy. That’s why she suggested curbing the ability of regular citizens to use social media platforms in ways they see fit.  Appearing on Studio 2‚ a WHYY NPR radio show‚ MSNBC legal analyst and University of Michigan professor Barbara McQuade lamented that there wasn’t enough government regulation of social media and accused the right of running an authoritarian playbook‚ leading to “the slow erosion of democratic norms.” McQuade claimed that “technology and social media have created the ability to create falsehoods and to spread them to millions of people at the push of a button.”  McQuade also blamed a lack of government regulation for enabling the problem. “I think we have allowed the internet and social media to grow completely unchecked‚ and in some ways it’s been wonderful‚” Mcquade argued. She blamed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 for protecting social media companies from liability. She further complained that “it has also allowed all of this anonymity online‚ all of these manipulative algorithms online‚ all of this disinformation that can be used to exploit us as we communicate with people online.”    The professor went on to argue in favor of yet more government regulation of Big Tech platforms‚ specifically algorithms: “One is to regulate algorithms… We could control the algorithms. We could prohibit algorithms designed for the purpose of generating outrage. Or we could at least require disclosure of the algorithms so that people at least know they are being manipulated.” McQuade did not appear concerned that these regulations would at all infringe on the First Amendment. However‚ her past comments on the issue at the very least put her commitment to free speech into question.  While on The Rachel Maddow Show on Feb. 26‚ McQuade framed the First Amendment as a liability putting the United States at a disadvantage compared to other countries. As reported by the New York Post‚ McQuade explained to host Rachel Maddow‚ “So‚ for example‚ our deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. It is a cherished right. It is an important right in democracy‚ and nobody wants to get rid of it‚ but it makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship.”  MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade: “Our First Amendment … makes us vulnerable to claims that anything we try to do to regulate speech is censorship.” pic.twitter.com/MvoxGQr2yz — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 29‚ 2024 Notably‚ all of McQuade’s examples of misinformation being abused in the Studio 2 podcast came from the political right. She even claimed‚ without evidence‚ that former President Donald Trump and “the far-right MAGA extremists” used disinformation because “they don’t believe they can win in a fair election‚ so through gerrymandering and through disinformation and through voter suppression‚ they are willing to seize power and give up democracy.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.