Farmers in Kenya are using artificial intelligence to help them get better crop yields. An AI-powered tool – called Virtual Agronomist – engages directly with farmers to help them create tailored plans to optimize the quality and quantity of their crops. Mohammed Yusuf has more from Mwea, Kenya.
…

NEW YORK — Nick Pickles, the former head of global affairs at Elon Musk’s social media platform X, is joining forces with one of Musk’s rivals, his fellow OpenAI co-founder Sam Altman.

Pickles, who resigned from X in September, told Reuters on Wednesday that he will serve as chief policy officer for Altman’s Tools for Humanity, the company building the technology to support World Network, formerly known as Worldcoin.

Pickles’ old boss, Musk, and his new boss, Altman, founded ChatGPT creator OpenAI in 2015 but have since fallen out in a messy legal dispute.

World Network, which has faced scrutiny over its data collection, is ramping up efforts to scan people’s irises, using its “orb” devices, to create World ID.

The ID will serve as a digital passport to prove, in the online realm, that its holder is an actual human being as opposed to an AI bot.

Pickles told Reuters that AI is “on the cusp” of overtaking traditional online defenses to determine whether a user is a real person, such as Captcha puzzles. Once AI can blow through those barriers, trust on the Web will further disintegrate.

“It’s imminent,” said Pickles. “Throughout my time at X and at Twitter, one of the consistent issues that kept coming up is, ‘Is this a real account or a bot?'” He added: “I saw every day how this issue is going to be central to the future of online interaction.”

During his 10 years at X, formerly known as Twitter, Pickles served most recently as the company’s top ambassador to heads of state across the globe. In that capacity, he worked closely with policymakers and regulators to shape regulatory proposals, negotiate compliance and represent the company in global forums.

He received a promotion at X in July.

One month later, billionaire Musk sued OpenAI and Altman for allegedly violating contract provisions that would have put the public good ahead of profits.

Pickles declined to comment on the litigation.

Pickles said he was optimistic about the new regulatory framework likely to be ushered in by the administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

His priority, he said, is hiring a lobbyist in Washington.
…

U.S. regulators want a federal judge to break up Google to prevent the company from continuing to squash competition through its dominant search engine after a court found it had maintained an abusive monopoly over the past decade.

The proposed breakup floated in a 23-page document filed late Wednesday by the U.S. Department of Justice calls for sweeping punishments that would include a sale of Google’s industry-leading Chrome web browser and impose restrictions to prevent Android from favoring its own search engine.

A sale of Chrome “will permanently stop Google’s control of this critical search access point and allow rival search engines the ability to access the browser that for many users is a gateway to the internet,” Justice Department lawyers argued in their filing.

Although regulators stopped short of demanding Google sell Android too, they asserted the judge should make it clear the company could still be required to divest its smartphone operating system if its oversight committee continues to see evidence of misconduct.

The broad scope of the recommended penalties underscores how severely regulators operating under President Joe Biden’s administration believe Google should be punished following an August ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that branded the company as a monopolist.

The Justice Department decision-makers who will inherit the case after President-elect Donald Trump takes office next year might not be as strident. The Washington, D.C., court hearings on Google’s punishment are scheduled to begin in April and Mehta is aiming to issue his final decision before Labor Day.

If Mehta embraces the government’s recommendations, Google would be forced to sell its 16-year-old Chrome browser within six months of the final ruling. But the company certainly would appeal any punishment, potentially prolonging a legal tussle that has dragged on for more than four years.

Besides seeking a Chrome spinoff and a corralling of the Android software, the Justice Department wants the judge to ban Google from forging multibillion-dollar deals to lock in its dominant search engine as the default option on Apple’s iPhone and other devices. It would also ban Google from favoring its own services, such as YouTube or its recently launched artificial intelligence platform, Gemini.

Regulators also want Google to license the search index data it collects from people’s queries to its rivals, giving them a better chance at competing with the tech giant. On the commercial side of its search engine, Google would be required to provide more transparency into how it sets the prices that advertisers pay to be listed near the top of some targeted search results.

Kent Walker, Google’s chief legal officer, lashed out at the Justice Department for pursuing “a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America’s global technology.” In a blog post, Walker warned the “overly broad proposal” would threaten personal privacy while undermining Google’s early leadership in artificial intelligence, “perhaps the most important innovation of our time.”

Wary of Google’s increasing use of artificial intelligence in its search results, regulators also advised Mehta to ensure websites will be able to shield their content from Google’s AI training techniques.

The measures, if they are ordered, threaten to upend a business expected to generate more than $300 billion in revenue this year.

“The playing field is not level because of Google’s conduct, and Google’s quality reflects the ill-gotten gains of an advantage illegally acquired,” the Justice Department asserted in its recommendations. “The remedy must close this gap and deprive Google of these advantages.”

It’s still possible that the Justice Department could ease off attempts to break up Google, especially if Trump takes the widely expected step of replacing Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, who was appointed by Biden to oversee the agency’s antitrust division.

Although the case targeting Google was originally filed during the final months of Trump’s first term in office, Kanter oversaw the high-profile trial that culminated in Mehta’s ruling against Google. Working in tandem with Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, Kanter took a get-tough stance against Big Tech that triggered other attempted crackdowns on industry powerhouses such as Apple and discouraged many business deals from getting done during the past four years.

Trump recently expressed concerns that a breakup might destroy Google but didn’t elaborate on alternative penalties he might have in mind. “What you can do without breaking it up is make sure it’s more fair,” Trump said last month. Matt Gaetz, the former Republican congressman that Trump nominated to be the next U.S. Attorney General, has previously called for the breakup of Big Tech companies.

Gaetz faces a tough confirmation hearing.

This latest filing gave Kanter and his team a final chance to spell out measures that they believe are needed to restore competition in search. It comes six weeks after Justice first floated the idea of a breakup in a preliminary outline of potential penalties.

But Kanter’s proposal is already raising questions about whether regulators seek to impose controls that extend beyond the issues covered in last year’s trial, and — by extension — Mehta’s ruling.

Banning the default search deals that Google now pays more than $26 billion annually to maintain was one of the main practices that troubled Mehta in his ruling.

It’s less clear whether the judge will embrace the Justice Department’s contention that Chrome needs to be spun out of Google and or Android should be completely walled off from its search engine.

“It is probably going a little beyond,” Syracuse University law professor Shubha Ghosh said of the Chrome breakup. “The remedies should match the harm, it should match the transgression. This does seem a little beyond that pale.”

Google rival DuckDuckGo, whose executives testified during last year’s trial, asserted the Justice Department is simply doing what needs to be done to rein in a brazen monopolist.

“Undoing Google’s overlapping and widespread illegal conduct over more than a decade requires more than contract restrictions: it requires a range of remedies to create enduring competition,” Kamyl Bazbaz, DuckDuckGo’s senior vice president of public affairs, said in a statement.

Trying to break up Google harks back to a similar punishment initially imposed on Microsoft a quarter century ago following another major antitrust trial that culminated in a federal judge deciding the software maker had illegally used his Windows operating system for PCs to stifle competition.

However, an appeals court overturned an order that would have broken up Microsoft, a precedent many experts believe will make Mehta reluctant to go down a similar road with the Google case. 
…

WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s top cleric has declared that virtual private networks, or VPNs, are unlawful, igniting a debate on privacy rights and access to information amid a government crackdown on the internet.

Allama Raghib Naeemi, head of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), issued a decree saying it makes no difference whether a VPN is registered or unregistered.

“If attempts are made to access indecent or immoral sites, character assassination is done, statements are being made against national security, or if various incidents of religious blasphemy are being spread through it, then [using] it would completely be un-Islamic,” he said.

A VPN protects online privacy by creating a secure connection and is used to access blocked content, protect data from hackers and support remote work or secure transactions.

Several internet service providers in Pakistan expressed concerns Tuesday over the possible imposition of blanket restrictions on VPNs, warning that the move would anger users and impact online businesses.

Shahzad Arshad, chairman of the Wireless and Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan, said in a statement, “It is essential to recognize that blanket restrictions or sweeping narratives around tools like VPNs risk alienating segments of society, particularly those who rely on these tools for entirely legitimate purposes, such as IT exports, financial transactions, and academic research.”

Arshad, in reference to CII’s declaration, said technology is neutral and that how it is used determines whether it is aligned with ethics.

Amnesty Tech, part of Amnesty International, said last week on X that imposing restrictions on VPNs would amount to “violating the right to privacy under international law, restricting people’s access to information, and suppressing free expression.”

Qibla Ayaz, former chairman of CII, told VOA Deewa it seems as if a government agency has reached out to the religious body seeking its stance on the VPN issue.

“Similar requests were sent by the government in 2023,” he said. 

The CII is a constitutional body in Pakistan that advises the legislature on whether a certain law is repugnant to Islam, namely to the Quran and Sunna.

According to activists and experts, CII’s declarations on technology use are unwarranted and will only strengthen the government’s digital suppression of social media users.

Haroon Baloch, a Pakistani digital rights activist, believes the proposed restrictions on VPNs are aimed at suppressing political dissent.

“First, the government had compliance challenges with X. And when the platform did not agree with the government’s requests, then it banned X. And when X was available with the help of VPN, the government is planning to ban the VPN now,” Haroon told VOA.

Pakistan banned X in February and installed firewalls to restrict access to certain online content. But consumers are using VPNs to access restricted networks and content and to hide their identities and locations. 

Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir told a gathering at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on November 16 that technology has played a pivotal role in the dissemination of information, but “the spread of misleading and incorrect information has become a significant challenge.”

In a speech to religious leaders in Islamabad earlier in August, Munir said, “Anarchy is spread through social media.”

A directive in October from the Interior Ministry asked the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to block “illegal” VPNs that had not registered by the end of November.

The Interior Ministry charged in a letter to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, which oversees the internet and mobile industry and has broad powers over online content and the licensing of service providers, that terrorists are increasingly using VPNs to facilitate violent activities and financial transactions in Pakistan.

“Of late, an alarming fact has been identified, wherein VPNs are used by terrorists to obscure and conceal their communications,” the letter said, adding that pornography sites are frequently accessed using VPNs.

“These trends … warrant the prohibition of unauthorized virtual private networks in order to address critical threats,” the letter said.

The 2024 “Freedom on the Net” report published by Freedom House says the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has historically implemented policies that undermine internet freedom, removed content without a transparent process and instituted wholesale bans on platforms.

This story originated in VOA’s Deewa Service.
…

WASHINGTON — Pakistan’s top cleric has declared that virtual private networks, or VPNs, are unlawful, igniting a debate on privacy rights and access to information amid a government crackdown on the internet.

Allama Raghib Naeemi, head of the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII), issued a decree saying it makes no difference whether a VPN is registered or unregistered.

“If attempts are made to access indecent or immoral sites, character assassination is done, statements are being made against national security, or if various incidents of religious blasphemy are being spread through it, then [using] it would completely be un-Islamic,” he said.

A VPN protects online privacy by creating a secure connection and is used to access blocked content, protect data from hackers and support remote work or secure transactions.

Several internet service providers in Pakistan expressed concerns Tuesday over the possible imposition of blanket restrictions on VPNs, warning that the move would anger users and impact online businesses.

Shahzad Arshad, chairman of the Wireless and Internet Service Providers Association of Pakistan, said in a statement, “It is essential to recognize that blanket restrictions or sweeping narratives around tools like VPNs risk alienating segments of society, particularly those who rely on these tools for entirely legitimate purposes, such as IT exports, financial transactions, and academic research.”

Arshad, in reference to CII’s declaration, said technology is neutral and that how it is used determines whether it is aligned with ethics.

Amnesty Tech, part of Amnesty International, said last week on X that imposing restrictions on VPNs would amount to “violating the right to privacy under international law, restricting people’s access to information, and suppressing free expression.”

Qibla Ayaz, former chairman of CII, told VOA Deewa it seems as if a government agency has reached out to the religious body seeking its stance on the VPN issue.

“Similar requests were sent by the government in 2023,” he said. 

The CII is a constitutional body in Pakistan that advises the legislature on whether a certain law is repugnant to Islam, namely to the Quran and Sunna.

According to activists and experts, CII’s declarations on technology use are unwarranted and will only strengthen the government’s digital suppression of social media users.

Haroon Baloch, a Pakistani digital rights activist, believes the proposed restrictions on VPNs are aimed at suppressing political dissent.

“First, the government had compliance challenges with X. And when the platform did not agree with the government’s requests, then it banned X. And when X was available with the help of VPN, the government is planning to ban the VPN now,” Haroon told VOA.

Pakistan banned X in February and installed firewalls to restrict access to certain online content. But consumers are using VPNs to access restricted networks and content and to hide their identities and locations. 

Pakistan Army Chief General Asim Munir told a gathering at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute on November 16 that technology has played a pivotal role in the dissemination of information, but “the spread of misleading and incorrect information has become a significant challenge.”

In a speech to religious leaders in Islamabad earlier in August, Munir said, “Anarchy is spread through social media.”

A directive in October from the Interior Ministry asked the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to block “illegal” VPNs that had not registered by the end of November.

The Interior Ministry charged in a letter to the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, which oversees the internet and mobile industry and has broad powers over online content and the licensing of service providers, that terrorists are increasingly using VPNs to facilitate violent activities and financial transactions in Pakistan.

“Of late, an alarming fact has been identified, wherein VPNs are used by terrorists to obscure and conceal their communications,” the letter said, adding that pornography sites are frequently accessed using VPNs.

“These trends … warrant the prohibition of unauthorized virtual private networks in order to address critical threats,” the letter said.

The 2024 “Freedom on the Net” report published by Freedom House says the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has historically implemented policies that undermine internet freedom, removed content without a transparent process and instituted wholesale bans on platforms.

This story originated in VOA’s Deewa Service.
…

Artificial intelligence was much discussed and demonstrated at the Africa Tech Festival in Cape Town, South Africa earlier this month. The conference highlighted how technology is changing industries on the continent. Vicky Stark filed this report.
…

The rise of AI tools like ChatGPT has sparked debate in higher education, raising questions about ethics and integrity in teaching, learning and knowledge creation. In South Africa, some academic institutions are taking a proactive approach, integrating AI into their curricula. Experts say this step is not only innovative but also helps level the playing field among students. Zaheer Cassim reports from Johannesburg.
…

BEIJING/HONG KONG — A 22-year-old Chinese woman’s account of how she was lured into the country’s illegal surrogacy industry before suffering a miscarriage went viral on Chinese social media this week and raised heated debates over women’s rights and social inequality. 

Surrogacy is banned in China, and authorities have vowed to severely crack down on illegal practices, including the buying and selling of sperm, egg and surrogacy services. 

The incident comes as Chinese authorities grapple with how to increase the country’s birth rate as more young couples put off having children or opt to have none. 

China’s population fell for a second consecutive year in 2023 and Beijing in October rallied local governments to direct resources towards fixing China’s population crisis to create a “birth-friendly” society.  

Zhang Jing, 22, told state-backed Phoenix TV magazine that she donated her eggs out of financial desperation and then agreed to “rent out her uterus” to be impregnated for a total of 30,000 yuan ($4,152).  

If she “successfully” delivered the baby, she would be paid a total of 240,000 yuan. At five months pregnant, she experienced severe complications and had to have an abortion.  

Zhang’s story amassed more than 86 million views and 10,000 comments on Chinese social media platform Weibo, with the hashtag “#2000s-born Surrogate Miscarriage Girl Speaks Out#.” 

The majority of comments strongly opposed surrogacy. Some warned that legalizing surrogacy in China could lead to increased competition that would lower compensation and further devalue women. 

“No woman could escape this if surrogacy were legalized,” one user wrote, while another said, “Legalizing surrogacy would drive down prices and commodify women.” 

Zhang’s story ignited calls for a more thorough crackdown on illegal surrogacy by authorities, with some commenters warning that allowing the black market to continue to operate could even normalize human organ trafficking.  

“Life should not be traded as a commodity,” one user wrote. “If this extends to the sale of organs, it will only get darker and darker, and women will have no future.” 

The incident comes a few weeks after a 28-year-old pregnant woman who acted as a surrogate in China’s southwestern city of Chengdu was allegedly abandoned by her surrogacy agency. 
…

DAEJEON, South Korea — Imagine a wheelchair equipped with wheels flexible enough to navigate all manner of obstacles from curbs to humps and even staircases.  

Or perhaps an unmanned delivery vehicle using the same wheels that takes the stairs to deliver food and groceries right to your door. 

This is what researchers from the Korea Institute of Machinery and Materials (KIMM) envision for their “morphing” wheel, which can roll over obstacles up to 1.3 times the height of its radius.  

Inspired by the surface tension of water droplets, it goes from solid to fluid when it encounters impediments. 

Other possible applications include robots that spy on the enemy in the battlefield. 

The KIMM team also hopes that morphing wheels will eventually be used with two- and four-legged robots – currently limited in movement efficiency and susceptible to vibration – that can carry payloads that need stable movement in industrial settings. 

“The goal is to make this viable for speed up to 100 kph, or the speed of an average car,” said Song Sung-hyuk, principal researcher at KIMM. 

Wheels developed for a similar purpose such as nonpneumatic or airless tires have flexibility but are limited in their ability to overcome obstacles, said Song, who is a member of KIMM’s AI robotics research team.  

The morphing wheel consists of an outer hoop of a chain and a series of spoke wires running through the hub. The stiffness of the spokes – and hence the wheel – is automatically regulated by a sensor as it reacts to the terrain. 

Song’s team demonstrated to Reuters a prototype wheelchair mounted on morphing wheels as it climbed stairs with 18-cm steps with a life-size dummy sitting in it. The team has also tested a device mounted with the wheel at speeds of up to 30 kph. 

The morphing wheel was featured on the cover of the journal Science Robotics in August.
…

MELBOURNE, Australia — How do you remove children from the harms of social media? Politically the answer appears simple in Australia, but practically the solution could be far more difficult.

The Australian government’s plan to ban children from social media platforms including X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram until their 16th birthdays is politically popular. The opposition party says it would have done the same after winning elections due within months if the government hadn’t moved first.

The leaders of all eight Australian states and mainland territories have unanimously backed the plan, although Tasmania, the smallest state, would have preferred the threshold was set at 14.

But a vocal assortment of experts in the fields of technology and child welfare have responded with alarm. More than 140 such experts signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemning the 16-year age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”

Details of what is proposed and how it will be implemented are scant. More will be known when legislation is introduced into the Parliament next week.

The concerned teen

Leo Puglisi, a 17-year-old Melbourne student who founded online streaming service 6 News Australia at the age of 11, laments that lawmakers imposing the ban lack the perspective on social media that young people have gained by growing up in the digital age.

“With respect to the government and prime minister, they didn’t grow up in the social media age, they’re not growing up in the social media age, and what a lot of people are failing to understand here is that, like it or not, social media is a part of people’s daily lives,” Leo said.

“It’s part of their communities, it’s part of work, it’s part of entertainment, it’s where they watch content – young people aren’t listening to the radio or reading newspapers or watching free-to-air TV – and so it can’t be ignored. The reality is this ban, if implemented, is just kicking the can down the road for when a young person goes on social media,” Leo added.

Leo has been applauded for his work online. He was a finalist in his home state Victoria’s nomination for the Young Australian of the Year award, which will be announced in January. His nomination bid credits his platform with “fostering a new generation of informed, critical thinkers.”

The grieving mom-turned-activist

One of the proposal’s supporters, cyber safety campaigner Sonya Ryan, knows from personal tragedy how dangerous social media can be for children.

Her 15-year-old daughter Carly Ryan was murdered in 2007 in South Australia state by a 50-year-old pedophile who pretended to be a teenager online. In a grim milestone of the digital age, Carly was the first person in Australia to be killed by an online predator.

“Kids are being exposed to harmful pornography, they’re being fed misinformation, there are body image issues, there’s sextortion, online predators, bullying. There are so many different harms for them to try and manage and kids just don’t have the skills or the life experience to be able to manage those well,” Sonya Ryan said.

“The result of that is we’re losing our kids. Not only what happened to Carly, predatory behavior, but also we’re seeing an alarming rise in suicide of young people,” she added.

Sonya Ryan is part of a group advising the government on a national strategy to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse in Australia.

She wholeheartedly supports Australia setting the social media age limit at 16.

“We’re not going to get this perfect,” she said. “We have to make sure that there are mechanisms in place to deal with what we already have which is an anxious generation and an addicted generation of children to social media.”

A major concern for social media users of all ages is the legislation’s potential privacy implications.

Age estimation technology has proved inaccurate, so digital identification appears to be the most likely option for assuring a user is at least 16.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, an office that describes itself as the world’s first government agency dedicated to keeping people safer online, has suggested in planning documents adopting the role of authenticator. The government would hold the identity data and the platforms would discover through the commissioner whether a potential account holder was 16.

The skeptical internet expert

Tama Leaver, professor of internet studies at Curtin University, fears that the government will make the platforms hold the users’ identification data instead.

The government has already said the onus will be on the platforms, rather than on children or their parents, to ensure everyone meets the age limit.

“The worst possible outcome seems to be the one that the government may be inadvertently pushing towards, which would be that the social media platforms themselves would end up being the identity arbiter,” Leaver said.

“They would be the holder of identity documents which would be absolutely terrible because they have a fairly poor track record so far of holding on to personal data well,” he added.

The platforms will have a year once the legislation has become law to work out how the ban can be implemented.

Ryan, who divides her time between Adelaide in South Australia and Fort Worth, Texas, said privacy concerns should not stand in the way of removing children from social media.

“What is the cost if we don’t? If we don’t put the safety of our children ahead of profit and privacy?” she asked. 
…