前国会候选人被控非法使用FTX现金资助失败的竞选活动

币界网Опубліковано о 2024-08-22Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

美国司法部今天指控前国会候选人米歇尔·邦德违反竞选财务法,她是前FTX高管瑞安·萨拉梅的合伙人。

该机构周四声称,45岁的邦德非法资助了她2022年竞选国会的失败,从FTX获得了40万美元,这是Salame安排的虚假咨询协议。邦德正在竞选代表纽约第一个国会选区。

就在昨天,Salame要求一名美国法官阻止对Bond的起诉,并重新考虑自己的定罪。

今年5月,萨拉梅因共谋非法政治捐款和欺诈联邦选举委员会而被判处90个月监禁。他曾担任FTX Digital Markets的首席执行官,该公司是2022年破产的犯罪管理加密货币交易所的巴哈马子公司。

纽约南区联邦检察官达米安·威廉姆斯在一份声明中表示:“正如所指控的那样,米歇尔·邦德和她的同谋浪漫伴侣试图通过非法使用公司金库和其他来源的数十万美元来资助她竞选美国众议院,然后向国会和其他人撒谎来掩盖这一切。”。

这些指控是阴谋造成非法竞选捐款的一项罪名;一项导致和接受过多竞选捐款的罪名;一项导致和接受非法公司出资的罪名;根据起诉书,还有一项导致和接受管道捐款的指控。

FTX曾经是加密货币领域最知名的品牌之一,但在2022年11月意外破产。其联合创始人兼前首席执行官Sam Bankman Fried因欺诈和不当管理交易所而被捕、被指控,后来被判入狱。他将服刑25年。

由Ryan Ozawa编辑。

Пов'язані матеріали

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit1 год тому

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit1 год тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1 год тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1 год тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片