美国司法部指控Ryan Salame的前女友违反竞选规则

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

币界网报道:

前FTX高管Ryan Salame的前女友Michelle Bond深陷法律困境。纽约联邦检察官对她提出指控,指控她在2022年竞选国会失败期间非法筹款。

这些指控是残酷的——据报道,米歇尔利用FTX基金为她的竞选活动提供资金,通过瑞安策划的阴暗交易汇集资金。

起诉书称,正在竞选纽约第一国会选区众议院席位的米歇尔从FTX获得了40万美元的预付款。现在倒闭的加密货币交易所每年承诺额外提供10万美元。

米歇尔竞选公职的资金显然几乎完全来自一开始就不应该有的资金。

曼哈顿联邦检察官达米安·威廉姆斯表示,这不是一起小规模犯罪。威廉姆斯指责米歇尔使用他所谓的“虚假”支付结构,用从各方面来看都是肮脏的资金来充实她的竞选资金。

据称,幕后男子瑞安在2022年6月至8月期间向米歇尔的个人银行账户汇款数十万美元。起诉书称,这笔钱随后被直接投入她的竞选活动,明显违反了联邦法律。

起诉书称:“整个计划旨在绕过法律渠道。”。就在解密的前一天,瑞安本人正在掀起法律浪潮,要求纽约联邦法官撤销他对竞选资金和金钱转移犯罪的认罪。

他的律师辩称,如果瑞安认罪,检方已承诺放弃对米歇尔的调查。现在,在米歇尔的显微镜下,很明显,这笔交易(如果存在的话)是不可能的。

Ryan和Michelle于2021年6月相识,并迅速成为加密货币世界的一对力量夫妻。到2022年初,他们已经公开联系在一起,他们的关系已经超越了个人层面——瑞安的影响力延伸到了米歇尔的政治野心。

起诉书明确指出,被称为CC-1的瑞安是阴谋的核心。正是他的关系和对FTX资金的访问使整个行动成为可能。

Michelle是华盛顿地区的一名律师,在所述期间还担任过一家数字资产交易集团的首席执行官。

今年6月,Michelle甚至推出了“数字未来”,这是一个旨在突破金融服务业界限的智库。在最近的一份声明中,她说:

“我一直支持创新,现在数字资产和人工智能行业比以往任何时候都更需要强有力的声音、研究和宣传,以引导他们建立有利的监管制度。”

与此同时,瑞安将于10月13日开始被判处7.5年监禁。除此之外,他还被命令支付600多万美元的没收金和500多万美元的赔偿金。

他最近试图放弃认罪,但遭到了严厉的批评。美国检察官威廉姆斯直言不讳,称瑞安的举动是“无耻和自私”的逃避责任的行为。

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.

marsbit2 год тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片