|
Now that Samsung has jumped into the crowded AI-powered glasses arena alongside Apple, Google, Meta, and others, CISOs and IT leaders are again having to think through whether it makes sense to establish enterprise restrictions on such devices, given the likely data leakage and privacy and compliance issues.
And even if those tech leaders decide that such policies might make sense, the logistical hurdles to universally enforcing them outside the office are all but insurmountable.
For example, it is up to individual wearers to choose their device's settings, making it difficult for IT policies around data acquisition and usage to be enforced. Worse, AI devices have a history of ignoring guardrails. That means that a setting that limits how data is used may not necessarily be obeyed.
One possible mitigating factor is that smart glasses typically have a light on the frame that activates whe
|
|
A Times examination details how the Silicon Valley giant used private talks with local officials to start a project big enough to cover nearly six square miles.
|
|
A US federal court has approved Anthropic's $1.5 billion settlement in a class-action lawsuit in which authors accused the AI company of using their books without permission to train the AI model Claude. This is the largest such settlement to date in a US copyright case, according to Reuters.
The dispute is one of several legal cases in which copyright holders sued AI companies over how large language models (LLMs) were trained, and it is the first major AI-related copyright dispute in the US to be resolved through a settlement.
A judge had previously ruled that the actual training of AI models using books falls under the "fair use" doctrine in US copyright law. But Anthropic was found to have violated the law by storing more than 7 million pirated books in a central library, regardless of whether they were later used for AI training or not.
|
|
