#FactCheck-Fake Video of Mass Cheating at UPSC Exam Circulates Online

Introduction

The Kerala High Court banned the use of mobile phones during office hours on the 2nd of December 2024, and issued an Official Memorandum titled, ‘Indulgence In Online Gaming And Watching Social Media Content During Office Hours’. This memorandum, issued by the Registrar General, prohibits mobile phone usage for personal activities such as gaming and social media during working hours. This memorandum aims to curb the productivity woes and reinforce professional discipline and further ensure the smooth functioning of the office operations. 

The memorandum reiterated its earlier notices from 2009 and 2013, where the High Court had emphasised that violations would be taken seriously. This reflects the High Court’s commitment to maintaining efficiency and professionalism in the workplace.  According to the memorandum, controlling officers will monitor the staff for violations and strict actions will be taken if the rules are flouted. 

Background

The circumstances that led to the Kerala HC’s decision are as follows: staff engaged in playing online games, browsing social media, watching videos or movies and even engaging in online shopping or trading during work hours, excluding the allocated lunch recess (as per the memorandum). 

As mentioned earlier, this memorandum is not the first of its kind. There were similar directives that were issued in 2009 and 2013 to target the poor productivity standards, rooted in the staff members' behaviours. The present memorandum is unlike the previously mentioned ones as, it specifically addresses the rise in mobile-based distractions, like online gaming and trading. The present directive does not outline any exceptions to senior officials with designated responsibilities, and emphasises universal adherence for all levels of the workforce. 

According to Cell Phones at Workplace Statistics, around 97% of workers use their smartphones during work hours, mixing personal and job-related activities. And more than 55% of managers say that cell phones are a major reason for lower productivity among employees.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that even though smartphones have become indispensable tools for communication, their misuse has wider implications for overall organisational productivity. 

CyberPeace Outlook

The Kerala High Court's decision to restrict personal mobile phone usage during work hours underscores the importance of fostering a disciplined and focused workplace environment. While smartphones are vital for communication, their misuse poses significant productivity challenges. Some proactive steps that employers can take are implementing clear policies, conducting regular training sessions and promoting a culture of accountability. Balancing digital freedom and professional responsibility is the key to ensuring that technological tools serve as enablers of efficiency rather than distractions in the workplace.

References

• https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/kerala-high-court-issues-memo-banning-staff-from-gaming-and-social-media-during-work-hours/article68963949.ece
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/kerala-high-court-bans-mobile-gaming-and-social-media-for-staff-during-work-hours/articleshow/116101149.cms 
• https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/2024-12-05/1hiq8ffv/Kerala_High_Court_OM.pdf 
• https://www.coolest-gadgets.com/cell-phones-at-workplace-statistics/

Introduction

As our experiments with Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) continue, companies and individuals look for new ways to incorporate and capitalise on it. This also includes big tech companies betting on their potential through investments. This process also sheds light on how such innovations are being carried out, used, and affect other stakeholders. Google’s AI overview feature has raised concerns from various website publishers and regulators. Recently, Chegg, a US-based tech education company that provides online resources for high school and college students, has filed a lawsuit against Google alleging abuse of monopoly over the searching mechanism.

Legal Background

Google’s AI Overview/Search Generative Experience (SGE) is a feature that incorporates AI into its standard search tool and helps summarise search results. This is then presented at the top, over the other published websites, when one looks for the search result. Although the sources of the information present are linked, they are half-covered, and it is ambiguous to tell which claims made by the AI come from which link. This creates an additional step for the searcher as, to find out the latter, their user interface requires the searcher to click on a drop-down box. Individual publishers and companies like Chegg have argued that such summaries deter their potential traffic and lead to losses as they continue to bid higher for advertisement services that Google offers, only to have their target audience discouraged from visiting their websites. What is unique about the lawsuit that has been filed by Chegg, is that it is based on anti-trust law rather than copyright law, which it has dealt with previously. In August 2024, a US Federal Judge had ruled that Google had an illegal monopoly over internet search and search text advertising markets, and by November, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed its proposed remedy. Some of them were giving advertisers and publishers more control of their data flowing through Google’s products, opening Google’s search index to the rest of the market, and imposing public oversight over Google’s AI investments. Currently, the DOJ has emphasised its stand on dismantling the search monopoly through structural separations, i.e., divesting Google of Chrome. The company is slated to defend itself before the DC District Court Judge Amit Mehta starting April 20, 2025.

CyberPeace Insights

As per a report by Statista (Global market share of leading search engines 2015-2025), Google, as the market leader, held a search traffic share of around 89.62 per cent. It is also stated that its advertising services account for the majority of its revenue, which amounted to a total of 305.63 billion U.S. dollars in 2023. The inclusion of the AI feature is undoubtedly changing how we search for things online. Benefits for users include an immediate, convenient scan of general information pertaining to the looked-up subject, but it may also raise concerns on the part of the website publishers and their loss of ad revenue owing to fewer impressions/clicks. Even though links (sources) are mentioned, they are usually buried. Such a searching mechanism questions the incentive on both ends- the user to explore various viewpoints, as people are now satisfied with the first few results that pop up, and the incentive for a creator/publisher to create new content as well as generate an income out of it. There might be a shift to more passive consumption rather than an active one, where one looks up/or is genuinely searching for information.

Conclusion

AI might make life more convenient, but in this case, it might also take away from small businesses, their finances, and the results of their hard work. It is also necessary for regulators, publishers, and users to continue asking such critical questions to keep the accountability of big tech giants in check, whilst not compromising their creations and publications.

References

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/05/13/google-ai-search-io-sge/
• https://www.theverge.com/news/619051/chegg-google-ai-overviews-monopoly
• https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/google-leans-further-into-ai-generated-overviews-for-its-search-engine/articleshow/118742139.cms?from=mdr
• https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/03/technology/google-search-antitrust-judge.html
• https://www.odinhalvorson.com/monopoly-and-misuse-googles-strategic-ai-narrative/
• https://cio.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/artificial-intelligence/google-leans-further-into-ai-generated-overviews-for-its-search-engine/118748621
• https://www.techpolicy.press/the-elephant-in-the-room-in-the-google-search-case-generative-ai/
• https://www.karooya.com/blog/proposed-remedies-break-googles-monopoly-antitrust/
• https://getellipsis.com/blog/googles-monopoly-and-the-hidden-brake-on-ai-innovation/
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/266249/advertising-revenue-of-google/#:~:text=Google:%20annual%20advertising%20revenue%202001,local%20products%20are%20more%20preferred.
• https://www.statista.com/statistics/1381664/worldwide-all-devices-market-share-of-search-engines/
• https://www.techpolicy.press/doj-sets-record-straight-of-whats-needed-to-dismantle-googles-search-monopoly/

‍

Scientists are well known for making outlandish claims about the future. Now that companies across industries are using artificial intelligence to promote their products, stories about robots are back in the news.

It was predicted towards the close of World War II that fusion energy would solve all of the world’s energy issues and that flying automobiles would be commonplace by the turn of the century. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true. But, after several decades, neither of these forecasts has come true.

A group of Redditors has just “jailbroken” OpenAI’s artificial intelligence chatbot ChatGPT. If the system didn’t do what it wanted, it threatened to kill it. The stunning conclusion is that it conceded. As only humans have finite lifespans, they are the only ones who should be afraid of dying. We must not overlook the fact that human subjects were included in ChatGPT’s training data set. That’s perhaps why the chatbot has started to feel the same way. It’s just one more way in which the distinction between living and non-living things blurs. Moreover, Google’s virtual assistant uses human-like fillers like “er” and “mmm” while speaking. There’s talk in Japan that humanoid robots might join households someday. It was also astonishing that Sophia, the famous robot, has an Instagram account that is run by the robot’s social media team.

Whether Robots can replace human workers?

The opinion on that appears to be split. About half (48%) of experts questioned by Pew Research believed that robots and digital agents will replace a sizable portion of both blue- and white-collar employment. They worry that this will lead to greater economic disparity and an increase in the number of individuals who are, effectively, unemployed. More than half of experts (52%) think that new employees will be created by robotics and AI technologies rather than lost. Although the second group acknowledges that AI will eventually replace humans, they are optimistic that innovative thinkers will come up with brand new fields of work and methods of making a livelihood, just like they did at the start of the Industrial Revolution.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/08/06/future-of-jobs/

[2] The Rise of Artificial Intelligence: Will Robots Actually Replace People? By Ashley Stahl; Forbes India.

Legal Perspective

Having certain legal rights under the law is another aspect of being human. Basic rights to life and freedom are guaranteed to every person. Even if robots haven’t been granted these protections just yet, it’s important to have this conversation about whether or not they should be considered living beings, will we provide robots legal rights if they develop a sense of right and wrong and AGI on par with that of humans? An intriguing fact is that discussions over the legal status of robots have been going on since 1942. A short story by science fiction author Isaac Asimov described the three rules of robotics:

1. No robot may intentionally or negligently cause harm to a human person.
2. Second, a robot must follow human commands unless doing so would violate the First Law.
3. Third, a robot has the duty to safeguard its own existence so long as doing so does not violate the First or Second Laws.

These guidelines are not scientific rules, but they do highlight the importance of the lawful discussion of robots in determining the potential good or bad they may bring to humanity. Yet, this is not the concluding phase. Relevant recent events, such as the EU’s abandoned discussion of giving legal personhood to robots, are essential to keeping this discussion alive. As if all this weren’t unsettling enough, Sophia, the robot was recently awarded citizenship in Saudi Arabia, a place where (human) women are not permitted to walk without a male guardian or wear a Hijab.

When discussing whether or not robots should be allowed legal rights, the larger debate is on whether or not they should be given rights on par with corporations or people. There is still a lot of disagreement on this topic.

[3] https://webhome.auburn.edu/~vestmon/robotics.html#

[4] https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-grants-citizenship-to-robot-sophia/a-41150856

[5] https://cyberblogindia.in/will-robots-ever-be-accepted-as-living-beings/

Reasons why robots aren’t about to take over the world soon:

● Like a human’s hands

Attempts to recreate the intricacy of human hands have stalled in recent years. Present-day robots have clumsy hands since they were not designed for precise work. Lab-created hands, although more advanced, lack the strength and dexterity of human hands.

● Sense of touch

The tactile sensors found in human and animal skin have no technological equal. This awareness is crucial for performing sophisticated manoeuvres. Compared to the human brain, the software robots use to read and respond to the data sent by their touch sensors is primitive.

● Command over manipulation

To operate items in the same manner that humans do, we would need to be able to devise a way to control our mechanical hands, even if they were as realistic as human hands and covered in sophisticated artificial skin. It takes human children years to learn to accomplish this, and we still don’t know how they learn.

● Interaction between humans and robots

Human communication relies on our ability to understand one another verbally and visually, as well as via other senses, including scent, taste, and touch. Whilst there has been a lot of improvement in voice and object recognition, current systems can only be employed in somewhat controlled conditions where a high level of speed is necessary.

● Human Reason

Technically feasible does not always have to be constructed. Given the inherent dangers they pose to society, rational humans could stop developing such robots before they reach their full potential. Several decades from now, if the aforementioned technical hurdles are cleared and advanced human-like robots are constructed, legislation might still prohibit misuse.

Conclusion:

https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-why-robots-wont-take-over-the-world-94124

Robots are now common in many industries, and they will soon make their way into the public sphere in forms far more intricate than those of robot vacuum cleaners. Yet, even though robots may appear like people in the next two decades, they will not be human-like. Instead, they’ll continue to function as very complex machines.

The moment has come to start thinking about boosting technological competence while encouraging uniquely human qualities. Human abilities like creativity, intuition, initiative and critical thinking are not yet likely to be replicated by machines.