Nevada has a new helper in its quest to plow through a backlog of unemployment claims: Google AI. Gizmodo reports that the initiative will task one of the company’s cloud-based AI models with analyzing appeals hearing transcripts and suggesting whether cases should be approved. Welcome to the future, where a robot weighs in on whether you get the government money you requested.

The Nevada Independent wrote in June that the AI model, trained on the state’s unemployment law and policies, will analyze transcripts of virtual appeals hearings. It will then spit out a ruling, which a state employee will review for mistakes and decide whether to honor.

It replaces the current Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) process, which averages three hours for a real-life human to complete. Carl Stanfield, DETR’s IT administrator, told the Nevada Independent that Google’s AI (which uses the company’s Vertex cloud system) can rule within five minutes. “The time saving is pretty phenomenal,” Stanfield said.

It’s easy to understand why Nevada would be eager to lean on the emerging tech. As recently as June, the state reportedly had a backlog of over 10,000 unprocessed appeals, about 1,500 of which were left over from the pandemic. And if the tech’s reviews are accurate — or the human reviewers catch its mistakes — it could be an enormous timesaver.

However, there could be psychological pressure for the employees reviewing the cases to rubber-stamp the AI’s conclusions. “If a robot’s just handed you a recommendation and you just have to check a box and there’s pressure to clear out a backlog, that’s a little bit concerning,” Michele Evermore, a former deputy director for unemployment modernization policy at the Department of Labor, told Gizmodo.

Stanfield told Gizmodo that a governance committee will meet weekly while the state is fine-tuning the model and quarterly after it goes live to monitor for hallucinations and bias. The stakes could be high for claimants as the AI-powered system could affect their ability to appeal bogus decisions. “In cases that involve questions of fact, the district court cannot substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the appeal referee,” Elizabeth Carmona, a senior attorney with Nevada Legal Services, told Gizmodo. In other words, if the human reviewing the decision misses the AI’s mistakes, a court may not have the legal standing to overturn it.

One Nevada politician put it a bit more bluntly. “Are we out of our ever-loving minds?” NV state senator Skip Daly (D-Reno) said to the Nevada Independent this summer. “I’m just dubious of the whole concept of overreliance on algorithms and computers. I hope that we are cautious about it, and think before we just say, ‘We got to be faster or better than the next guy.’”

Meta’s Oversight Board has weighed in on its first Threads case and reversed the company’s initial decision and first appeal. Regarding a post about the outgoing Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, using a phrase that translates to “drop dead / die” in English, the board determined the phrase was used figuratively and not as a literal threat or call to violence.

The case was sparked by a Threads post showing a news article about Kishida and his reaction to his political party’s (ahem) “fundraising irregularities.” The caption criticized the Prime Minister, accusing him of tax evasion. The user’s reply demanded an explanation from the government leader and, calling him a tax evader, used the phrase “死ね,” or “drop dead / die.” The post also included “hah” and derogatory language about people who wear glasses. (Watch yourself there, partner!)

The post went largely unnoticed, with no likes. But someone reported it under Meta’s Bullying and Harassment rules. After three weeks, one of Meta’s reviewers determined it instead broke the Violence and Incitement rules. The user appealed, and another reviewer agreed with the first that it violated the policy. One more appeal teed up the issue for the board, which accepted the case and overruled the two human reviewers who removed it.

The Government of Japan

“In this case, the threat against a political leader was intended as non-literal political criticism calling attention to alleged corruption, using strong language, which is not unusual on Japanese social media,” Meta’s Oversight Board wrote in its explanation. “It was unlikely to cause harm.” The board considered the poster’s use of “hah” to help determine its figurative sense.

The board said that, despite speaking Japanese and understanding local content, the moderators who removed the post were “in error.” It recommends Meta clarify its internal guidelines and offer more guidance for reviewers on “how to evaluate language and local content.”

Meta’s Oversight Board added that the Violence and Incitement policy includes a rule prohibiting the phrase “death to” against “high-risk persons” isn’t clear enough. It said that while the company’s policy rationale suggests context matters in threat evaluation, its reviewers aren’t empowered to assess cases involving the “death to” phrase. The board echoed its 2022 recommendation for Meta to explain that rhetorical threats using the phrase are “generally allowed, except when directed at high-risk individuals, and to provide criteria on when threatening statements directed at heads of state are permitted to protect rhetorical political speech.”

Further, the board recommended that Meta clarify how the policy differs for “public figures” vs. “high-risk persons.” It calls out the confusion over why threats against public figures are only removed when “credible.” In contrast, those against others are axed “regardless of credibility.”

The Oversight Board has had a busy September after deciding on only 53 cases last year. Last week, it ruled that the phrase “From the River to the Sea” shouldn’t be banned and, in a case with some parallels to this one, it separated death threats from “aspirational statements” in Venezuela.

YouTube confirmed its termination of five right-wing political channels believed to be connected to the Department of Justice’s Russia-linked US media indictments this week. The platform pulled the channel of Tenet Media, which CNN reported to be the unnamed company implicated in the indictment. The DOJ accused Russian operatives of paying the media organization to spread disinformation designed to influence the 2024 US elections.

A YouTube spokesperson confirmed the takedown and provided a statement to Engadget. “Following an indictment from the US Department of Justice and after careful review, we are terminating the Tenet Media channel and four channels operated by its owner Lauren Chen as part of our ongoing efforts to combat coordinated influence operations,” the company statement reads.

According to YouTube, the investigation into the situation is ongoing, and the company will evaluate whether further actions are warranted as new information emerges. The company says it terminated over 4,000 YouTube channels in Q2 2024 as part of investigations into Russia-linked influence operations. YouTube works with Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG) to identify bad actors and deplatform their channels and accounts accordingly.

On Wednesday, the DOJ indicted two employees of RT (formerly Russia Today), a Kremlin-backed media outlet. They were accused of illegally funding a Tennessee-backed media organization, now all but officially confirmed as Tenet Media. DOJ prosecutors allege in the indictment that the media company’s founders knew their funding came from the Russian government. Tenet Media is owned by Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan.

The Washington Post reports that YouTube was Tenet’s preferred platform for spreading propaganda videos aimed at US conservatives and featuring popular right-wing pundits. Those working with the organization included Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Dave Rubin. The channels have even featured appearances from former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and RNC Chair Lara Trump. Pool and Rubin have reportedly denied knowledge that the Russian government was behind Tenet’s funding.

YouTube confirmed its termination of five right-wing political channels believed to be connected to the Department of Justice’s Russia-linked US media indictments this week. The platform pulled the channel of Tenet Media, which CNN reported to be the unnamed company implicated in the indictment. The DOJ accused Russian operatives of paying the media organization to spread disinformation designed to influence the 2024 US elections.

A YouTube spokesperson confirmed the takedown and provided a statement to Engadget. “Following an indictment from the US Department of Justice and after careful review, we are terminating the Tenet Media channel and four channels operated by its owner Lauren Chen as part of our ongoing efforts to combat coordinated influence operations,” the company statement reads.

According to YouTube, the investigation into the situation is ongoing, and the company will evaluate whether further actions are warranted as new information emerges. The company says it terminated over 4,000 YouTube channels in Q2 2024 as part of investigations into Russia-linked influence operations. YouTube works with Google’s Threat Analysis Group (TAG) to identify bad actors and deplatform their channels and accounts accordingly.

On Wednesday, the DOJ indicted two employees of RT (formerly Russia Today), a Kremlin-backed media outlet. They were accused of illegally funding a Tennessee-backed media organization, now all but officially confirmed as Tenet Media. DOJ prosecutors allege in the indictment that the media company’s founders knew their funding came from the Russian government. Tenet Media is owned by Chen and her husband, Liam Donovan.

The Washington Post reports that YouTube was Tenet’s preferred platform for spreading propaganda videos aimed at US conservatives and featuring popular right-wing pundits. Those working with the organization included Benny Johnson, Tim Pool and Dave Rubin. The channels have even featured appearances from former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and RNC Chair Lara Trump. Pool and Rubin have reportedly denied knowledge that the Russian government was behind Tenet’s funding.