Glad my complaint to the BBC on the QT panel got some airtime on Newswatch. Less pleased with the #BBC response which completely skirted the make up of the panel. https://t.co/LX1VnnDeeY
@carolecadwalla@thenerve_news You need a forensic look at DSIT. They have skirted numerous FOIs re conflict of interest. e.g. the PMs main advisor on AI most likely holds shares in OpenAI, yet DSIT can neither ‘confirm nor deny’. The SoS’s partner also works for an investment firm that invest in tech stocks.
@thewittjones@ISM_music It’s a clear breach of their own editorial guidelines therefore I’ve complained to the BBC. I encourage others to do the same https://t.co/h1sqv3D3k7
@bbcquestiontime This is v poor from #bbcqt What happened to a balanced panel representing all views? Not one representative from the sector currently at the coal face - the creative arts 😡
@SaintsExtra This really isn't diffcult. It doesn't matter that no sporting advantage was gained, they undertook an action with the intention of doing just that (multiple times), otherwise, why do it? The fact the club tried to use this as a defence is embarrassingly incompetent.
@SouthamptonFC The 'Leeds/£200k' argument is flawed - there was no rule to break in 2019! Fines/point deductions are no penalty in a knockout competition! As for 'costing us £200m'..erm, small matter of winning the final? No mention of reimbursing their fans for travel/accom? Very poor comms
@AdamAzor@MarkJLittlewood Fines & points deductions are logical in a league environment as have a sporting impact on the offending club. They have no effect in a knockout format, for which there is objective legal precedence.
@ednewtonrex Will do Ed. FYI, found this on the Ministerial Register of Interest for @leicesterliz 'A family member (partner) works for an investment firm which invests in UK technology and services companies'. Astounding no serious journalist is looking at all this @ChrisMasonBBC@Peston
@FT Tip of the Iceberg. I’ve submitted 3 x FOIs for senior DSIT personalities. All 3 were declined on grounds of ‘personal data’, odd given I requested a simple ‘yes or no’ answer, (not personal data). I’ve complained to the ICO, whose government sponsor is…you guessed it….DSIT….
@Peston@KanishkaNarayan@Peston did you ask what it will train on? Presumably not copyrighted material in the UK as this is against UK law and a potential misuse of public money?
@KanishkaNarayan@Peston@BritishBBank@UKSovereignAI Given (as you state) this ‘reinventing’ is happening in the UK, please can you confirm that @IneffableLabs do not train their products on copyrighted material, as this is against the law in the UK and hence a potential misuse of public money. Perhaps @Peston could ask?
@UKSovereignAI@IneffableLabs Are you able to confirm that @IneffableLabs products do not train on copyrighted material (as this is against the law in the UK) and therefore a mis-use of public money. Thanks.
@KanishkaNarayan It’s great hear you take public consultation so seriously. I look forward to you following the overwhelming public sentiment in the AI & Copyright consultation.