Connect with us

Business

Don’t water down Europe’s AI rules to please Trump, EU lawmakers warn

Published

on



Lawmakers who helped shape the European Union’s landmark AI Act are worried that the 27-member bloc is considering watering down aspects of the AI rules in the face of lobbying from U.S. technology companies and pressure from the Trump administration.

The EU’s AI Act was approved just over a year ago, but its rules for general-purpose AI models like OpenAI’s GPT-4o will only come into effect in August. Ahead of that, the European Commission—which is the EU’s executive arm—has tasked its new AI Office with preparing a code of practice for the big AI companies, spelling out how exactly they will need to comply with the legislation.

But now a group of European lawmakers, who helped to refine the law’s language as it passed through the legislative process, is voicing concern that the AI Office will blunt the impact of the EU AI Act in “dangerous, undemocratic” ways. The leading American AI vendors have amped up their lobbying against parts of the EU AI Act recently, and the lawmakers are also concerned that the Commission may be looking to curry favor with the Trump administration, which has already made it clear it sees the AI Act as anti-innovation and anti-American.

The EU lawmakers say the third draft of the code, which the AI Office published earlier this month, takes obligations that are mandatory under the AI Act and inaccurately presents them as “entirely voluntary.” These obligations include testing models to see how they might allow things like wide-scale discrimination and the spread of disinformation.

In a letter sent Tuesday to European Commission vice president and tech chief Henna Virkkunen, first reported by the Financial Times but published in full for the first time below, current and former lawmakers said making these model tests voluntary could potentially allow AI providers who “adopt more extreme political positions” to warp European elections, restrict freedom of information, and disrupt the EU economy.

“In the current geopolitical situation, it is more important than ever that the EU rises to the challenge and stands strong on fundamental rights and democracy,” they wrote.

Brando Benifei, who was one of the European Parliament’s lead negotiators on the AI Act text and the first signatory on this week’s letter, told Fortune Wednesday that the political climate may have something to do with the watering-down of the code of practice. The second Trump administration is antagonistic toward European tech regulation; Vice President JD Vance warned in a fiery speech at the Paris AI Action Summit in February that “tightening the screws on U.S. tech companies” would be a “terrible mistake” for European countries.

“I think there is pressure coming from the United States, but it would be very naive [to think] that we can make the Trump administration happy by going in this direction, because it would never be enough,” noted Benifei, who currently chairs the European Parliament’s delegation for relations with the U.S.

Benifei said he and other former AI Act negotiators had met with the Commission’s AI Office experts, who are drafting the code of practice, on Tuesday. On the basis of that meeting, he expressed optimism that the offending changes could be rolled back before the code is finalized.

“I think the issues we raised have been considered, and so there is space for improvement,” he said. “We will see that in the next weeks.”

Virkkunen had not provided a response to the letter, nor to Benifei’s comment about U.S. pressure, at the time of publication. However, she has previously insisted that the EU’s tech rules are fairly and consistently applied to companies from any country. Competition Commissioner Teresa Ribera has also maintained that the EU “cannot transact on human rights [or] democracy and values” to placate the U.S.

Shifting obligations

The key part of the AI Act here is Article 55, which places significant obligations on the providers of general-purpose AI models that come with “systemic risk”—a term that the law defines as meaning the model could have a major impact on the EU economy or has “actual or reasonably foreseeable negative effects on public health, safety, public security, fundamental rights, or the society as a whole, that can be propagated at scale.”

The act says that a model can be presumed to have systemic risk if the computational power used in its training “measured in floating point operations [FLOPs] is greater than 1025.” This likely includes many of today’s most powerful AI models, though the European Commission can also designate any general-purpose model as having systemic risk if its scientific advisors recommend doing so.

Under the law, providers of such models have to evaluate them “with a view to identifying and mitigating” any systemic risks. This evaluation has to include adversarial testing—in other words, trying to get the model to do bad things, to figure out what needs to be safeguarded against. They then have to tell the European Commission’s AI Office about the evaluation and what it found.

This is where the third version of the draft code of practice becomes problematic.

The first version of the code was clear that AI companies need to treat large-scale disinformation or misinformation as systemic risks when evaluating their models, because of their threat to democratic values and their potential for election interference. The second version didn’t specifically talk about disinformation or misinformation, but still said that “large-scale manipulation with risks to fundamental rights or democratic values,” such as election interference, was a systemic risk.

Both the first and second versions were also clear that model providers should consider the possibility of large-scale discrimination as a systemic risk.

But the third version only lists risks to democratic processes, and to fundamental European rights such as non-discrimination, as being “for potential consideration in the selection of systemic risks.” The official summary of changes in the third draft maintains that these are “additional risks that providers may choose to assess and mitigate in the future.”

In this week’s letter, the lawmakers who negotiated with the Commission over the final text of the law insisted that “this was never the intention” of the agreement they struck.

“Risks to fundamental rights and democracy are systemic risks that the most impactful AI providers must assess and mitigate,” the letter read. “It is dangerous, undemocratic and creates legal uncertainty to fully reinterpret and narrow down a legal text that co-legislators agreed on, through a Code of Practice.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Crypto giant Circle just filed for an IPO: Here are 5 key takeaways

Published

on



Circle Internet Financial, a leading U.S. crypto firm that issues the stablecoin USD Coin, filed long-anticipated paperwork for an initial public offering on Tuesday. The 225-page financial disclosure includes previously unreported insights into one of the world’s largest crypto firms, illustrating Circle’s outsized presence in the booming stablecoin space, as well as the risk factors that might give investors pause ahead of an IPO. 

Founded in 2013, Circle has attempted to go public before, resulting in a failed SPAC agreement in 2022 that cost the company over $44 million in costs, according to the S-1 filing.  But with the crypto industry ascendant in the U.S. thanks to the support of President Donald Trump, Circle is hoping that the second time is the charm—and boasts over $1.6 billion in revenue in 2024 to attract would-be investors. 

Although the document does not lay out a timeline for Circle’s public offering plans, companies’ shares typically begin trading within weeks of filing their S-1. Fortune previously reported that the fintech—which plans to trade under the ticker CRCL—is working with investment banks JP Morgan Chase and Citi on the IPO. Here are some key takeaways from the S-1 filing: 

Circle is growing—but its income depends entirely on stablecoin reserves

When Jeremy Allaire and Sean Neville cofounded Circle during the early days of the blockchain industry, they intended the company to disrupt the payments space, launching different products, including a crypto exchange and Venmo-type service. Around 2018, the firm began to focus entirely on stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency that is pegged to an underlying asset, such as the U.S. dollar or a commodity like gold or oil. 

Circle’s stablecoin USDC exploded in popularity during the last crypto bull market, rising from a market capitalization of under $1 billion in 2020 to over $50 billion in 2022. Because USDC is backed by dollar-like assets such as U.S. treasuries, Circle earns a hefty return on the interest generated by its reserves, keeping the revenue rather than passing it on to USDC holders. Those returns still represent the vast majority of Circle’s revenue. According to the S-1, over 99% of Circle’s $1.68 billion in revenue from 2024 came from reserve income, with just $15 million coming from other sources. 

That means that Circle is highly dependent on a single source of revenue—and one that is dependent on government-set interest rates. In the S-1, Circle estimated that just a 1% decrease in interest rates could result in a $441 million decrease in its stablecoin reserve income. However, Circle argued that a decrease in interest rates could result in a rise in USDC in circulation as investors turn to different financial strategies. “Any relationship between interest rates and USDC in circulation is complex, highly uncertain, and unproven,” reads the filing. 

Circle is paying Coinbase and Binance to boost USDC adoption

Circle originally envisioned USDC as a partnership between different crypto firms and traditional financial institutions, creating a consortium called Centre that would help govern and issue the stablecoin. But Centre only have had one other participant—the leading crypto exchange Coinbase. Circle and Coinbase shuttered Centre in 2023, though they remain partners on USDC. 

New disclosures from the S-1 reveal how the partnership shifted in 2023, with Coinbase taking a minority equity stake in Circle. Before the new agreement, Circle and Coinbase shared revenue generated from USDC reserves based on the amount distributed and held by each company. But under the new terms, the payments are more evenly split based on the total reserve income, though it is still divided by how much is held by each company’s wallets and custodial products.

Last December, Circle also announced a partnership with the top crypto exchange Binance to promote the adoption of USDC and hold the stablecoin as part the company’s treasury. According to the S-1, Circle paid Binance a one-time fee of $60.25 million for the partnership, as well as agreeing to pay a monthly fee representing a percentage of USDC held on Binance and its treasury.  

Circle is feeling the heat from competition

While USDC’s market cap has exploded over the past year, doubling from around $30 billion to $60 billion, it is facing a crowded marketplace. Along with its main rival—the offshore Tether, which boasts a market cap of over $140 billion—Circle lists a number of other competitors in its S-1. That includes PayPal, which launched its own stablecoin in 2023, and banking giants like J.P. Morgan that are exploring the blockchain space. 

Still, Circle sees bullish conditions ahead, including the passage of stablecoin legislation in the U.S. After the Senate Banking Committee advanced a bill in March, the House is expected to vote on its version this week, with Circle ready to benefit from more regulatory certainty. That could only invite more players into the space, however.

Circle’s venture capitalists are poised to cash in

Allaire, CFO Jeremy Fox-Geen, and more than ten other executives stand to reap millions from Circle’s forthcoming IPO. But the real winners are the investors in Circle who hold 5% or more in the company’s stock. Those include the venture capital firm General Catalyst, which owns the most shares among the biggest corporate holders. IDG Capital, a Beijing-based venture firm, is not far behind. Other big VCs set to cash in on the Circle IPO are Breyer Capital, Accel, and Oak Investment Partners. Fidelity, the investment bank that has dipped its toes more and more into crypto, is also a big owner.

Collectively, Circle’s biggest investors hold more than 130 million shares in the stablecoin giant. The initial filing did not include details about how much money Circle is targeting to raise through its IPO, though sources say the IPO aims for a valuation of $4 to $5 billion.

It pays to work at Circle

Circle’s executives make a pretty penny. Allaire, unsurprisingly, is the most well-compensated and has a total compensation package of more than $12 million. That’s $900,000 in base salary, $9 million in stock awards, plus another $2 million in other benefits.

Jeremy Fox-Geen, the CFO, is the second-most compensated exec and has a take-home pay of $5.2 million. That’s $500,000 in base pay, $4 million in stock awards, and another $700,000 in other benefits. Rounding out the top executives are Chief Strategic Engagement Officer Elisabeth Carpenter, President and Chief Legal Officer Heath Tarbert, and Chief Product and Technology Officer Nikhil Chandhok. All of them make in the range of $4 to $5 million, according to the SEC filing.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Will TikTok get banned again? Trump hints a U.S sell-off deal may arrive before the April 5 deadline after ‘tremendous interest’

Published

on



As the deadline to strike a deal over TikTok approaches this week, President Donald Trump has signaled that he is confident his administration can broker an agreement with ByteDance, the social media app’s China-based parent company.

Speaking with reporters on Air Force One late Sunday, Trump said that “there’s tremendous interest in Tiktok.” He added that he would “like to see TikTok remain alive.” The president’s comments came less than one week before an April deadline requiring ByteDance to divest or face a ban in the United States.

“We have a lot of potential buyers,” Trump said.

Trump also said that the administration is “dealing with China” who “also want it because they may have something to do with it.” Last week, Trump said he would consider a reduction in tariffs on China if that country’s government approves a sale of TikTok’s operations in the U.S.

Questions about the fate of the popular video sharing app have continued to linger since a law requiring ByteDance’s divestment took effect on Jan. 19. After taking office, Trump gave TikTok a 75-day reprieve by signing an executive order that delayed enforcement of the statute until April 5.

During his first term, Trump tried to ban TikTok on national security grounds, which was halted by the courts before his administration negotiated a sale of the platform that eventually failed to materialize. He changed his position on the popular app during last year’s presidential election and has credited the platform with helping him win more young voters.

“I won the young vote by 36 points. Republicans generally don’t do very well with the young vote,” he said Sunday. “I think a lot of it could have been TikTok.”

Trump has said that the deadline on a TikTok deal could be extended further if needed. He previously proposed terms in which the U.S. would have a 50% stake in a joint venture. The administration hasn’t provided details on what that type of deal would entail.

TikTok and ByteDance have not publicly commented on the talks. It’s also unclear if ByteDance has changed its position on selling TikTok, which it said early last year it does not plan to do.

What will happen on April 5?

If TikTok is not sold to an approved buyer by April 5, the original law that bans it nationwide would once again go into effect. However, the deadline for the executive order doesn’t appear to be set in stone and the president has reiterated it could be extended further if needed.

Trump’s order came a few days after the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal law that required ByteDance to divest or be banned in January. The day after the ruling, TikTok went dark for U.S. users and came back online after Trump vowed to stall the ban.

The decision to keep TikTok alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court.

Who wants to buy TikTok?

Although it’s unclear if ByteDance plans to sell TikTok, several potential bidders have come forward in the past few months.

Aides for Vice President JD Vance, who was tapped to oversee a potential deal, have reached out to some parties, such as the artificial intelligence startup Perplexity AI, to get additional details about their bids, according to a person familiar with the matter. In January, Perplexity AI presented ByteDance with a merger proposal that would combine Perplexity’s business with TikTok’s U.S. operation.

Other potential bidders include a consortium organized by billionaire businessman Frank McCourt, which recently recruited Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian as a strategic adviser. Investors in the consortium say they’ve offered ByteDance $20 billion in cash for TikTok’s U.S. platform. And if successful, they plan to redesign the popular app with blockchain technology they say will provide users with more control over their online data.

Jesse Tinsley, the founder of the payroll firm Employer.com, says he too has organized a consortium, which includes the CEO of the video game platform Roblox, and is offering ByteDance more than $30 billion for TikTok.

Trump said in January that Microsoft was also eyeing the popular app. Other interested parties include Trump’s former Treasury secretary Steve Mnuchin and Rumble, the video site popular with some conservatives and far-right groups. In a post on X last March, Rumble said it was ready to join a consortium of parties interested in purchasing TikTok and serving as a tech partner for the company.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

GM, Hyundai sales jump as Trump tariff fears spur car buying

Published

on



Automakers including General Motors Co. and Hyundai Motor Co. reported higher US auto sales as the threat of price hikes from President Donald Trump’s tariffs drove consumers to showrooms.

GM’s deliveries soared 17% in the first quarter, with a 15% gain in retail volume, the company said Tuesday. Ford Motor Co. saw retail sales rise while Toyota Motor Corp. reported slight growth in the first three months of the year.

The past weekend was “by far the best weekend I’ve seen in a very long time,” Randy Parker, the chief executive officer of Hyundai and Genesis in North America, told reporters. “Lots of people rushed in this weekend, especially to try and beat the tariffs.”

The just-ended quarter may end up being the last of relative normalcy before the industry is upended by Trump’s 25% tariffs on passenger-vehicle imports that take effect this week. Cars assembled overseas account for about half of US auto sales. And even cars made domestically often use a significant amount of non-US parts, some of which may also be subject to levies.

Researchers including Edmunds and Cox Automotive had predicted volumes would likely get a boost from anxious shoppers buying before prices potentially rise.

“The prospect of tariffs is already beginning to affect the industry,” Thomas King, president of data and analytics at JD Power, said in a statement. March results were “particularly strong, enabled by consumers accelerating purchases to avoid potential tariff-related price increases.”

Hyundai saw record sales for the latest month and quarter, buoyed by double-digit gains in demand for its best-selling Tucson small SUV and Elantra compact sedan. For the first three months, Hyundai said Tuesday that it saw a 10% gain in deliveries to 203,554 vehicles, boosted by a 13% jump last month. 

Sister brand Kia Corp. similarly posted record sales, with an 11% rise in the January to March period to 198,850 vehicles. Buyers snapped up its compact Sportage SUV and new K4 sedan.

GM’s sales in March were strong, a company spokesman said, though it’s difficult to quantify how much came from buyers trying to get ahead of Trump’s tariffs. The Detroit-based automaker’s big gains came from freshened versions of the Chevrolet Colorado mid-size pickup, which was up 73%, while sales of the Chevy Traverse mid-sized SUV rose 62%.

Toyota sales grew 7.7% in March, but less than 1% in the year-to-date period. Deliveries of the Japanese automaker’s best-selling RAV4 compact SUV and Camry midsize sedan declined during the latest month and quarter. The two models are Toyota’s top sellers and inventories are tight, a US-based spokesman for the carmaker said. 

Sales of Lexus luxury brand vehicles rose 5.8% in March and 14% in the January-March period.

Ford saw a 5% quarterly gain in retail sales and 19% jump in March alone. But overall volume slipped 1.3% in the first quarter to 498,480 units, excluding heavy trucks. That was largely due to lower rental fleet sales and the discontinuation of two models, the company said.

Honda reported a 5% rise in first—quarter sales and a 13% jump in March across its namesake brand and Acura luxury vehicle lines. Deliveries of the Japanese carmaker’s top-selling CR-V crossover grew 9% in the quarter and 24% last month.

Tesla Inc. is expected to detail its global delivery numbers for the most recent quarter on Wednesday.

Tariff Threats

Representatives of several large US automakers have been lobbying the Trump administration to exclude certain low-cost car components from the planned tariffs, Bloomberg News reported Monday.

While it’s not clear how new costs will be distributed between automakers, suppliers and car buyers, prices are expected to rise considerably. A recent study by Anderson Economic Group found that the tariffs could increase the cost to build vehicles by as much as $12,000. That could make some models unviable in the US, particularly at the lower end of the market.

Sales of Chevy’s South Korea-made Trax small SUV rose 57%. That vehicle faces a 25% tariff starting April 3.

GM’s electric-vehicle sales nearly doubled in the quarter, led by its Mexico-made Chevy Blazer and Equinox EVs. Those models would be hit by tariffs on their non-US parts content if Trump sticks to his original plan.

Dealers have seen a surge in demand from would-be buyers worried about prices. Chevrolet dealer Duane Paddock said GM sent an unusually large amount of inventory to meet the buyer interest.

US dealerships are sitting on about 60 to 90 days of inventory on average, providing them with a cushion against the immediate effects of the tariffs.

“It has created an urgency to buy it now before there’s a price increase,” Rhett Ricart, a dealer of Ford, Chevrolet, Hyundai and other brands in Columbus, Ohio, said.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.