Ahmedabad crash: Pilots' body sends notices to US media
MUMBAI: The Federation of Indian Pilots (FIP) president, Captain CS Randhawa on Saturday called out Wall Street Journal and Reuters, accusing them of not basing their reports on factual content while highlighting Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) preliminary report on AI-171 plane crash.
Captain CS Randhawa's strong remark followed the FIP's initiation of legal action through a formal notice to The Wall Street Journal and Reuters. They have also sought an official apology.
"I would totally blame Wall Street Journal for misleading the public, they come out with their own conclusions. Are they the investigative body? They are not the investigative body, and the reports are not based on any factual content, which is mentioned in the preliminary report.
So, how can they jump to conclusions and give press statements around the world?" he told.
Randhawa said FIP has issued a legal notice asking them to issue a statement in the press, giving an explanation of their reportage of the AAIB preliminary reports.
"We strongly condemn it, and we've also issued legal notices to the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. We have clearly said that how can you jump to these conclusions which are not part of the preliminary report of the AAIB? How can you blame the pilots? So we have asked for an explanation and have asked that you give a statement to the press," he said, adding, "And if they don't do it, then we'll see further action."
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) chairwoman Jennifer Homendy, in a statement, urged public and media to await official findings by the AAIB, which is leading the probe into the crash incident, before drawing a conclusion based on the preliminary investigative report.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Resilient Trump Lifted by Improved View of the Economy, WSJ Poll Finds
Buoyed by voters' improving views of the economy, President Trump's political standing is showing notable resilience, a new Wall Street Journal poll finds, despite the unpopularity of the GOP's big tax-and-spending law, dissatisfaction with Trump's tariff plan and high suspicion that the government is hiding important information about its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. The set of turbulent recent events, which also has included the administration's aggressive deportation program and the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, has failed either to dent or improve the public's overall view of the president. Some 46% approve of his job performance—unchanged from April—with 52% disapproving. The poll shows why the near-unshakeable backing of Trump's Republican base is so valuable to him. With 88% of GOP voters approving of his job performance — and 66% strongly approving— he has been able to retain political potency in Congress and among much of the electorate when voters overall are dissatisfied with the country's direction and disapprove of the president's handling of the economy, inflation, tariffs and other aspects of his agenda. A majority of 52% oppose Trump's landmark legislative achievement, the tax and domestic policy bill that narrowly passed in Congress, 10 percentage points higher than the share supporting it. More voters disapprove than approve of his handling of the economy and inflation, by 9 points and 11 points, respectively. Disapproval of his tariffs agenda outweighs approval by 17 points. Even on immigration—Trump's signature issue—voters give him tepid marks: By narrow margins of 3 points or less, voters disapprove when asked about his handling of 'immigration' and approve of his handling of 'illegal immigration.' By 16 points, more voters say the country is headed in the wrong direction rather than on the right track, compared with a 10-point gap in April. Voters are distinguishing between the direction of the country under Trump, however, and the direction of the economy, on which the poll finds a brightening outlook. Some 47% in the survey rated the economy as excellent or good—a significant, 11-point leap from April and the most positive rating in Journal surveys dating to 2021. Some 51% of voters assessed the economy as not good or poor, compared with 63% who said so in April. By 8 points, more voters say the economy is getting worse rather than better—a sour outlook, but markedly improved from the 26-point gap in April. Fewer also said that inflation was causing them major financial strains. At 46%, Trump's job approval rating is stronger than the 40% he drew at this point in his first term, and it sits at the upper end of the unusually narrow range that marked voter views of his performance during his first White House term. By contrast, views of former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden varied far more widely. Obama's job-approval rating moved in a 20-point range, between 40% and 61%, and it stood at 45% at this point in his second term before he finished his time in office at 56%. Biden's approval rating stood at 50% at this point in his term before sinking into the low 40s, NBC polling found. 'They called Reagan the Teflon president,' said Democratic pollster John Anzalone, who conducted the Journal survey with Republican Tony Fabrizio, referring to the adage that bad news rarely stuck to former Republican President Ronald Reagan. 'Trump has that in him, as well.' While Trump stirs up plenty of controversies that could be politically damaging, he said, 'they seldom bite him on the backside.' The Journal survey, conducted July 16-20, found high skepticism that the Justice Department has fully investigated the case of Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy money manager who socialized with political figures, including Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Trump has said their friendship ended before the financier was indicted on a charge of soliciting prostitution in 2006. A spokesman for Clinton recently referred to a 2019 statement that the former president had cut ties more than a decade before Epstein's second arrest and didn't know about Epstein's alleged crimes. Some 76% of voters in the new poll, including 64% of Republicans, said they believe the Justice Department is hiding important information from its findings in the Epstein investigation. Nearly half said they had no confidence in the department's investigation, and an additional 21% said they had little confidence. Less than one-quarter said they had complete confidence or at least some confidence in the department's investigation. The Journal poll shows that the public remains open to persuasion on many aspects of Trump's agenda, suggesting that the expected billions of dollars soon to be spent ahead of the 2026 midterm elections could change voter views of the president. Voters strongly support some aspects of the GOP tax-and-spending legislation, with more than 70% supporting its new tax breaks for many workers who are paid by tips or get overtime. And as of now, voters are equivocal when asked about whether they would benefit, personally, from the bill. But the bill overall is seen as helping the wealthy and large corporations while hurting the poor and adding to the deficit. Similarly, voters strongly approve of deporting people who are in the country illegally, but at the same time they disapprove of many of the methods Trump is using to do so. Narrow majorities say he has gone too far with his deportations and has crossed a line by deporting people without giving them legal protections or court hearings. Asked about the U.S. bombing of Iran's nuclear sites, a narrow plurality of 47% agreed with the statement that the June strikes were a good idea and reduced the nuclear threat from Iran. Some 43% saw the raid as a bad idea that risked drawing the U.S. into war. One statistic in the survey stands out for showing the cohesiveness of Trump's coalition: 45%. That is the share of voters—give or take a point—who hold positive views of the president, of many of his actions and of the people or institutions associated with him. Some 45% have a favorable view of Trump personally, while about the same share hold favorable views of the Supreme Court; of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary; and of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the primary immigration-enforcement agency. Some 44% approve of Trump's handling of the economy and inflation. A similar share—45%—said Trump was bringing needed change to the country, while 51% agreed with the alternative statement that he was bringing chaos and dysfunction that would hurt the country. One outlier: Pam Bondi, the attorney general, who has been the public face of the Epstein investigation. Some 30% of voters view her favorably, with 47% holding an unfavorable view. Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who didn't work on the Journal survey, said that Trump's 46% job approval rating was a mark of strength, even though a larger share, 52%, disapproves of his performance. Because Americans are so polarized, parties focus on driving their most ardent voters to the polls. That means that a president with strong support from his base—such as Trump—can mobilize enough support to win elections, he said. 'In today's politics, the mid-40s is the new 50%. In today's hyperpartisan environment, if Trump can maintain support in the high 40s, we'll have an incredibly competitive cycle in 2026,' McInturff said, referring to next year's midterms. The Wall Street Journal poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted July 16-20 by landline phone and cellphone, with some respondents contacted by text and invited to take the survey online. The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Write to Aaron Zitner at
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Trump's order to block 'woke' AI in government encourages tech giants to censor their chatbots
Tech companies looking to sell their artificial intelligence technology to the federal government must now contend with a new regulatory hurdle: proving their chatbots aren't "woke." President Donald Trump 's sweeping new plan to counter China in achieving "global dominance" in AI promises to cut regulations and cement American values into the AI tools increasingly used at work and home. But one of Trump 's three AI executive orders signed Wednesday - the one "preventing woke AI in the federal government" - marks the first time the U.S. government has explicitly tried to shape the ideological behavior of AI. Several leading providers of the AI language models targeted by the order - products like Google's Gemini and Microsoft's Copilot - have so far been silent on Trump's anti-woke directive, which still faces a study period before it gets into official procurement rules. While the tech industry has largely welcomed Trump's broader AI plans, the anti-woke order forces the industry to leinto a culture war battle - or try their best to quietly avoid it. "It will have massive influence in the industry right now," especially as tech companies are already capitulating to other Trump administration directives, said civil rights advocate Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, senior director of The Leadership Conference's Center for Civil Rights and Technology. The move also pushes the tech industry to abandon years of work to combat the pervasive forms of racial and gender bias that studies and real-world examples have shown to be baked into AI systems. "First off, there's no such thing as woke AI," Montoya-Boyer said. "There's AI technology that discriminates and then there's AI technology that actually works for all people." Molding the behaviors of AI large language models is challenging because of the way they're built and the inherent randomness of what they produce. They've been trained on most of what's on the internet, reflecting the biases of all the people who've posted commentary, edited a Wikipedia entry or shared images online. "This will be extremely difficult for tech companies to comply with," said former Biden administration official Jim Secreto, who was deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, an architect of many of President Joe Biden's AI industry initiatives. "Large language models reflect the data they're trained on, including all the contradictions and biases in human language." Tech workers also have a say in how they're designed, from the global workforce of annotators who check their responses to the Silicon Valley engineers who craft the instructions for how they interact with people. Trump's order targets those "top-down" efforts at tech companies to incorporate what it calls the "destructive" ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion into AI models, including "concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism." The directive has invited comparison to China's heavier-handed efforts to ensure that generative AI tools reflect the core values of the ruling Communist Party. Secreto said the order resembles China's playbook in "using the power of the state to stamp out what it sees as disfavored viewpoints." The method is different, with China relying on direct regulation by auditing AI models, approving them before they are deployed and requiring them to filter out banned content such as the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 1989. Trump's order doesn't call for any such filters, relying on tech companies to instead show that their technology is ideologically neutral by disclosing some of the internal policies that guide the chatbots. "The Trump administration is taking a softer but still coercive route by using federal contracts as leverage," Secreto said. "That creates strong pressure for companies to self-censor in order to stay in the government's good graces and keep the money flowing." The order's call for "truth-seeking" AI echoes the language of the president's one-time ally and adviser Elon Musk, who has made it the mission of the Grok chatbot made by his company xAI. But whether Grok or its rivals will be favored under the new policy remains to be seen. Despite a "rhetorically pointed" introduction laying out the Trump administration's problems with DEI, the actual language of the order's directives shouldn't be hard for tech companies to comply with, said Neil Chilson , a Republican former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission. "It doesn't even prohibit an ideological agenda," just that any intentional methods to guide the model be disclosed, said Chilson, head of AI policy at the nonprofit Abundance Institute. "Which is pretty light touch, frankly." Chilson disputes comparisons to China's cruder modes of AI censorship. "There is nothing in this order that says that companies have to produce or cannot produce certain types of output," he said. "It says developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments." With their AI tools already widely used in the federal government, tech companies have reacted cautiously. OpenAI on Thursday said it is awaiting more detailed guidance but believes its work to make ChatGPT objective already makes the technology consistent with Trump's directive. Microsoft, a major supplier of online services to the government, declined to comment. Musk's xAI, through spokesperson Katie Miller, a former Trump official, pointed to a company comment praising Trump's AI announcements but didn't address the procurement order. xAI recently announced it was awarded a U.S. defense contract for up to $200 million, just days after Grok publicly posted a barrage of antisemitic commentary that praised Adolf Hitler. Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Palantir didn't respond to emailed requests for comment Thursday. The ideas behind the order have bubbled up for more than a year on the podcasts and social media feeds of Trump's top AI adviser David Sacks and other influential Silicon Valley venture capitalists, many of whom endorsed Trump's presidential campaign last year. Their ire centered on Google's February 2024 release of an AI image-generating tool that produced historically inaccurate images before the tech giant took down and fixed the product. Google later explained that the errors - including generating portraits of Black, Asian and Native American men when asked to show American Founding Fathers - were the result of an overcompensation for technology that, left to its own devices, was prone to favoring lighter-skinned people because of pervasive bias in the systems. Trump allies alleged that Google engineers were hard-coding their own social agenda into the product. "It's 100% intentional," said prominent venture capitalist and Trump adviser Marc Andreessen on a podcast in December. "That's how you get Black George Washington at Google. There's override in the system that basically says, literally, 'Everybody has to be Black.' Boom. There's squads, large sets of people, at these companies who determine these policies and write them down and encode them into these systems." Sacks credited a conservative strategist who has fought DEI initiatives at colleges and workplaces for helping to draft the order. "When they asked me how to define 'woke,' I said there's only one person to call: Chris Rufo. And now it's law: the federal government will not be buying WokeAI," Sacks wrote on X. Rufo responded that he helped "identify DEI ideologies within the operating constitutions of these systems." But some who agreed that Biden went too far promoting DEI also worry that Trump's new order sets a bad precedent for future government efforts to shape AI's politics. "The whole idea of achieving ideological neutrality with AI models is really just unworkable," said Ryan Hauser of the Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. "And what do we get? We get these frontier labs just changing their speech to meet the political requirements of the moment."
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Nuclear negotiations with Iran: What can we expect?
AI- Representation Image There is much at stake when representatives from Germany, France and the United Kingdom meet their counterparts from Iran in Istanbul on Friday to negotiate the future of Iran's nuclear program. If the talks fail, Iran risks a new wave of sanctions. Questions remain about the technical status of Iran's nuclear program after the attacks by Israel and the US on Iranian nuclear facilities in June. Or whether Iran can continue its program at all. The limited information available does not appear to support claims by US President Donald Trump that Iran's nuclear facilities and nuclear program have been "totally obliterated," said Hamidreza Azizi, an Iran expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. In his view, Iran would likely be able to resume its enrichment program to a certain extent in the short to medium term. Azizi estimates that the country still has much of the highly enriched uranium it stockpiled over the past few years. Uncertainty about the status of enrichment technology "Iran has not been deprived of its ability to enrich uranium," Azizi told DW. "So far, there has been no indication that Iran has actively taken steps to restart its program, but such a move would be more a matter of political decision-making, as well as military and security considerations, rather than technical capability." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo Michael Brzoska, a political scientist at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg, took a slightly different stance. He said it's likely to have become technically much more difficult for Iran to continue enriching the uranium that is still available to a level suitable to make nuclear weapons. The centrifuges required for enrichment have probably been damaged to such an extent that they can no longer be used, Brzoska said. "Although it cannot be ruled out that there could be hidden centrifuges in other locations, there is currently no information on this," he added. What messages are coming out of Tehran? In order to exert pressure on Iran, Germany, France and the UK agreed with the US in mid-July to set Iran a deadline for reaching a nuclear agreement. This expires at the end of August. If no agreement is reached by then, the European partners plan to automatically reinstate previous UN sanctions against Tehran. It's entirely possible that the Iranian leadership is reconsidering its current strategy, Brzoska believes. Iran has repeatedly denied that it wants to use its nuclear program for military purposes. "But its behavior, especially the high-level enrichment of uranium, has brought it ever closer to this possibility," he pointed out. "And it has thus sparked fear among other states." Iran is currently sending out "mixed signals," Azizi told DW, explaining that Iranian officials, including the president and foreign minister, continue to insist that Iran remains open to diplomatic engagement. At the same time, he sees no indication that Iran is willing to soften its positions on other contentious issues, such as domestic uranium enrichment or its support for non-state actors in the region. "The leadership seems to be trying to buy time and avoid a renewed escalation until they determine how to address the various problems at hand," Azizi said. US goes it alone with own sanctions However, Iran's time is limited due to the end-of-August deadline. After this date, the UN sanctions, which were lifted in 2016 as part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as the nuclear agreement, could once again be imposed. The agreement contains a mechanism known as the "snapback," which entitles each of the signatories — the US, the UK, France, China, Russia, Germany and the EU — to launch a procedure that would automatically lead to the reintroduction of all UN sanctions against Iran after 30 days. The US withdrew from the agreement in 2018, under Trump's first administration, so it cannot initiate this mechanism. However, talks in mid-July show that the three European states have been coordinating closely with Washington. The US, meanwhile, has imposed its own sanctions against Iran. These target specific sectors of the economy, such as oil exports and banking transactions, and also include sanctions against third countries and companies that do business with Iran. Is there shared interest in reaching an agreement? In this respect, the outcome of the upcoming talks is highly important for Iran, said Brzoska. "Sanctions imposed by the US will ultimately be more important from an Iranian perspective. However, the snapback mechanism is likely to prompt a whole series of states to impose economic restrictions on Iran," he said. These restrictions would affect oil exports, for example, as well as the transfer of so-called dual-use technologies, that is, technology that can also be used for military purposes. "Iran is therefore likely to work towards ensuring that the Europeans do not reapply this mechanism," said Brzoska. Beyond the possibility of not activating the snapback agreement, however, the three European states have no other incentives, or carrots, to offer Iran, said Azizi. This could make reaching an agreement more difficult, he believes. "The best we can realistically expect from the upcoming talks is that both sides might agree to extend the deadline for triggering the snapback mechanism, allowing more time for diplomacy and a potential diplomatic resolution," he said.
