No, a Shadowy Figure Is Not Buying Tents for Columbia Student Protesters | The False Choice in the Debate Over Artificial Intelligence Regulation | Software Backdoor is a Wakeup Call for Cybersecurity, and more

No, a Shadowy Figure Is Not Buying Tents for Columbia Student Protesters  (David Gilert, Wired)
A number of elected officials, including New York City Mayor Eric Adams, law enforcement officers, right-wing media outlets, and far-right extremists have boosted a baseless conspiracy theory that Jewish Hungarian billionaire George Soros or some nefarious shadowy organization is helping to fund the pro-Palestinian student protests at universities across the US.
They are promoting the well-worn antisemitic trope that a puppet master is behind the protests, based on the fact that many of the students at universities like NYU and Columbia erected tents of the same color, make, and model at the same time on their encampments.
But the real explanation for their proliferation is simple: They are cheap, and easy to find. As online publication Hell Gate NYC pointed out, the tents seen being used at the NYU campus encampment are being sold for as little as $15 at the retailer Five Below, while the green model seen at the Columbia encampment is available online from Walmart for as little as $28.

The False Choice in the Debate Over Artificial Intelligence Regulation  (Matthew Tokson, Yonathan A. Arbel, and Albert Lin, Lawfare)
Since the release of ChatGPT3.5 roughly a year and a half ago, the promises and perils of artificial intelligence (AI) have captured the world’s attention. We are currently in the midst of a vigorous debate about which AI harms to focus on—those occurring now or more speculative harms that might happen in the future. This argument started on social media but has now reached major scientific journals and prominent news sources. It increasingly threatens to undermine calls for robust AI governance. Political momentum for meaningful AI regulation is unlikely to materialize if those calling for regulation cannot agree on why AI is so dangerous in the first place. (Cont.)