The McClatchy newspaper chain’s recent filing for bankruptcy is one more data point showing that US journalism is dying. While several big national papers like the New York Times are healthy, more typical are the closures, bankruptcies, and extreme downsizing that increasingly leave cities, towns and rural communities without local news.

This slaughter has attracted opportunistic pathologies, from hedge funds buying up distressed papers and selling them for parts, to news outlets resorting to increasingly dubious forms of advertising and clickbait. A degraded product gives readers even less reason to support local news. Meanwhile, little evidence suggests that any new market-driven model can rescue newspapers or sustain the journalism that democracy requires. The market has failed us.

With market failure, journalism’s survival requires public options. We can collect ideas from our history and from around the world for how best to support the necessary public infrastructure that journalism needs to survive.

These policies include tax incentives that could transition struggling newspapers into not-for-profit status and direct subsidies to create new digital startups, municipal newspapers and news cooperatives. Others hope that generous billionaires will save the day. But tackling the journalism crisis at a systemic level—bringing nutrition to "news deserts" where rich givers and foundations are unlikely to go—requires a large public media fund.

Major foundations could pool their money and help develop a new public media system. Given Americans’ fondness for it, invoking the BBC is useful to expand our political imagination for what’s possible. But any new US system should be truly public—publicly owned and democratically governed with constant community input.

State governments should be doing more as well. New Jersey recently funded a "civic information consortium" to help provide local news. Such government funding could be paired with organizing community newsrooms and engaging residents during all stages of media production. This model might inspire a new kind of journalism.

While large audiences won’t simply materialize overnight, local communities creating their own media may build trust and voters over time. All foundational democratic theories—including the first amendment itself—assume a functional press system. The fourth estate’s current collapse is a profound social problem. We desperately need a national conversation about what society should do about it. This crisis is also an opportunity to reimagine what journalism could and should be.

Ultimately, we face a stark choice: either we make public investments in journalism, or we accept a future in which entire regions and communities lack local news media. If we hope for any semblance of democracy, the correct path forward should be obvious.

It can be learned from the first two paragraphs that struggling newspapers are______.

The McClatchy newspaper chain’s recent filing for bankruptcy is one more data point showing that US journalism is dying. While several big national papers like the New York Times are healthy, more typical are the closures, bankruptcies, and extreme downsizing that increasingly leave cities, towns and rural communities without local news.

This slaughter has attracted opportunistic pathologies, from hedge funds buying up distressed papers and selling them for parts, to news outlets resorting to increasingly dubious forms of advertising and clickbait. A degraded product gives readers even less reason to support local news. Meanwhile, little evidence suggests that any new market-driven model can rescue newspapers or sustain the journalism that democracy requires. The market has failed us.

With market failure, journalism’s survival requires public options. We can collect ideas from our history and from around the world for how best to support the necessary public infrastructure that journalism needs to survive.

These policies include tax incentives that could transition struggling newspapers into not-for-profit status and direct subsidies to create new digital startups, municipal newspapers and news cooperatives. Others hope that generous billionaires will save the day. But tackling the journalism crisis at a systemic level—bringing nutrition to "news deserts" where rich givers and foundations are unlikely to go—requires a large public media fund.

Major foundations could pool their money and help develop a new public media system. Given Americans’ fondness for it, invoking the BBC is useful to expand our political imagination for what’s possible. But any new US system should be truly public—publicly owned and democratically governed with constant community input.

State governments should be doing more as well. New Jersey recently funded a "civic information consortium" to help provide local news. Such government funding could be paired with organizing community newsrooms and engaging residents during all stages of media production. This model might inspire a new kind of journalism.

While large audiences won’t simply materialize overnight, local communities creating their own media may build trust and voters over time. All foundational democratic theories—including the first amendment itself—assume a functional press system. The fourth estate’s current collapse is a profound social problem. We desperately need a national conversation about what society should do about it. This crisis is also an opportunity to reimagine what journalism could and should be.

Ultimately, we face a stark choice: either we make public investments in journalism, or we accept a future in which entire regions and communities lack local news media. If we hope for any semblance of democracy, the correct path forward should be obvious.

The author’s attitude toward billionaires’ funding the troubled newspapers is______.

The McClatchy newspaper chain’s recent filing for bankruptcy is one more data point showing that US journalism is dying. While several big national papers like the New York Times are healthy, more typical are the closures, bankruptcies, and extreme downsizing that increasingly leave cities, towns and rural communities without local news.

This slaughter has attracted opportunistic pathologies, from hedge funds buying up distressed papers and selling them for parts, to news outlets resorting to increasingly dubious forms of advertising and clickbait. A degraded product gives readers even less reason to support local news. Meanwhile, little evidence suggests that any new market-driven model can rescue newspapers or sustain the journalism that democracy requires. The market has failed us.

With market failure, journalism’s survival requires public options. We can collect ideas from our history and from around the world for how best to support the necessary public infrastructure that journalism needs to survive.

These policies include tax incentives that could transition struggling newspapers into not-for-profit status and direct subsidies to create new digital startups, municipal newspapers and news cooperatives. Others hope that generous billionaires will save the day. But tackling the journalism crisis at a systemic level—bringing nutrition to "news deserts" where rich givers and foundations are unlikely to go—requires a large public media fund.

Major foundations could pool their money and help develop a new public media system. Given Americans’ fondness for it, invoking the BBC is useful to expand our political imagination for what’s possible. But any new US system should be truly public—publicly owned and democratically governed with constant community input.

State governments should be doing more as well. New Jersey recently funded a "civic information consortium" to help provide local news. Such government funding could be paired with organizing community newsrooms and engaging residents during all stages of media production. This model might inspire a new kind of journalism.

While large audiences won’t simply materialize overnight, local communities creating their own media may build trust and voters over time. All foundational democratic theories—including the first amendment itself—assume a functional press system. The fourth estate’s current collapse is a profound social problem. We desperately need a national conversation about what society should do about it. This crisis is also an opportunity to reimagine what journalism could and should be.

Ultimately, we face a stark choice: either we make public investments in journalism, or we accept a future in which entire regions and communities lack local news media. If we hope for any semblance of democracy, the correct path forward should be obvious.

The BBC is mentioned to illustrate______.

The McClatchy newspaper chain’s recent filing for bankruptcy is one more data point showing that US journalism is dying. While several big national papers like the New York Times are healthy, more typical are the closures, bankruptcies, and extreme downsizing that increasingly leave cities, towns and rural communities without local news.

This slaughter has attracted opportunistic pathologies, from hedge funds buying up distressed papers and selling them for parts, to news outlets resorting to increasingly dubious forms of advertising and clickbait. A degraded product gives readers even less reason to support local news. Meanwhile, little evidence suggests that any new market-driven model can rescue newspapers or sustain the journalism that democracy requires. The market has failed us.

With market failure, journalism’s survival requires public options. We can collect ideas from our history and from around the world for how best to support the necessary public infrastructure that journalism needs to survive.

These policies include tax incentives that could transition struggling newspapers into not-for-profit status and direct subsidies to create new digital startups, municipal newspapers and news cooperatives. Others hope that generous billionaires will save the day. But tackling the journalism crisis at a systemic level—bringing nutrition to "news deserts" where rich givers and foundations are unlikely to go—requires a large public media fund.

Major foundations could pool their money and help develop a new public media system. Given Americans’ fondness for it, invoking the BBC is useful to expand our political imagination for what’s possible. But any new US system should be truly public—publicly owned and democratically governed with constant community input.

State governments should be doing more as well. New Jersey recently funded a "civic information consortium" to help provide local news. Such government funding could be paired with organizing community newsrooms and engaging residents during all stages of media production. This model might inspire a new kind of journalism.

While large audiences won’t simply materialize overnight, local communities creating their own media may build trust and voters over time. All foundational democratic theories—including the first amendment itself—assume a functional press system. The fourth estate’s current collapse is a profound social problem. We desperately need a national conversation about what society should do about it. This crisis is also an opportunity to reimagine what journalism could and should be.

Ultimately, we face a stark choice: either we make public investments in journalism, or we accept a future in which entire regions and communities lack local news media. If we hope for any semblance of democracy, the correct path forward should be obvious.

Which of the following is true about local newspaper business?

The McClatchy newspaper chain’s recent filing for bankruptcy is one more data point showing that US journalism is dying. While several big national papers like the New York Times are healthy, more typical are the closures, bankruptcies, and extreme downsizing that increasingly leave cities, towns and rural communities without local news.

This slaughter has attracted opportunistic pathologies, from hedge funds buying up distressed papers and selling them for parts, to news outlets resorting to increasingly dubious forms of advertising and clickbait. A degraded product gives readers even less reason to support local news. Meanwhile, little evidence suggests that any new market-driven model can rescue newspapers or sustain the journalism that democracy requires. The market has failed us.

With market failure, journalism’s survival requires public options. We can collect ideas from our history and from around the world for how best to support the necessary public infrastructure that journalism needs to survive.

These policies include tax incentives that could transition struggling newspapers into not-for-profit status and direct subsidies to create new digital startups, municipal newspapers and news cooperatives. Others hope that generous billionaires will save the day. But tackling the journalism crisis at a systemic level—bringing nutrition to "news deserts" where rich givers and foundations are unlikely to go—requires a large public media fund.

Major foundations could pool their money and help develop a new public media system. Given Americans’ fondness for it, invoking the BBC is useful to expand our political imagination for what’s possible. But any new US system should be truly public—publicly owned and democratically governed with constant community input.

State governments should be doing more as well. New Jersey recently funded a "civic information consortium" to help provide local news. Such government funding could be paired with organizing community newsrooms and engaging residents during all stages of media production. This model might inspire a new kind of journalism.

While large audiences won’t simply materialize overnight, local communities creating their own media may build trust and voters over time. All foundational democratic theories—including the first amendment itself—assume a functional press system. The fourth estate’s current collapse is a profound social problem. We desperately need a national conversation about what society should do about it. This crisis is also an opportunity to reimagine what journalism could and should be.

Ultimately, we face a stark choice: either we make public investments in journalism, or we accept a future in which entire regions and communities lack local news media. If we hope for any semblance of democracy, the correct path forward should be obvious.

The most appropriate title for this text would be______.

Every 38 seconds, someone in the U.S. dies from cardiovascular disease. Even more worrisome: deaths from cardiovascular disease have been rising dramatically since 2011 following years of decline. Strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular events cause great suffering and are an enormous health care burden.

These statistics are particularly troubling because each month, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. take fish oil supplements, many in the hopes of preventing heart disease—despite the absence of reliable evidence that such supplements ( also called omega-3 fatty acid supplements) prevent cardiovascular disease and its serious consequences. To the contrary, all studies of fish oil supplements conducted to date have failed to show any significant clinical benefits beyond those of standard-of-care therapy.

Consumers have been told so many times that dietary fish oil supplements promote heart health that it seems to be accepted as factual. But this conventional thinking is not supported by the science. After decades of promises that fish oil "may work," the lack of demonstrated benefit leads me to conclude that consumers are wasting their money on supplements in an effort to reduce cardiovascular risk.

A summary of all the evidence was recently published in the prestigious medical publication Annals oflnternal Medicine. This review, published July 9, 2019, examined the effectiveness of 24 supplements and diets in preventing cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated nine systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials, which encompassed 277 trials and 992,129 participants. Findings indicated that few nutritional supplements or dietary interventions offered any protection against cardiovascular disease or death and that some may actually cause harm. Omega-3 products, in particular, yielded "low-certainty" evidence that they were associated with reduced risk for heart disease.

Because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification for dietary supplements such as fish oil is different from that of prescription drugs, these supplements are not manufactured or reviewed by the FDA in as stringent a manner. Most found on the market—unlike prescription medications and certain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—have not demonstrated effectiveness and safety in clinical trials. This can be confusing: fish oil supplements, for example, are readily available to patients and often have labels that imply a benefit to cardiovascular health, yet they are not intended to treat any medical condition.

This study is just the latest in a growing body of evidence demonstrating the absence of benefit of fish oil supplements for heart health. Other studies looking into what common fish oil supplements actually contain have found that they have lower amounts of omega-3 than specified on the label, variable content and unregulated purity, and potentially significant levels of saturated fat and rancid oils.

It’s not just patients who are confused about the tested efficacy and safety of fish oil supplements. A survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that among those physicians and pharmacists who had recommended a nonprescription omega-3 product to patients, more than four in five (85 percent) believed incorrectly that they had recommended an FDA-approved OTC product.This is an example of the adage that if something is said often enough, people will believe it to be true.

The number of people suffering from cardiovascular diseases are especially worrisome Because______.

Every 38 seconds, someone in the U.S. dies from cardiovascular disease. Even more worrisome: deaths from cardiovascular disease have been rising dramatically since 2011 following years of decline. Strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular events cause great suffering and are an enormous health care burden.

These statistics are particularly troubling because each month, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. take fish oil supplements, many in the hopes of preventing heart disease—despite the absence of reliable evidence that such supplements ( also called omega-3 fatty acid supplements) prevent cardiovascular disease and its serious consequences. To the contrary, all studies of fish oil supplements conducted to date have failed to show any significant clinical benefits beyond those of standard-of-care therapy.

Consumers have been told so many times that dietary fish oil supplements promote heart health that it seems to be accepted as factual. But this conventional thinking is not supported by the science. After decades of promises that fish oil "may work," the lack of demonstrated benefit leads me to conclude that consumers are wasting their money on supplements in an effort to reduce cardiovascular risk.

A summary of all the evidence was recently published in the prestigious medical publication Annals oflnternal Medicine. This review, published July 9, 2019, examined the effectiveness of 24 supplements and diets in preventing cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated nine systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials, which encompassed 277 trials and 992,129 participants. Findings indicated that few nutritional supplements or dietary interventions offered any protection against cardiovascular disease or death and that some may actually cause harm. Omega-3 products, in particular, yielded "low-certainty" evidence that they were associated with reduced risk for heart disease.

Because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification for dietary supplements such as fish oil is different from that of prescription drugs, these supplements are not manufactured or reviewed by the FDA in as stringent a manner. Most found on the market—unlike prescription medications and certain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—have not demonstrated effectiveness and safety in clinical trials. This can be confusing: fish oil supplements, for example, are readily available to patients and often have labels that imply a benefit to cardiovascular health, yet they are not intended to treat any medical condition.

This study is just the latest in a growing body of evidence demonstrating the absence of benefit of fish oil supplements for heart health. Other studies looking into what common fish oil supplements actually contain have found that they have lower amounts of omega-3 than specified on the label, variable content and unregulated purity, and potentially significant levels of saturated fat and rancid oils.

It’s not just patients who are confused about the tested efficacy and safety of fish oil supplements. A survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that among those physicians and pharmacists who had recommended a nonprescription omega-3 product to patients, more than four in five (85 percent) believed incorrectly that they had recommended an FDA-approved OTC product.This is an example of the adage that if something is said often enough, people will believe it to be true.

Why do consumers take it as a fact that fish oil supplements are beneficial to heart health?

Every 38 seconds, someone in the U.S. dies from cardiovascular disease. Even more worrisome: deaths from cardiovascular disease have been rising dramatically since 2011 following years of decline. Strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular events cause great suffering and are an enormous health care burden.

These statistics are particularly troubling because each month, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. take fish oil supplements, many in the hopes of preventing heart disease—despite the absence of reliable evidence that such supplements ( also called omega-3 fatty acid supplements) prevent cardiovascular disease and its serious consequences. To the contrary, all studies of fish oil supplements conducted to date have failed to show any significant clinical benefits beyond those of standard-of-care therapy.

Consumers have been told so many times that dietary fish oil supplements promote heart health that it seems to be accepted as factual. But this conventional thinking is not supported by the science. After decades of promises that fish oil "may work," the lack of demonstrated benefit leads me to conclude that consumers are wasting their money on supplements in an effort to reduce cardiovascular risk.

A summary of all the evidence was recently published in the prestigious medical publication Annals oflnternal Medicine. This review, published July 9, 2019, examined the effectiveness of 24 supplements and diets in preventing cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated nine systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials, which encompassed 277 trials and 992,129 participants. Findings indicated that few nutritional supplements or dietary interventions offered any protection against cardiovascular disease or death and that some may actually cause harm. Omega-3 products, in particular, yielded "low-certainty" evidence that they were associated with reduced risk for heart disease.

Because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification for dietary supplements such as fish oil is different from that of prescription drugs, these supplements are not manufactured or reviewed by the FDA in as stringent a manner. Most found on the market—unlike prescription medications and certain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—have not demonstrated effectiveness and safety in clinical trials. This can be confusing: fish oil supplements, for example, are readily available to patients and often have labels that imply a benefit to cardiovascular health, yet they are not intended to treat any medical condition.

This study is just the latest in a growing body of evidence demonstrating the absence of benefit of fish oil supplements for heart health. Other studies looking into what common fish oil supplements actually contain have found that they have lower amounts of omega-3 than specified on the label, variable content and unregulated purity, and potentially significant levels of saturated fat and rancid oils.

It’s not just patients who are confused about the tested efficacy and safety of fish oil supplements. A survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that among those physicians and pharmacists who had recommended a nonprescription omega-3 product to patients, more than four in five (85 percent) believed incorrectly that they had recommended an FDA-approved OTC product.This is an example of the adage that if something is said often enough, people will believe it to be true.

What did the review published by Annals of lnternal Medicine show?

Every 38 seconds, someone in the U.S. dies from cardiovascular disease. Even more worrisome: deaths from cardiovascular disease have been rising dramatically since 2011 following years of decline. Strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular events cause great suffering and are an enormous health care burden.

These statistics are particularly troubling because each month, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. take fish oil supplements, many in the hopes of preventing heart disease—despite the absence of reliable evidence that such supplements ( also called omega-3 fatty acid supplements) prevent cardiovascular disease and its serious consequences. To the contrary, all studies of fish oil supplements conducted to date have failed to show any significant clinical benefits beyond those of standard-of-care therapy.

Consumers have been told so many times that dietary fish oil supplements promote heart health that it seems to be accepted as factual. But this conventional thinking is not supported by the science. After decades of promises that fish oil "may work," the lack of demonstrated benefit leads me to conclude that consumers are wasting their money on supplements in an effort to reduce cardiovascular risk.

A summary of all the evidence was recently published in the prestigious medical publication Annals oflnternal Medicine. This review, published July 9, 2019, examined the effectiveness of 24 supplements and diets in preventing cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated nine systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials, which encompassed 277 trials and 992,129 participants. Findings indicated that few nutritional supplements or dietary interventions offered any protection against cardiovascular disease or death and that some may actually cause harm. Omega-3 products, in particular, yielded "low-certainty" evidence that they were associated with reduced risk for heart disease.

Because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification for dietary supplements such as fish oil is different from that of prescription drugs, these supplements are not manufactured or reviewed by the FDA in as stringent a manner. Most found on the market—unlike prescription medications and certain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—have not demonstrated effectiveness and safety in clinical trials. This can be confusing: fish oil supplements, for example, are readily available to patients and often have labels that imply a benefit to cardiovascular health, yet they are not intended to treat any medical condition.

This study is just the latest in a growing body of evidence demonstrating the absence of benefit of fish oil supplements for heart health. Other studies looking into what common fish oil supplements actually contain have found that they have lower amounts of omega-3 than specified on the label, variable content and unregulated purity, and potentially significant levels of saturated fat and rancid oils.

It’s not just patients who are confused about the tested efficacy and safety of fish oil supplements. A survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that among those physicians and pharmacists who had recommended a nonprescription omega-3 product to patients, more than four in five (85 percent) believed incorrectly that they had recommended an FDA-approved OTC product.This is an example of the adage that if something is said often enough, people will believe it to be true.

Fish oil supplements are not submitted to strict FDA regulation because______.

Every 38 seconds, someone in the U.S. dies from cardiovascular disease. Even more worrisome: deaths from cardiovascular disease have been rising dramatically since 2011 following years of decline. Strokes, heart attacks and other cardiovascular events cause great suffering and are an enormous health care burden.

These statistics are particularly troubling because each month, approximately 19 million people in the U.S. take fish oil supplements, many in the hopes of preventing heart disease—despite the absence of reliable evidence that such supplements ( also called omega-3 fatty acid supplements) prevent cardiovascular disease and its serious consequences. To the contrary, all studies of fish oil supplements conducted to date have failed to show any significant clinical benefits beyond those of standard-of-care therapy.

Consumers have been told so many times that dietary fish oil supplements promote heart health that it seems to be accepted as factual. But this conventional thinking is not supported by the science. After decades of promises that fish oil "may work," the lack of demonstrated benefit leads me to conclude that consumers are wasting their money on supplements in an effort to reduce cardiovascular risk.

A summary of all the evidence was recently published in the prestigious medical publication Annals oflnternal Medicine. This review, published July 9, 2019, examined the effectiveness of 24 supplements and diets in preventing cardiovascular disease. The authors evaluated nine systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials, which encompassed 277 trials and 992,129 participants. Findings indicated that few nutritional supplements or dietary interventions offered any protection against cardiovascular disease or death and that some may actually cause harm. Omega-3 products, in particular, yielded "low-certainty" evidence that they were associated with reduced risk for heart disease.

Because the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classification for dietary supplements such as fish oil is different from that of prescription drugs, these supplements are not manufactured or reviewed by the FDA in as stringent a manner. Most found on the market—unlike prescription medications and certain over-the-counter (OTC) drugs—have not demonstrated effectiveness and safety in clinical trials. This can be confusing: fish oil supplements, for example, are readily available to patients and often have labels that imply a benefit to cardiovascular health, yet they are not intended to treat any medical condition.

This study is just the latest in a growing body of evidence demonstrating the absence of benefit of fish oil supplements for heart health. Other studies looking into what common fish oil supplements actually contain have found that they have lower amounts of omega-3 than specified on the label, variable content and unregulated purity, and potentially significant levels of saturated fat and rancid oils.

It’s not just patients who are confused about the tested efficacy and safety of fish oil supplements. A survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University found that among those physicians and pharmacists who had recommended a nonprescription omega-3 product to patients, more than four in five (85 percent) believed incorrectly that they had recommended an FDA-approved OTC product.This is an example of the adage that if something is said often enough, people will believe it to be true.

A survey conducted by Fairleigh Dickinson University implied that______.

The United States has astrategic plan to retain the top spot in artificial intelligence( AI), and, by some measures, already leads in influential papers, hardware and AI talent. Other wealthy nations are also jockeying for a place in the world AI league. A kind of AI arms race is under way, and governments and corporations are pouring eye-watering sums into research and development.The prize, and it’s a big one,is that AI is forecast to add around US $15 trillion to the world economy by 2030—more than four times the 2017 gross domestic product of Germany. That’s $15 trillion in new companies, jobs, products, ways of working and forms of leisure, and it explains why countries are competing so vigorously for a slice of the pie.

For all the upsides, AI carries risks, from how facial-recognition technologies track and identify individuals, to the manipulation of elections.Yet despite vigorous academic and public discussion, governments have been slow to prioritize the ethics of AI. The United States is too preoccupied with the top prize, and shows little appetite to work with other countries and develop codes of practice. This leadership vacuum, however, has created opportunities for others.The national research agencies of France and Canada have teamed up on a call for research proposals on AI that incorporates an ethical dimension. Officials from Canada and France, meanwhile, have been working to establish an International Panel on Artificial Intelligence(IPAI), to be launched at the G7 summit of world leaders in Biarritz, France, from 24 to 26 August.The panel’s broad ambition is to create an expert network that will advise governments on AI ethical issues such as data privacy, public trust and human rights. Its members will include the research community, governments, industry and civil-society organizations.

This is a welcome step, but the panel’s architecture would benefit from more discussion.The IPAI’s inspiration seems to be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But there are important differences.First, the United Nations is not involved—hence ‘international’ in the title, and not ‘intergovernmental’.This could be a concession to those, including the US administration, that are sceptical of multilateralism. Second, industry representatives will be more prominent. This is important, because companies have access to vast amounts of data, and are the ones driving the development of AI technologies.

However, for the panel to be credible—especially when it comes to public trust in AI—its secretariat and sponsoring governments will need to ensure that it follows the evidence, and that its advice is free from interference. To achieve this, panel members will need to be protected from direct or indirect lobbying by companies, pressure groups and governments—especially by those who regard ethics as a brake on innovation.That also means that panel members will need to be chosen for their expertise, not for which organization they represent.

The first statement on AI from the leaders of the 20 biggest economies came in June—the G20 AI Principles—and the United States was among those to sign it. This is remarkable but, at the same time, the joint statement is little more than a token gesture committing nations to a "human-centered" approach to AI.

Governments and corporations invest huge amount of money into AI research and development because______.

The United States has astrategic plan to retain the top spot in artificial intelligence( AI), and, by some measures, already leads in influential papers, hardware and AI talent. Other wealthy nations are also jockeying for a place in the world AI league. A kind of AI arms race is under way, and governments and corporations are pouring eye-watering sums into research and development.The prize, and it’s a big one,is that AI is forecast to add around US $15 trillion to the world economy by 2030—more than four times the 2017 gross domestic product of Germany. That’s $15 trillion in new companies, jobs, products, ways of working and forms of leisure, and it explains why countries are competing so vigorously for a slice of the pie.

For all the upsides, AI carries risks, from how facial-recognition technologies track and identify individuals, to the manipulation of elections.Yet despite vigorous academic and public discussion, governments have been slow to prioritize the ethics of AI. The United States is too preoccupied with the top prize, and shows little appetite to work with other countries and develop codes of practice. This leadership vacuum, however, has created opportunities for others.The national research agencies of France and Canada have teamed up on a call for research proposals on AI that incorporates an ethical dimension. Officials from Canada and France, meanwhile, have been working to establish an International Panel on Artificial Intelligence(IPAI), to be launched at the G7 summit of world leaders in Biarritz, France, from 24 to 26 August.The panel’s broad ambition is to create an expert network that will advise governments on AI ethical issues such as data privacy, public trust and human rights. Its members will include the research community, governments, industry and civil-society organizations.

This is a welcome step, but the panel’s architecture would benefit from more discussion.The IPAI’s inspiration seems to be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But there are important differences.First, the United Nations is not involved—hence ‘international’ in the title, and not ‘intergovernmental’.This could be a concession to those, including the US administration, that are sceptical of multilateralism. Second, industry representatives will be more prominent. This is important, because companies have access to vast amounts of data, and are the ones driving the development of AI technologies.

However, for the panel to be credible—especially when it comes to public trust in AI—its secretariat and sponsoring governments will need to ensure that it follows the evidence, and that its advice is free from interference. To achieve this, panel members will need to be protected from direct or indirect lobbying by companies, pressure groups and governments—especially by those who regard ethics as a brake on innovation.That also means that panel members will need to be chosen for their expertise, not for which organization they represent.

The first statement on AI from the leaders of the 20 biggest economies came in June—the G20 AI Principles—and the United States was among those to sign it. This is remarkable but, at the same time, the joint statement is little more than a token gesture committing nations to a "human-centered" approach to AI.

The national research agencies of France and Canada______.

The United States has astrategic plan to retain the top spot in artificial intelligence( AI), and, by some measures, already leads in influential papers, hardware and AI talent. Other wealthy nations are also jockeying for a place in the world AI league. A kind of AI arms race is under way, and governments and corporations are pouring eye-watering sums into research and development.The prize, and it’s a big one,is that AI is forecast to add around US $15 trillion to the world economy by 2030—more than four times the 2017 gross domestic product of Germany. That’s $15 trillion in new companies, jobs, products, ways of working and forms of leisure, and it explains why countries are competing so vigorously for a slice of the pie.

For all the upsides, AI carries risks, from how facial-recognition technologies track and identify individuals, to the manipulation of elections.Yet despite vigorous academic and public discussion, governments have been slow to prioritize the ethics of AI. The United States is too preoccupied with the top prize, and shows little appetite to work with other countries and develop codes of practice. This leadership vacuum, however, has created opportunities for others.The national research agencies of France and Canada have teamed up on a call for research proposals on AI that incorporates an ethical dimension. Officials from Canada and France, meanwhile, have been working to establish an International Panel on Artificial Intelligence(IPAI), to be launched at the G7 summit of world leaders in Biarritz, France, from 24 to 26 August.The panel’s broad ambition is to create an expert network that will advise governments on AI ethical issues such as data privacy, public trust and human rights. Its members will include the research community, governments, industry and civil-society organizations.

This is a welcome step, but the panel’s architecture would benefit from more discussion.The IPAI’s inspiration seems to be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But there are important differences.First, the United Nations is not involved—hence ‘international’ in the title, and not ‘intergovernmental’.This could be a concession to those, including the US administration, that are sceptical of multilateralism. Second, industry representatives will be more prominent. This is important, because companies have access to vast amounts of data, and are the ones driving the development of AI technologies.

However, for the panel to be credible—especially when it comes to public trust in AI—its secretariat and sponsoring governments will need to ensure that it follows the evidence, and that its advice is free from interference. To achieve this, panel members will need to be protected from direct or indirect lobbying by companies, pressure groups and governments—especially by those who regard ethics as a brake on innovation.That also means that panel members will need to be chosen for their expertise, not for which organization they represent.

The first statement on AI from the leaders of the 20 biggest economies came in June—the G20 AI Principles—and the United States was among those to sign it. This is remarkable but, at the same time, the joint statement is little more than a token gesture committing nations to a "human-centered" approach to AI.

What is the main ambition of International Panel on Artificial Intelligence (IPAI) ？

The United States has astrategic plan to retain the top spot in artificial intelligence( AI), and, by some measures, already leads in influential papers, hardware and AI talent. Other wealthy nations are also jockeying for a place in the world AI league. A kind of AI arms race is under way, and governments and corporations are pouring eye-watering sums into research and development.The prize, and it’s a big one,is that AI is forecast to add around US $15 trillion to the world economy by 2030—more than four times the 2017 gross domestic product of Germany. That’s $15 trillion in new companies, jobs, products, ways of working and forms of leisure, and it explains why countries are competing so vigorously for a slice of the pie.

For all the upsides, AI carries risks, from how facial-recognition technologies track and identify individuals, to the manipulation of elections.Yet despite vigorous academic and public discussion, governments have been slow to prioritize the ethics of AI. The United States is too preoccupied with the top prize, and shows little appetite to work with other countries and develop codes of practice. This leadership vacuum, however, has created opportunities for others.The national research agencies of France and Canada have teamed up on a call for research proposals on AI that incorporates an ethical dimension. Officials from Canada and France, meanwhile, have been working to establish an International Panel on Artificial Intelligence(IPAI), to be launched at the G7 summit of world leaders in Biarritz, France, from 24 to 26 August.The panel’s broad ambition is to create an expert network that will advise governments on AI ethical issues such as data privacy, public trust and human rights. Its members will include the research community, governments, industry and civil-society organizations.

This is a welcome step, but the panel’s architecture would benefit from more discussion.The IPAI’s inspiration seems to be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But there are important differences.First, the United Nations is not involved—hence ‘international’ in the title, and not ‘intergovernmental’.This could be a concession to those, including the US administration, that are sceptical of multilateralism. Second, industry representatives will be more prominent. This is important, because companies have access to vast amounts of data, and are the ones driving the development of AI technologies.

However, for the panel to be credible—especially when it comes to public trust in AI—its secretariat and sponsoring governments will need to ensure that it follows the evidence, and that its advice is free from interference. To achieve this, panel members will need to be protected from direct or indirect lobbying by companies, pressure groups and governments—especially by those who regard ethics as a brake on innovation.That also means that panel members will need to be chosen for their expertise, not for which organization they represent.

The first statement on AI from the leaders of the 20 biggest economies came in June—the G20 AI Principles—and the United States was among those to sign it. This is remarkable but, at the same time, the joint statement is little more than a token gesture committing nations to a "human-centered" approach to AI.

we can infer that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change______.

The United States has astrategic plan to retain the top spot in artificial intelligence( AI), and, by some measures, already leads in influential papers, hardware and AI talent. Other wealthy nations are also jockeying for a place in the world AI league. A kind of AI arms race is under way, and governments and corporations are pouring eye-watering sums into research and development.The prize, and it’s a big one,is that AI is forecast to add around US $15 trillion to the world economy by 2030—more than four times the 2017 gross domestic product of Germany. That’s $15 trillion in new companies, jobs, products, ways of working and forms of leisure, and it explains why countries are competing so vigorously for a slice of the pie.

For all the upsides, AI carries risks, from how facial-recognition technologies track and identify individuals, to the manipulation of elections.Yet despite vigorous academic and public discussion, governments have been slow to prioritize the ethics of AI. The United States is too preoccupied with the top prize, and shows little appetite to work with other countries and develop codes of practice. This leadership vacuum, however, has created opportunities for others.The national research agencies of France and Canada have teamed up on a call for research proposals on AI that incorporates an ethical dimension. Officials from Canada and France, meanwhile, have been working to establish an International Panel on Artificial Intelligence(IPAI), to be launched at the G7 summit of world leaders in Biarritz, France, from 24 to 26 August.The panel’s broad ambition is to create an expert network that will advise governments on AI ethical issues such as data privacy, public trust and human rights. Its members will include the research community, governments, industry and civil-society organizations.

This is a welcome step, but the panel’s architecture would benefit from more discussion.The IPAI’s inspiration seems to be the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But there are important differences.First, the United Nations is not involved—hence ‘international’ in the title, and not ‘intergovernmental’.This could be a concession to those, including the US administration, that are sceptical of multilateralism. Second, industry representatives will be more prominent. This is important, because companies have access to vast amounts of data, and are the ones driving the development of AI technologies.

However, for the panel to be credible—especially when it comes to public trust in AI—its secretariat and sponsoring governments will need to ensure that it follows the evidence, and that its advice is free from interference. To achieve this, panel members will need to be protected from direct or indirect lobbying by companies, pressure groups and governments—especially by those who regard ethics as a brake on innovation.That also means that panel members will need to be chosen for their expertise, not for which organization they represent.

The first statement on AI from the leaders of the 20 biggest economies came in June—the G20 AI Principles—and the United States was among those to sign it. This is remarkable but, at the same time, the joint statement is little more than a token gesture committing nations to a "human-centered" approach to AI.

What can the IPAI do to remain credible and independent？

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has challenged the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, arguing that it could be replaced by a global digital alternative to end a savings glut that resulted in 10 years of low inflation and ultra-low interest rates.

Likening the move to the end of sterling’s command of international money markets 100 years ago, Carney said the dollar had reached a level of dominance that meant it was a barrier to a sustainable recovery. He said a new digital currency backed by a large group of nations would unlock dollar funds that governments currently hoard as an insurance policy in uncertain times. Governments stockpile dollars to insure against swings in the US economy, which in recent times have intensified, leading to a significant rise in the cost of borrowing.

A digital currency "could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade", Carney said in a speech at the gathering of central bankers from around the world in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. "If the share of trade invoiced in a digital currency were to rise, shocks in the US would have less potent spillovers through exchange rates, and trade would become less synchronised across countries."

"The dollar’s influence on global financial conditions could similarly decline if a financial architecture developed around the new digital currency and it displaced the dollar’s dominance in credit markets. By reducing the influence of the US on the global financial cycle, this would help reduce the volatility of capital flows to emerging market economies."

The Chinese currency, the renminbi, has been cited as an alternative to the dollar along with proposed digital currencies such as Facebook’s Libra. Carney said neither was in a position to take over from the dollar, but new technologies could allow for a global digital currency to challenge the US currency. Digital currencies have attracted the attention of British central banks in the past year as the prospect of mobile business and consumer transactions has become more popular. Earlier this year the Bank of England welcomed Facebook’s Libra initiative. Bank officials said the initiative, which was backed by several banks, could be a useful addition to trading goods and services. In what appeared to be a warmer response to Libra, Carney said:"Retail transactions are taking place increasingly online rather than on the high street, and through electronic payments over cash.

A succession of central banks have criticised Libra, however, saying it lacks the rules and regulations to be a reliable currency. The European commission opened an anti-trust investigation into Libra earlier this week, saying it feared the private digital currency could could unfairly disadvantage rivals and be open to abuse. There are a host of fundamental problems that Libra must address, ranging from privacy to operational resilience. In addition, depending on its design, it could have substantial implications for both monetary and financial stability.

What is the problem of the US dollar being the world’s reserve currency according to Mark Carney？

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has challenged the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, arguing that it could be replaced by a global digital alternative to end a savings glut that resulted in 10 years of low inflation and ultra-low interest rates.

Likening the move to the end of sterling’s command of international money markets 100 years ago, Carney said the dollar had reached a level of dominance that meant it was a barrier to a sustainable recovery. He said a new digital currency backed by a large group of nations would unlock dollar funds that governments currently hoard as an insurance policy in uncertain times. Governments stockpile dollars to insure against swings in the US economy, which in recent times have intensified, leading to a significant rise in the cost of borrowing.

A digital currency "could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade", Carney said in a speech at the gathering of central bankers from around the world in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. "If the share of trade invoiced in a digital currency were to rise, shocks in the US would have less potent spillovers through exchange rates, and trade would become less synchronised across countries."

"The dollar’s influence on global financial conditions could similarly decline if a financial architecture developed around the new digital currency and it displaced the dollar’s dominance in credit markets. By reducing the influence of the US on the global financial cycle, this would help reduce the volatility of capital flows to emerging market economies."

The Chinese currency, the renminbi, has been cited as an alternative to the dollar along with proposed digital currencies such as Facebook’s Libra. Carney said neither was in a position to take over from the dollar, but new technologies could allow for a global digital currency to challenge the US currency. Digital currencies have attracted the attention of British central banks in the past year as the prospect of mobile business and consumer transactions has become more popular. Earlier this year the Bank of England welcomed Facebook’s Libra initiative. Bank officials said the initiative, which was backed by several banks, could be a useful addition to trading goods and services. In what appeared to be a warmer response to Libra, Carney said:"Retail transactions are taking place increasingly online rather than on the high street, and through electronic payments over cash.

A succession of central banks have criticised Libra, however, saying it lacks the rules and regulations to be a reliable currency. The European commission opened an anti-trust investigation into Libra earlier this week, saying it feared the private digital currency could could unfairly disadvantage rivals and be open to abuse. There are a host of fundamental problems that Libra must address, ranging from privacy to operational resilience. In addition, depending on its design, it could have substantial implications for both monetary and financial stability.

Governments around the world add dollars to their treasury to______.

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has challenged the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, arguing that it could be replaced by a global digital alternative to end a savings glut that resulted in 10 years of low inflation and ultra-low interest rates.

Likening the move to the end of sterling’s command of international money markets 100 years ago, Carney said the dollar had reached a level of dominance that meant it was a barrier to a sustainable recovery. He said a new digital currency backed by a large group of nations would unlock dollar funds that governments currently hoard as an insurance policy in uncertain times. Governments stockpile dollars to insure against swings in the US economy, which in recent times have intensified, leading to a significant rise in the cost of borrowing.

A digital currency "could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade", Carney said in a speech at the gathering of central bankers from around the world in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. "If the share of trade invoiced in a digital currency were to rise, shocks in the US would have less potent spillovers through exchange rates, and trade would become less synchronised across countries."

"The dollar’s influence on global financial conditions could similarly decline if a financial architecture developed around the new digital currency and it displaced the dollar’s dominance in credit markets. By reducing the influence of the US on the global financial cycle, this would help reduce the volatility of capital flows to emerging market economies."

The Chinese currency, the renminbi, has been cited as an alternative to the dollar along with proposed digital currencies such as Facebook’s Libra. Carney said neither was in a position to take over from the dollar, but new technologies could allow for a global digital currency to challenge the US currency. Digital currencies have attracted the attention of British central banks in the past year as the prospect of mobile business and consumer transactions has become more popular. Earlier this year the Bank of England welcomed Facebook’s Libra initiative. Bank officials said the initiative, which was backed by several banks, could be a useful addition to trading goods and services. In what appeared to be a warmer response to Libra, Carney said:"Retail transactions are taking place increasingly online rather than on the high street, and through electronic payments over cash.

A succession of central banks have criticised Libra, however, saying it lacks the rules and regulations to be a reliable currency. The European commission opened an anti-trust investigation into Libra earlier this week, saying it feared the private digital currency could could unfairly disadvantage rivals and be open to abuse. There are a host of fundamental problems that Libra must address, ranging from privacy to operational resilience. In addition, depending on its design, it could have substantial implications for both monetary and financial stability.

What is a benefit of digital currency according to Mark Carney?

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has challenged the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, arguing that it could be replaced by a global digital alternative to end a savings glut that resulted in 10 years of low inflation and ultra-low interest rates.

Likening the move to the end of sterling’s command of international money markets 100 years ago, Carney said the dollar had reached a level of dominance that meant it was a barrier to a sustainable recovery. He said a new digital currency backed by a large group of nations would unlock dollar funds that governments currently hoard as an insurance policy in uncertain times. Governments stockpile dollars to insure against swings in the US economy, which in recent times have intensified, leading to a significant rise in the cost of borrowing.

A digital currency "could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade", Carney said in a speech at the gathering of central bankers from around the world in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. "If the share of trade invoiced in a digital currency were to rise, shocks in the US would have less potent spillovers through exchange rates, and trade would become less synchronised across countries."

"The dollar’s influence on global financial conditions could similarly decline if a financial architecture developed around the new digital currency and it displaced the dollar’s dominance in credit markets. By reducing the influence of the US on the global financial cycle, this would help reduce the volatility of capital flows to emerging market economies."

The Chinese currency, the renminbi, has been cited as an alternative to the dollar along with proposed digital currencies such as Facebook’s Libra. Carney said neither was in a position to take over from the dollar, but new technologies could allow for a global digital currency to challenge the US currency. Digital currencies have attracted the attention of British central banks in the past year as the prospect of mobile business and consumer transactions has become more popular. Earlier this year the Bank of England welcomed Facebook’s Libra initiative. Bank officials said the initiative, which was backed by several banks, could be a useful addition to trading goods and services. In what appeared to be a warmer response to Libra, Carney said:"Retail transactions are taking place increasingly online rather than on the high street, and through electronic payments over cash.

A succession of central banks have criticised Libra, however, saying it lacks the rules and regulations to be a reliable currency. The European commission opened an anti-trust investigation into Libra earlier this week, saying it feared the private digital currency could could unfairly disadvantage rivals and be open to abuse. There are a host of fundamental problems that Libra must address, ranging from privacy to operational resilience. In addition, depending on its design, it could have substantial implications for both monetary and financial stability.

Digital currencies have attracted the attention of British central banks in the past year because______.

The Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, has challenged the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency, arguing that it could be replaced by a global digital alternative to end a savings glut that resulted in 10 years of low inflation and ultra-low interest rates.

Likening the move to the end of sterling’s command of international money markets 100 years ago, Carney said the dollar had reached a level of dominance that meant it was a barrier to a sustainable recovery. He said a new digital currency backed by a large group of nations would unlock dollar funds that governments currently hoard as an insurance policy in uncertain times. Governments stockpile dollars to insure against swings in the US economy, which in recent times have intensified, leading to a significant rise in the cost of borrowing.

A digital currency "could dampen the domineering influence of the US dollar on global trade", Carney said in a speech at the gathering of central bankers from around the world in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. "If the share of trade invoiced in a digital currency were to rise, shocks in the US would have less potent spillovers through exchange rates, and trade would become less synchronised across countries."

"The dollar’s influence on global financial conditions could similarly decline if a financial architecture developed around the new digital currency and it displaced the dollar’s dominance in credit markets. By reducing the influence of the US on the global financial cycle, this would help reduce the volatility of capital flows to emerging market economies."

The Chinese currency, the renminbi, has been cited as an alternative to the dollar along with proposed digital currencies such as Facebook’s Libra. Carney said neither was in a position to take over from the dollar, but new technologies could allow for a global digital currency to challenge the US currency. Digital currencies have attracted the attention of British central banks in the past year as the prospect of mobile business and consumer transactions has become more popular. Earlier this year the Bank of England welcomed Facebook’s Libra initiative. Bank officials said the initiative, which was backed by several banks, could be a useful addition to trading goods and services. In what appeared to be a warmer response to Libra, Carney said:"Retail transactions are taking place increasingly online rather than on the high street, and through electronic payments over cash.

A succession of central banks have criticised Libra, however, saying it lacks the rules and regulations to be a reliable currency. The European commission opened an anti-trust investigation into Libra earlier this week, saying it feared the private digital currency could could unfairly disadvantage rivals and be open to abuse. There are a host of fundamental problems that Libra must address, ranging from privacy to operational resilience. In addition, depending on its design, it could have substantial implications for both monetary and financial stability.

Which of the following is not a criticism against Libra?