<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Advocates — Keeping AI Honest</title>
    <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/lane/advocates/</link>
    <description>Ethical AI news: the rolling record of what AI costs people and the planet, and who's fighting back.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://keepingaihonest.com/lane/advocates/rss.xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Authors Guild urges publishers not to cancel books on AI detector results alone</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-authors-guild-urges-publishers-not-to-cancel-books-on-ai-detector/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-authors-guild-urges-publishers-not-to-cancel-books-on-ai-detector/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Authors Guild published best practices for publishers on Oct. 13 saying no publisher, agent or other person should rely solely on an AI detector to decide whether a book contains AI-generated text, and no publisher should cancel a contract over AI use unless the author violated a signed contract or policy that clearly prohibits that use. The guidelines ask publishers to adopt written AI policies, disclose when and why they use AI detectors, and get an author's permission before uploading a manuscript to a third-party detection service; the Guild says publishers have already canceled several books over alleged AI-generated text, and it opposes requiring authors to use tools that log their writing process to prove authorship, per Publishers Weekly. Why it matters: An AI detector gives a guess with a confidence score, and a writer's career shouldn't hang on a guess. The Guild's ask is modest: written rules, disclosure, and consent before a manuscript goes into someone else's system. Publishers that want honesty from authors can start by offering it. Via The Authors Guild (https://authorsguild.org/resource/ai-best-practices-for-publishers/).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Japan Actors Union guidelines require consent at every step of AI voice use</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-japan-actors-union-guidelines-require-consent-at-every-step-of-ai/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-japan-actors-union-guidelines-require-consent-at-every-step-of-ai/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Japan Actors Union, a cooperative of actors and voice actors, released guidelines on Oct. 15 requiring prior consent, with the purpose disclosed, before performers' voices are used to train generative AI models, to generate AI audio or to publish it, and compensation based on how a voice is used, per the Asahi Shimbun and the union's announcement. The guidelines say AI should not, in principle, replace Japanese-language voice performances in dubbed foreign productions, largely bar AI use of deceased actors' voices, and say performers who refuse or withdraw consent must not be disadvantaged in casting or employment. The union's announcement cites the lack of a recognized right to one's voice in Japanese law, and Japan's industry ministry has begun considering revisions to the Unfair Competition Prevention Law to address unauthorized AI use of voices, the Asahi reported. Why it matters: Consent at every step, pay for every use: Japan's performers have written down what AI developers should have asked first. Guidelines are a floor, not a law, and the government is right to look at closing that gap so a performer's voice stops being free raw material. Via The Asahi Shimbun (https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/16970021).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Western Resource Advocates says APS rate method shifts data center costs to households</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-western-resource-advocates-says-aps-rate-method-shifts-data-center/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-western-resource-advocates-says-aps-rate-method-shifts-data-center/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 21:18:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit renewable energy advocate and one of 23 intervenors in APS's pending rate case, told 12News that the Arizona utility's method for dividing power generation costs shifts about $136 million a year to residential customers, an amount the group says data centers would mostly cover under an alternative it proposes, called &quot;Probability of Dispatch.&quot; APS said the analysis does not fully account for the cost of a reliable grid and backup power, called it &quot;a debate over differing methodologies&quot; being examined in the rate case, and argued in an August brief that WRA's method would be too complex to apply; APS executives and regulators have repeated a &quot;growth pays for growth&quot; motto since 2025, per 12News. APS is seeking a 15% average rate hike for homeowners, and the Arizona Corporation Commission is expected to vote on the case by the end of the year. Why it matters: APS and regulators say growth pays for growth; WRA says the math doesn't. Its figure is an advocate's estimate and deserves scrutiny. So does a utility that calls the alternative too complex. The bill should follow the load, not the households. Via 12News (https://www.12news.com/article/news/investigations/i-team/second-analysis-aps-customers-are-paying-data-center-costs-this-time-through-base-rates-arizona-energy-costs-money/75-7a027628-1147-435d-9bc2-bae989233267).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>AlgorithmWatch study: weaker German data center efficiency rules would cost billions</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-algorithmwatch-study-weaker-german-data-center-efficiency-rules-would/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-algorithmwatch-study-weaker-german-data-center-efficiency-rules-would/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 19:01:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>A study published Oct. 2 by AlgorithmWatch, the Umweltinstitut München and the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research projects that weakening the efficiency limit for new data centers under Germany's Energy Efficiency Act (EnEfG), now being revised in the Bundestag, would require extra energy equal to four gas power plants, or seven if the benchmark switched from measured to design-stage efficiency values. The current draft does not lower those limits, though such changes are under political discussion; AlgorithmWatch puts the avoidable electricity cost through 2045 at €3.75 billion even at 5 cents per kWh, and says operators largely pass energy costs on to customers. AlgorithmWatch's Julian Bothe was set to present the findings at the Bundestag economic affairs committee's Oct. 5 hearing on the bill, which the group says also postpones a renewable-energy requirement for data centers and adds trade-secret exemptions to rules requiring operators to publish per-site energy figures. Why it matters: Efficiency rules are the cheapest power plant Germany has. Loosening them mid-boom trades a lighter compliance load for more gas burned and higher bills passed down the line. And per-site disclosure is the point: a sector can't be held to numbers it is allowed to hide. Via AlgorithmWatch (https://algorithmwatch.org/de/algorithmwatch-kritisiert-im-wirtschaftsausschuss-weniger-effizienz-bei-rechenzentren-kostet-die-wirtschaft-milliarden/).</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>CDT finds AI companies don't rigorously test deepfake intimate image safeguards</title>
      <link>https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-cdt-finds-ai-companies-don-t-rigorously-test-deepfake-intimate-image/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://keepingaihonest.com/item/2026-10-17-cdt-finds-ai-companies-don-t-rigorously-test-deepfake-intimate-image/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 19:01:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>The Center for Democracy &amp; Technology published a report Oct. 15 on how Anthropic, Google, Meta, Midjourney, OpenAI, Stability AI and xAI address AI-generated non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), meaning sexual images of real, identifiable people made without consent, drawing on their public policies as of June 15, 2026, technical documentation and 11 interviews with company and civil society representatives. CDT found the companies report several technical safeguards but fail to rigorously test whether they work, and that most safeguards sit in products rather than in the models themselves, leaving products built on open-weight models especially exposed. Of the seven, only Meta explicitly defines NCII in its policies, the report says. Why it matters: A safeguard nobody tests is a promise, not a protection. The cost of that gap falls on people whose faces end up in someone else's prompt. A shared testing standard, as CDT urges, should come before the next model ships, not after the next victim. Via Center for Democracy &amp; Technology (https://cdt.org/insights/toward-evidence-based-interventions-foundation-model-mitigations-of-ai-generation-of-non-consensual-intimate-imagery-ncii-and-their-gaps/).</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>