When Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) thinks about hip-hop's influence, he remembers all the wrongdoings artists illuminated throughout history. Even as hip-hop turns 50, the music is still provoking discussions about high-stakes political issues from police brutality to gun violence. "I'm in elected office today because of hip-hop," said Bradford, pointing to his time as a former nightclub promoter. "My attitude was if I can bring folks out to a club to listen to music, we can get folks out in our communities to rock the vote, and I use that as a catalyst to do what I do." Standing on the steps of the State Capitol in Sacramento on Monday, Bradford was among members of the California Legislative Black Caucus celebrating hip-hop's 50th anniversary.

Recent developments in natural language processing have demonstrated the potential of large language models (LLMs) to improve a range of educational and learning outcomes. Of recent chatbots based on LLMs, ChatGPT and Bard have made it clear that artificial intelligence (AI) technology will have significant implications on the way we obtain and search for information. However, these tools sometimes produce text that is convincing, but often incorrect, known as hallucinations. As such, their use can distort scientific facts and spread misinformation. To counter polarizing responses on these tools, it is critical to provide an overview of such responses so stakeholders can determine which topics tend to produce more contentious responses -- key to developing targeted regulatory policy and interventions. In addition, there currently exists no annotated dataset of ChatGPT and Bard responses around possibly polarizing topics, central to the above aims. We address the indicated issues through the following contribution: Focusing on highly polarizing topics in the US, we created and described a dataset of ChatGPT and Bard responses. Broadly, our results indicated a left-leaning bias for both ChatGPT and Bard, with Bard more likely to provide responses around polarizing topics. Bard seemed to have fewer guardrails around controversial topics, and appeared more willing to provide comprehensive, and somewhat human-like responses. Bard may thus be more likely abused by malicious actors. Stakeholders may utilize our findings to mitigate misinformative and/or polarizing responses from LLMs

Until recently, allegations of "racism" in the public sphere have operated like first degree murder charges do in courts of law--in order to establish such a charge, mainstream media often demanded proof of the alleged racist's intent. Dictionary definitions have long tracked this blinkered view of'racism.' For decades, Merriam-Webster's entry described racism as a "belief" of racial supremacy, or a program designed to put that belief into action. Because many people--and some judges--treat dictionary definitions as if they were legal prescriptions, accusations of racism have required proof of intent--a purposeful, race-based disparity in conduct or consequence. Thus, the legal framework for considering racial discrimination has largely echoed the dictionary's narrow take on racism.

The US is using methods of violence against domestic protests it has repeatedly used in its imperial adventures abroad. As the world was gripped by the shocking scenes of police brutality against the Black community in the United States and the aggressive posture adopted by President Donald Trump against the protestors, an important development was missed by many observers. On May 29, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency flew a Predator drone, the machine used to kill suspected terrorists around the world, over the protestors in Minneapolis. The use of the drone led to immediate condemnations from civil rights groups on the ground, as the city of Minneapolis lies outside the 100-air-mile border zone where the CBP has jurisdiction. The incident is significant because it reflects the willingness of the US authorities to use technology developed to propagate imperial designs abroad against their own citizens.

The response to protests against police brutality, ignited by the murder of Geoge Floyd, have been nothing short of draconian. While government forces on the ground gleefully beat protesters and passersby with batons and doused them with tear gas, the US Border Patrol has deployed Reaper drones to surveil citizens from the skies and the DEA has been tasked with tracking protesters. The outsized surveillance response displayed so far by the Feds has driven concerns from privacy advocates over the potential use of more insidious forms of snooping, from facial recognition algorithms to cell-site simulation (aka the Stingray and Crossbow systems.) People stuck in traffic are witnessing NYPD beat up folks on their way home. "All the technology we have been warning about for a while are starting to come to fruition in these protests," Dave Maass, a senior investigative researcher at digital rights group the Electronic Frontier Foundation, told Reuters on Monday.