The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which previously allowed courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, could significantly impact regulatory actions by agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning cybersecurity. This shift challenges the authority of these agencies, which have used older statutes to address modern cybersecurity issues in the absence of explicit congressional mandates. The ruling may particularly affect the FTC's initiative to establish extensive data privacy and security rules. Concurrently, the SEC's mandate requiring companies to report significant cybersecurity incidents has faced criticism and opposition from some congressional Republicans, highlighting ongoing debates over the appropriate scope and reach of federal cybersecurity regulation.

Chevron ruling adds new wrinkle to US cybersecurity efforts cfodive.com

The American Hospital Association (AHA) has provided feedback to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding its proposed Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) rule. While acknowledging the importance of incident reporting to understand and mitigate cyber threats, the AHA raises concerns about the redundancy, complexity, and timing of these requirements, which could burden hospitals during critical times. They advise CISA to harmonize its reporting rules with existing regulations, ensure data anonymity, and simplify the reporting process. Additionally, the AHA emphasizes the need for clearer definitions, more inclusive criteria for all health care-related entities, and a reduction of the operational burden on hospitals, suggesting that penalties on victim organizations be reconsidered in favor of collaborative approaches.

AHA Responds to CISA Proposed Rule on Cyber Incident Reporting Requirements | AHA aha.org

Daniel Restrepo, MD, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, conducted two studies comparing the diagnostic reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) to human physicians. Published in *JAMA Internal Medicine* and the *Journal of Hospital Medicine*, the research explored whether AI could reduce clinical reasoning errors that often lead to misdiagnoses. The first study compared an LLM and a human doctor in diagnosing a real medical case, revealing that the AI was slower to integrate new data points but arrived at the correct diagnosis. The second study assessed GPT-4 against resident and attending physicians, noting the AI's comparable reasoning abilities but also its tendency toward verbosity and higher instances of incorrect reasoning. The findings suggest LLMs could potentially augment, but not replace, human clinicians, highlighting the need for further study and careful implementation to address biases and data safety.

Research Spotlight: Head-to-Head Comparisons of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Internal Medicine Physicians Mass General Brigham

The rapid advancement of the digital afterlife industry is bringing the possibility of interacting with virtual reconstructions of deceased loved ones through AI, VR, and other technologies. Companies in this niche market, such as HereAfter and MyWishes, are developing digital personas based on the data left behind by individuals, raising significant emotional and ethical questions. These technologies offer both comfort and potential psychological harm, blurring the lines between reality and simulation. Issues around consent, privacy, and the potential for misuse call for updated legal frameworks and ethical guidelines, including informed consent and data security measures, to ensure these digital interactions honor the deceased while supporting the emotional health of the living.

An eerie ‘digital afterlife’ is no longer science fiction. So how do we navigate the risks? theconversation.com

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, which previously allowed courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, could significantly impact regulatory actions by agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) concerning cybersecurity. This shift challenges the authority of these agencies, which have used older statutes to address modern cybersecurity issues in the absence of explicit congressional mandates. The ruling may particularly affect the FTC's initiative to establish extensive data privacy and security rules. Concurrently, the SEC's mandate requiring companies to report significant cybersecurity incidents has faced criticism and opposition from some congressional Republicans, highlighting ongoing debates over the appropriate scope and reach of federal cybersecurity regulation.

Chevron ruling adds new wrinkle to US cybersecurity efforts cfodive.com

The American Hospital Association (AHA) has provided feedback to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) regarding its proposed Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) rule. While acknowledging the importance of incident reporting to understand and mitigate cyber threats, the AHA raises concerns about the redundancy, complexity, and timing of these requirements, which could burden hospitals during critical times. They advise CISA to harmonize its reporting rules with existing regulations, ensure data anonymity, and simplify the reporting process. Additionally, the AHA emphasizes the need for clearer definitions, more inclusive criteria for all health care-related entities, and a reduction of the operational burden on hospitals, suggesting that penalties on victim organizations be reconsidered in favor of collaborative approaches.

AHA Responds to CISA Proposed Rule on Cyber Incident Reporting Requirements | AHA aha.org

Daniel Restrepo, MD, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital, conducted two studies comparing the diagnostic reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) to human physicians. Published in *JAMA Internal Medicine* and the *Journal of Hospital Medicine*, the research explored whether AI could reduce clinical reasoning errors that often lead to misdiagnoses. The first study compared an LLM and a human doctor in diagnosing a real medical case, revealing that the AI was slower to integrate new data points but arrived at the correct diagnosis. The second study assessed GPT-4 against resident and attending physicians, noting the AI's comparable reasoning abilities but also its tendency toward verbosity and higher instances of incorrect reasoning. The findings suggest LLMs could potentially augment, but not replace, human clinicians, highlighting the need for further study and careful implementation to address biases and data safety.

Research Spotlight: Head-to-Head Comparisons of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Internal Medicine Physicians Mass General Brigham

The rapid advancement of the digital afterlife industry is bringing the possibility of interacting with virtual reconstructions of deceased loved ones through AI, VR, and other technologies. Companies in this niche market, such as HereAfter and MyWishes, are developing digital personas based on the data left behind by individuals, raising significant emotional and ethical questions. These technologies offer both comfort and potential psychological harm, blurring the lines between reality and simulation. Issues around consent, privacy, and the potential for misuse call for updated legal frameworks and ethical guidelines, including informed consent and data security measures, to ensure these digital interactions honor the deceased while supporting the emotional health of the living.

An eerie ‘digital afterlife’ is no longer science fiction. So how do we navigate the risks? theconversation.com