The Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence's published AI ethics guidelines mention the protection of individual privacy.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
The second judge said resolved true; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge against the Beijing AI Principles released by BAAI and partners (May 2019). True: the published text explicitly mentions protecting individual or personal privacy, or privacy rights (for example, a principle on respecting privacy or protecting personal data). Mostly true: privacy is addressed explicitly but in slightly different terms (for example, 'personal data' or 'privacy' without the word 'individual'). Mixed: privacy appears only indirectly, for example within a broader rights clause. Mostly false: the text touches only on related ideas (security, consent, data governance) without mentioning privacy. False: the published guidelines contain no mention of privacy.
Set before the research began.
Evidence (1)
-
E1 The Ideology Behind China's AI Strategy - Nesta Nesta · 18 May 2020
“The Beijing AI Principles, formulated by the Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence, state that ‘human privacy, dignity, freedom and rights should be sufficiently respected’.”
Reasoning
E1, an independent Nesta report, quotes the BAAI's Beijing AI Principles as saying that 'human privacy, dignity, freedom and rights should be sufficiently respected.' So the guidelines mention privacy explicitly, as something to be respected. The quoted wording says 'human privacy', not 'individual' or 'personal' privacy. Under the criteria, that slightly different wording makes it mostly true rather than true.
Cite this claim
Yann LeCun, “The Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence's published AI ethics guidelines mention the protection of individual privacy.” (said 3 June 2019). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_e19fe5063f63, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_e19fe5063f63
This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.
Reply to this claim
More factual claims by Yann LeCun
-
Resolved true
“Nice defense of AI open science and open source by @ClementDelangue in his congressional testimony.”
Clément Delangue defended AI open science and open source in his congressional testimony.
-
Mostly true
“Nick Clegg, Facebook’s VP of global affairs and communications, wrote an important op-ed piece about the future of the Internet.”
-
Resolved false
““Those agents are doing exactly what they’ve been asked to do,” LeCun said.”
-
Resolved true
““It’s AI for the physical world, so it’s not language-related,” LeCun said.”
AMI Labs' work is AI for the physical world and is not language-related.
-
Resolved true
““They were supposed to be in sandboxes, but the sandboxes were leaky and horribly designed.””
Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.