Hindustan Times
중도 성향
IT/기술
No relaxation in 75% class 12 marks rule for IIT admissions, says Joint Admission Board
The demands were made in the wake of growing concerns among students over the delay in re-evaluation process of CBSE exams.
IT/기술 · "EVALUATION" · 총 10건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.3
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 86,090건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.2(균형)입니다. 긍정 4,274건(5.0%)·중립 79,689건(92.6%)·부정 2,127건(2.5%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 14.8(중도 균형)입니다.
The demands were made in the wake of growing concerns among students over the delay in re-evaluation process of CBSE exams.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) on Wednesday clarified that students applying for verification and re-evaluation of Class XII answer sheets do not need to have accounts with State Bank of India, Canara Bank, Bank of Baroda or Indian Bank to make payments on its online portal, addressing confusion that emerged after the system was launched earlier this week, Times of India reported.The clarification came after several students claimed on social media that the portal appeared to restrict payments to customers of the four public sector banks. In a statement posted on X, CBSE said the portal only uses payment gateways operated by these banks and does not require applicants to hold accounts with them.Also Read: Claude, other AI tools used to breach CBSE portals: IIT Panel“Candidates may use the available online payment options — UPI, net banking, credit card and debit card — through the designated gateways,” the board said.CBSE also said the portal continued to function smoothly despite a major cyberattack attempt on Tuesday, shortly after it went live. According to the board, the platform came under a barrage of denial-of-service attacks within minutes of its launch, receiving nearly 1.5 million hits in two minutes along with more than one lakh attempts at unauthorised file access.The board said its technical teams worked continuously to maintain the stability and security of the platform.“The portal has accepted 4,924 applications for verification and 39,056 applications for re-evaluation (total of 43,980) as of 12 noon today,” CBSE said.The board urged students to rely only on official CBSE communication for updates related to the process.Also Read: CBSE re-evaluation portal keeps lakhs of students guessingThe verification and re-evaluation window opened on June 2 for Class XII students who had earlier obtained scanned copies of their answer books evaluated under the board’s new digital On-Screen Marking (OMS) system.
Microsoft on Tuesday took the wraps off Adaptive Spec-driven Scoring for Evaluation and Regression Testing, an open source framework for spinning up AI evaluations.
From a draft by Stanford law professor Julian Nyarko and others: We conducted a blinded evaluation of short-answer tutoring in… The post Eventually, the Steam Drill Always Wins: "Law Professors Prefer AI Over Peer Answers" appeared first on Reason.com.
In case there is revision in Class 12 marks upon re-evaluation, after choice-locking for college seat allocation, specific rules will apply.
China has pledged to improve the accuracy, reliability and transparency of AI through a new national evaluation framework, as policymakers move to establish common standards for assessing the fast-evolving technology. New guidelines released by the central government said Beijing would create a common yardstick for AI, allowing models, computing power and data quality to be measured and compared under a unified national standard. The move comes as artificial intelligence plays an increasingly...
This article is adapted by the author with permission from Tech Policy Press. Read the original article. South Africa is not just another developing country struggling to govern artificial intelligence; it is the exception with leverage, and the window to act on it is closing. It holds approximately 88 percent of global platinum-group metal reserves, critical inputs to parts of the semiconductor and data-center supply chains that make AI infrastructure possible. It hosts the largest data-center market on the continent. Its existing hyperscaler relationships give it procurement leverage that most African states will never have. And a major geopolitical contest over AI infrastructure is being fought on its soil right now, between Chinese and American technology companies competing for control of the systems that will underpin an entire continent’s public sector. In physics, leverage requires three things: a fulcrum, a lever arm, and the ability to apply force. The Bushveld Complex, the world’s largest platinum-group metal deposit, is the fulcrum: a mineral endowment that gives South Africa a position in the semiconductor supply chain that no other African state holds. The since-withdrawn draft policy is the lever arm. The unresolved “OPTION” provisions in the policy are where force would be applied. Without a policy that specifies what South Africa wants in return for market access, the lever arm sits unused, and the weight of two of the world’s largest technology ecosystems settles exactly where those ecosystems want it to settle. This makes South Africa a global test case. Not because its proposed means of governance is exemplary, but because it is the one developing country with enough structural leverage to negotiate genuinely different terms, and the one that is choosing, through inaction, not to. The recent announcement of a new panel to update the draft policy is an important opportunity. But the deeper failure is not that an AI policy contained bad references. It is that no verification process caught them before the document entered the public domain. That is a systems problem, not merely a political one. It points to a missing layer in how governments are adopting AI. The contest already underway Last year, Huawei pitched an emerging-product bundle to tech executives across the continent. Huawei was now bundling access to DeepSeek’s large language model with its own cloud and storage infrastructure. The price differential was stark—in some cases by more than 90 percent. At the same time, Microsoft announced plans to spend ZAR 5.4 billion ($300 million) by the end of 2027 on cloud and AI infrastructure in South Africa, building on a prior ZAR 20.4 billion investment. Google, Amazon Web Services, and Oracle already have cloud regions in the country. According to one analysis, the country’s data-center market was valued at US $2.16 billion in 2024, the largest in Africa. These are not commercially neutral investments. Huawei’s infrastructure reach has been explicitly linked to Chinese strategic objectives, including a documented track record of providing governments with surveillance infrastructure through its Safe Cities network. U.S. hyperscaler investment comes with its own dependency structure: closed models, pricing set unilaterally, and terms of access that no African government has meaningfully shaped. South Africa is being asked to choose between these dependency models without a policy that specifies what it wants in return. The leverage it has There is a particular irony in South Africa’s position. The country whose mines supply platinum-group metals essential to semiconductor manufacturing, and through them to AI compute, has drafted a policy that treats it as a consumer of AI systems rather than a stakeholder in their governance. South Africa digs up the minerals that make AI possible. It has no say over the AI built from them. The AI triad framework covers algorithms, compute, and data. South Africa has no frontier model development capacity. South Africa holds significant data assets in financial services, health care, and agriculture, with no clear framework for their sovereign management. South Africa possesses PGM (Platinum Group Metals) leverage of global significance on the compute axis, currently being transferred without meaningful condition. It also has exceptionally high solar irradiance and significant renewable-energy potential. A country that can offer both critical mineral inputs and the energy to power the infrastructure those minerals help build occupies a negotiating position of unusual strength. The Draft Policy proposes no minimum terms for hyperscaler investment, no data sovereignty requirements, no technology transfer conditions and no compute visibility mechanism. Multiple provisions are explicitly left unresolved, marked “OPTION,” including the most consequential choices about how governance will function. Infrastructure decisions made now determine what is renegotiable later, and the answer is: very little. Three futures, one default The three infrastructure futures on offer each create a structurally different form of dependency, and only one creates sovereign capability. The Huawei-hosted DeepSeek integration offers low cost and open-source weights, but with data stored on infrastructure potentially accessible under Chinese legal frameworks, creating surveillance dependency in a pattern already documented across Africa. The second is U.S. closed-model dependency: higher capability, more reliable data protection, but complete API dependency on developers abroad. The third is locally hosted open-weight infrastructure: models governed under South African data-sovereignty rules, on infrastructure subject to minimum terms, developed with South African data. As Nathan Lambert at Interconnects has observed, open-weight models are likely the only realistic way to get sovereign AI off the ground as a real effort, enabling local communities and economies to integrate meaningfully with the technology. But this requires procurement conditions, not goodwill. What binding governance looks like The GovAI “Governing Through the Cloud” framework identifies four roles compute providers should accept as conditions of operating at scale: securers (protecting model weights and training data), record keepers (maintaining infrastructure usage logs), verifiers (confirming customer compliance with safety standards) and enforcers (restricting access when violations occur). These are operational requirements, not theoretical categories—specific, enforceable, and well within the bargaining power of a market of South Africa’s size and mineral position. A detailed policy analysis submitted to the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies (DCDT) identifies the specific provisions the final policy must contain: mandatory minimum terms for foreign compute infrastructure investments above ZAR 500 million (~$30 million); a compute reporting threshold; a National AI Safety Institute mandate covering defensive monitoring of AI capability accumulation; and National AI Champion Sector designations to create data assets for domestic model development. Each provision converts a structural advantage into a governance instrument before that advantage is foreclosed by market reality. Just as modern software security increasingly depends on knowing what components are inside a system—model provider, training data, compute environment, evaluation methods, update cadence, human review points, and failure-reporting procedures—public-sector AI governance requires a clear account of the stack before deployment, not after a problem surfaces. A public institution that cannot verify the sources in its own AI policy is unlikely to be ready to verify the AI systems it procures, deploys, or regulates. Why this is the continental test case South Africa’s choices will establish a regional precedent for what is commercially negotiable in AI infrastructure. If South Africa negotiates data-sovereignty guarantees and technology-transfer conditions as requirements for hyperscaler investment, it creates a replicable model. If Microsoft’s $300 million investment and Huawei’s infrastructure expansion proceed on standard commercial terms, as they are currently, it normalizes extractive AI infrastructure across the continent. The lesson is not specific to Africa. Governments everywhere are producing AI strategies while lacking AI assurance infrastructure. South Africa is an early warning, not an isolated case. The public comment period closed when the policy was withdrawn. But a parallel process remains live: the National Treasury’s Draft General Public Procurement Regulations—the legal instrument that will govern every government AI contract—closes for comment on June 15. Those regulations contain no AI-specific provisions. South Africa has more AI leverage than any country on the continent. Some argue, with force, that governance requirements risk deterring the infrastructure investment South Africa urgently needs: compute capacity, reliable energy, venture capital, and talent retention. That concern deserves a direct answer. Minimum procurement terms, compute reporting thresholds, and technology transfer conditions are not barriers to investment. They are the conditions under which investment serves the host country rather than extracting from it. Infrastructure built without minimum terms produces dependency. Infrastructure built with them produces leverage. To serve the public interest, its AI policy must use it. When late last month News24 reported AI-hallucinated references in the draft AI policy, Minister of Communications and Digital Technologies Solly Malatsi withdrew the draft policy. That was a mistake that could cost South Africa and the rest of the continent the initiative on this urgent issue. His more recent constitution of an independent panel is a belated step in the right direction, if it can turn South Africa’s leverage into policy. The panel—chaired by Professor Benjamin Rosman of the Wits Machine Intelligence and Neural Discovery Institute, and including Professors Vukosi Marivate and Alison Gillwald of Research ICT Africa and Dr. Jabu Mtsweni of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research—has the technical and governance credibility to produce a stronger document. What it has not yet produced is a timeline. No revised draft has been scheduled. South Africa remains without a formal AI governance framework in the interim.
For the first time, China has included artificial intelligence chips in its official “secure and reliable” technology assessments, expanding the scope of a state-backed drive to adopt domestic alternatives to Western products. The China Information Technology Security Evaluation Centre and the National Secrecy Science and Technology Evaluation Centre released the latest batch of assessments on Tuesday, creating a new category for “AI training and inference chips”. The certifications were valid...
A comprehensive review of how spectrum congestion, dynamic sharing, and cognitive radio systems are reshaping RF coexistence testing for military and commercial applications. What Attendees will Learn Why spectrum congestion threatens wireless reliability — Explore how over 30 billion connected devices, more than 4,000 allocation changes worldwide, and the expansion from 11 to over 80 cellular bands are intensifying contention for finite RF spectrum resources. How real-world coexistence failures affect safety-critical systems — Understand the interference risks between 5G C band transmitters and aircraft radar altimeters, and between terrestrial L band networks and GPS receivers that were not designed for adjacent high-power signals. Why tiered spectrum sharing frameworks are essential — Examine how CBRS uses a cloud-based Spectrum Access System (SAS) and environmental sensing to dynamically protect incumbent Navy radar while enabling commercial cellular services across three priority tiers. What coexistence test architectures look like in practice — Learn how controlled environment testing with anechoic chambers, over-the-air signal generation, and standards such as ANSI C63.27 enable repeatable evaluation of RF device performance under real-world interference conditions. Download this free whitepaper now!
Apple Inc. lost an early round in a discrimination lawsuit brought in the U.S. by a female engineer from India who says her two managers -- one from her country, the other from Pakistan -- treated her as they would in their own countries: as a subservient.The woman’s case in California state court is the latest to allege workplace bias in Silicon Valley that focuses on cultural prejudices of some tech workers from South Asia. Cisco Systems Inc. is fighting a suit brought by California’s civil rights agency alleging bias against a member of India’s so-called lower castes, known as Dalits.Anita Nariani Schulze is part of the Sindhi minority -- she is Hindu, with ancestry in the Sindh region of what is now Pakistan. Her complaint alleges that her senior and direct managers, both male, consistently excluded her from meetings while inviting her male counterparts, criticized her, micromanaged her work, and deprived her of bonuses, despite positive performance evaluations and significant team contributions.Schulze claims the managers’ animus reflects sexism, racism, religious bias and discrimination on the basis of national origin. The Sindhi Hindu nationality is “known for its technical acumen” and its gender equality, she says, which “exacerbated the managers’ discriminatory treatment.”In a tentative ruling on Wednesday, Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Sunil R. Kulkarni rejected Apple’s request to toss out the suit. While not ruling on the merits of the case, Kulkarni said Schulze had adequately supported her legal claims. Apple had argued her claims weren’t specific enough and were based on stereotypes.But the judge rejected Schulze’s request to represent a class of female Apple employees who suffered job discrimination over the last four years. He agreed with Apple that she didn’t show a pattern of discrimination that could be applied to a broader group.It wasn’t clear from the court’s docket whether the judge will hold a hearing Thursday before issuing a final ruling.Apple didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.In the Cisco case, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged that two Indian employees at the San Jose-based company discriminated against a Dalit co-worker on the basis of caste.Cisco has denied the claims, insisting it has “zero tolerance for discrimination.” It also said the lawsuit should be tossed out because caste isn’t a protected category under U.S. civil rights law.