Alexandre Ier est peut-être l’un des souverains les plus brillants de l’histoire russe. Non seulement il repoussa l’invasion d’une Europe unie, mais il effectua également la Grande Marche vers l’Ouest, entrant triomphalement dans Paris le 31 mars 1814.
On June 1, the negotiators from the European Parliament and the Council reached a preliminary agreement on changes in EU policy against illegal migrants. However, experts believe that the justification of the new regulations is based on frank manipulation of statistics and opens legal holes for deportation to third countries. While the researchers are talking about the need to legalize and voluntary return programs, the “centrist” coalition of the EU, together with the ultra-right, secretly agreed, in fact, repression against illegal migrants. This approach puts European values – and democracy itself – at risk, human rights defenders and lawyers are sure.
Leaked documents reviewed by The Grayzone expose how the Soros-run Open Society Foundations plotted to “prevent the continuation” of Indonesia’s elected government by bankrolling opposition media, youth activists groups and lawfare operations to remove President Prabowo Subianto.
Rather than haphazardly using artificial intelligence for research, scientists and decisionmakers should take a deliberative approach.
Artificial intelligence is reshaping the scientific enterprise. From our perch at the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET), a tech policy research organization at Georgetown University, we are witnessing this change through two lenses simultaneously. As researchers, we study AI, including large language models (LLMs) like those that power ChatGPT, and scientific models like AlphaFold; we also monitor the science and tech landscape, including trends in AI’s development. Our ability to do this work relies in part on designing, testing, and implementing AI-enabled methods. AI is thus both our research subject and one of our research tools. Our work brings us face-to-face with the tensions that arise when figuring out what AI-enabled science can—and should—look like.
Just how and when the Cuban dictatorship will disappear is impossible to predict: a deal with Donald Trump to build hotels in Varader; the Marines welcomed by crowds on the Havana Malecón; popular protests overwhelming an army unwilling to fire on its people; a real, necessary and desirable peaceful transition to democratic rule and economic reform. Dozens of experts and pundits have lost their shirts betting on the regime’s demise since 1959. The convergence of new factors, however, suggests that Cuba has entered a new and probably terminal phase. Its economic collapse, the end of the Venezuelan subsidy, the Trump administration’s willingness and ability to squeeze it further, the growing discontent and protests of the island’s inhabitants, are all factors that were absent in prior decades.
The Vatican’s new AI warning is not about machines. It is about the oldest human temptation: building a tower, summoning a voice, and mistaking the vessel for the source.
The Vatican just did something historical and culturally important, regardless of your religious or secular beliefs.
The break in the contract between the Pentagon and Anthropic has become one of the biggest scandals around the ethics of the use of AI technology. The more rapidly the artificial intelligence market is developing, the more acute the question of ethical limitations of digital algorithms is. Most states have not been able to develop legislation governing AI technology, and their developers are resisting any attempt to impose restrictions on their work. While states fail, civil society takes care of this burden: we are talking about such tools as civil audit of AI technologies, the development of ethical codes and licenses, collective testing and pressure through the media.
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Patton’s remark, while it had not advanced the study of war by any measure, stated what had been the objectives of military commanders of history: to defeat the enemy and preserve their own forces. Clausewitz, in order to elaborate the importance of attack and defense to the theory of war, said it longer and more philosophically: “as I have not overthrown my opponent I am bound to fear he may overthrow me” [and one third of his first chapter of the first book of On War].[1]