SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " Dangerous " 565 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
They War-Gamed Dimming the Sun. It Went Even Worse Than You Think
Solar geoengineering could buy humanity time against climate change—or trigger a dangerous new arms race. A first-of-its-kind simulation offered a glimpse of what happens when geopolitics takes the wheel.
UK politics live: Tories accuse Burnham of being ‘dangerous and divisive’ after he confirms Russian interference in Brexit campaign
PM to give speech calling for ‘calm, clear-eyed look’ at possibility of new deal with EU as he says Brexit has done more harm than good
Republicans want Abdul El-Sayed to be the main character of the midterms. He's happy to oblige
Michigan’s Senate race has become a battle over Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed. Republicans portray him as a dangerous radical; El-Sayed responds by traveling across Michigan and meeting voters.
Trump’s cost-of-living politics just rescued Putin’s war chest
A fuel shipment gave Trump the pre-election boost he craved – and made Kyiv’s best tactic newly dangerous.
Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia raise risk of wider war
This weekend’s deadly attacks on Riyadh’s main airport have demonstrated the ability of Yemen’s Houthis to strike at the heart of Saudi power, raising the risk of a dangerous escalation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Recommends Science-Based Thresholds to Target Dangerous Enhanced Kratom Products
Kratom products credit: CDPH DEA takes action based on updated recommendation from HHS October 11, 2026 - WASHINGTON - On Friday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services relesed the following: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided a new recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) that establishes science-based thresholds for 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl (MGPI), potent opioid compounds associated with products marketed as kratom. The Department of Justice today announced that DEA issued new Notices of Intent reflecting HHS’ updated scientific analysis and recommendations, including a new Notice of Intent for 7-OH and MGPI incorporating HHS’ recommended concentration and ratio thresholds. Following a review of available scientific data and comments, HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brian Christine, M.D., recommended that DEA use concentration or ratio-based thresholds to determine which products containing 7-OH and MGPI are subject to Schedule I control for purposes of temporary scheduling of these substances under the Controlled Substances Act. The recommendation is designed to target concentrated or chemically altered products while distinguishing them from natural botanical kratom products, which may contain trace amounts of 7-OH and MGPI. “We are drawing a clear line between natural kratom and dangerous, enhanced opioid products,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. “We listened to the public, followed the science, and developed a clear recommended threshold for temporary scheduling that targets concentrated 7-OH and MGPI without sweeping natural botanical kratom into Schedule I. The Trump Administration will continue taking decisive action against dangerous products that fuel addiction while making sure our policies are grounded in rigorous science.” Under the recommendation, 7-OH and MGPI would be controlled in Schedule I for purposes of temporary scheduling when either substance alone, or their combined amount when both are present: Exceeds 1 milligram per gram in solid powders, encapsulated material, or other solid forms, or exceeds 1 milligram per milliliter in liquid preparations; or When the mass of mitragynine present divided by the mass of 7-OH, or MGPI, or the combined amount of 7-OH and MGPI if both present, is less than 100. The ratio-based approach reflects the alkaloid composition of natural kratom products and provides a way to identify products intentionally enhanced or concentrated with 7-OH or MGPI. Available scientific data indicate that 7-OH occurs naturally in botanical kratom at relatively low or trace levels, while some evidence reviewed by FDA suggests MGPI may also occur at trace levels in some natural or kratom-derived products. FDA's scientific review found that 7-OH is substantially more potent than morphine in preclinical studies, with available data indicating approximately two to nine times greater potency depending on the study. FDA also identified evidence supporting a meaningful risk of opioid-like physical dependence and withdrawal from MGPI. “Our recommendation gives DEA a scientifically supportable framework to distinguish natural botanical kratom from products that have been concentrated or manipulated to deliver dangerous levels of potent opioid compounds,” said Assistant Secretary for Health Admiral Brian Christine, M.D. “This approach allows us to focus on the products that pose the greatest threat to public health.” In July 2025, following an FDA scientific and medical evaluation, HHS recommended that 7-OH above a specified threshold be placed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. In July 2026, DEA announced its intent to temporarily schedule 7-OH above a specified threshold, and HHS simultaneously sought public comment on the proposed threshold. DEA subsequently temporarily placed MGPI and two synthetic 7-OH derivatives, MGM-15 and MGM-16, in Schedule I. Since then, questions have emerged about how scheduling could affect natural botanical kratom products potentially containing trace amounts of MGPI. The new HHS recommendation responds to those concerns by providing DEA with a more precise threshold based on both the concentration of 7-OH and MGPI and their relationship to mitragynine, the predominant alkaloid in kratom. HHS and FDA will continue working with DEA to protect Americans from dangerous concentrated and synthetic opioid products while ensuring federal policy is grounded in the best available science. Source: HHS
Here's when to get your flu shot
Here's what to know about common flu symptoms, why the illness can become dangerous and when to get vaccinated.
FDA may allow some toxic chemicals to be added to food without safety review. Experts are alarmed
Regulator looks to expand loophole to allow dangerous compounds in food as long as they’re not carcinogenic
Abbott targets Hinojosa over whether she backs a state income tax
For weeks now he has been pointing to a 2019 vote as evidence that his opponent, Gina Hinojosa, wasn’t against income taxes and “is dangerous for Texas.”
“The Exorcist ”film, starring Scarlett Johansson, should feel ‘dangerous’: ‘It made me wildly uncomfortable’
“I want this to be a world where God is dead,” writer-director Mike Flanagan tells EW as the new trailer drops.
HHS Recommends Science-Based Thresholds to Target Dangerous Enhanced Kratom Products
HHS provided a new recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration that establishes science-based thresholds.
Clemson's 5-Star Talent is Dangerously Approaching Bust Territory
This Clemson Tigers' 5-star talent is in danger of becoming a bust.
When health advice goes viral, these San Diego doctors are trying to cut through the noise
More than a third of Americans turn to social media for health information, but doctors warn some of what they find there can be dangerous.
In New York governor's race, a Republican rallies with Trump and leans into his political playbook
NEW YORK (AP) — In his campaign to become the next governor of New York, Republican Bruce Blakeman has suggested Democrats might steal the election, played up fears about immigrant criminals and posted AI-generated videos depicting the state as dangerous and unaffordable.
In New York governor's race, a Republican rallies with Trump and leans into his political playbook
In his campaign to become the next New York governor, Republican Bruce Blakeman has suggested Democrats might steal the election, played up fears about immigrant criminals and posted AI-generated videos depicting the state as dangerous and unaffordable.
In New York governor's race, a Republican rallies with Trump and leans into his political playbook
In his campaign to become the next New York governor, Republican Bruce Blakeman has suggested Democrats might steal the election, played up fears about immigrant criminals and posted AI-generated videos depicting the state as dangerous and unaffordable.
In New York Governor's Race, a Republican Rallies With Trump and Leans Into His Political Playbook
NEW YORK (AP) — In his campaign to become the next governor of New York, Republican Bruce Blakeman has suggested Democrats might steal the election, played up fears about immigrant criminals and posted AI-generated videos depicting the state as dangerous and unaffordable. And on Friday night, he'll ...
RFK Jr. unveils sweeping federal initiative to find evidence of vaccine injuries
[T]he Trump-RFK Jr anti-vax agenda keeps getting more corrupt and dangerous."
Scientists find signal that suggests AI is about to go rogue
Simple maths formula can predict when artificial intelligence is about to give dangerous responses, researchers say
Open science is compatible with research security, says Canada’s chief science advisor
Open science is “not incompatible” with research security and science leaders and policymakers should “demystify” the false dichotomy between the two, according to Mona Nemer, Canada’s chief science advisor. More than a decade ago, EU policymakers were promoting open science, open innovation and open collaboration across the world. It was a political movement that aimed to make scientific research, data, software, publications and methodologies transparent, accessible and reusable for everyone.But that rhetoric has changed over the past few years. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 and Donald Trump came back to power in 2025, international partnerships have become more pragmatic. Countries are trying to implement protectionist policies and governments are increasingly worried about technology espionage. According to Nemer, science can remain open if the sector can come up with improved security protocols that would protect research data from undue manipulation by foreign actors. “If anybody can fiddle with the with the data, then [open science] is actually quite dangerous and quite useless,” she told Science|Business. Universities and research institutions are increasingly vulnerable to attempted espionage and other types of foreign interference. In September, the UK’s domestic counter-intelligence service MI5 issued a security warning against collaborations with the China General Technology Research Institute. And earlier this year, Germany’s Helmholtz Center for Information Security was criticised by federal research minister Dorothee Bär, who told a parliamentary hearing that “existing rules and systems” at the institute “were not suitable” for preventing leaks to China. According to Nemer, universities and research institutions should perhaps follow the example of the private sector, as companies have been able to safeguard their research while still publishing results. “I think that there is a level of research security hygiene that researchers and institutions need to just adopt,” she said. “You don't have to tell Sanofi or IBM how to safeguard their research, which they end up publishing anyway.”While certain areas of research will not be open for collaboration with certain partners, in other areas cooperation is necessary even with researchers based in adversarial countries. “I stress this because politics change,” she said. “Science and politics don't make for good fellows, and whether we like it or not, politics will influence certain things.”Researchers will play an important role in “protecting the integrity of science,” said Nemer. “I think that it's time that there's a commitment to a certain scientific compact, so that citizens don't think that science is actually an open door for espionage and for anti-nationalism.”New partnershipsNemer spoke with Science|Business on the margins of the Hamburg Science Summit on September 17, the day when Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney called for increased cooperation with the EU, including in science and technology. Canada is looking to strengthen ties with partners in other corners of the world, after the Trump administration threatened to put tariffs on Canadian goods and services and even openly suggested Canada could become the 51st state. In parallel, the US government has indicated it wants to retreat from international science projects, including US collaboration with Europe’s CERN particle accelerator and other big science labs.Related articlesThe stats we need to better understand R&DCanada looks to deepen research and education links with the EUCan researchers trust that AI models won’t leak their ideas?Nemer said the US is still a science “powerhouse,” but Canada and Europe will have to work closely together on global challenges. “It’s important for both [sides], but I think it's also important for the rest of the world, because the cut in funding for development, in health, in regions like Africa and other places, have dramatic effects.” The Trump administration is also planning a review of the Nelson memo, a Biden-era document that mandated that results of federally funded research would be openly available. With that idea being called into question, Nemer said it could be “very disruptive” to scientific collaborations and could jeopardise research on climate change, the Arctic and global health. “When your collaborator suddenly tells you I'm not going to share the data with you as a researcher, if this happens, I think it's very worrisome,” she said. “I'm certainly hoping that a lot of the Canadian institutions, funders, researchers, have started looking at joining forces on databases and using more European research infrastructures,” Nemer added.
NASA is searching for hidden caves to build its first Moon base
NASA is preparing for humanity’s first Moon base with three investigations that will hunt for underground shelters, uncover hidden ice, and track dangerous conditions on the lunar surface. The findings could reveal how astronauts can survive and thrive on the Moon while laying the groundwork for future journeys to Mars.
Ohio health officials warn of dangerous drug resurfacing
Cyclorphine could be up to 10 times more potent than fentanyl, and overdoses could require many doses of naloxone.
Isaac Paredes Proved He's a Threat Behind Yordan Alvarez
The Astros infielder put together a strong 2026 campaign while hitting behind one of baseball's most dangerous bats.
Trump’s LA and San Diego comments ‘dangerous, if not treasonous’, says Newsom
California governor critcizes president for ‘putting a target on two of our biggest cities and one of America’s largest naval hubs’
Utah health officials issue ‘urgent’ warning about kratom, ‘cat’s claw’ products after overdoses
The Utah health officials are warning against cat's claw herbal supplements that may contain dangerous semi-synthetic kratom chemicals.
CDC: Monitoring Russian plague risk, "prepared" for any threat
The pneumonic plague is the most dangerous version of the plague.
Benson HS teen faces new hearing after release to mental health treatment
A 15-year-old accused of bringing dangerous chemicals to Benson High School is expected to be back in court Tuesday, where prosecutors could ask a judge to send
Extreme Heat Is Making Pregnancy More Dangerous For Mothers And Newborns
Nearly three in four maternal healthcare workers say extreme heat-related complications among pregnant women have increased over the past five years,
A Dangerous and Unsocial Form of Excitement
Religious leaders are finally pushing back against online gambling.
California leaders slam Trump for saying Iran could ‘take out’ L.A. or San Diego
Officials in California condemned the president's comments as “dangerous,” after he told a Nebraska rally the war in Iran was a “small price to pay for keeping the world safe.”
Trump draws backlash after he suggests Iran could ‘take out’ Los Angeles or San Diego
Officials in California denounced comments made by President Donald Trump as “dangerous” on Monday after he appeared to suggest Iran could “take out” Los Angeles or San Diego – major cities in a state he has often criticized.
Gas stoves put restaurant cooks’ health at risk, new study finds
Dangerous amounts of heat and air pollution swirl in most commercial kitchens — even when the stoves are off. Switching to electric appliances helps…
HEALTH MINUTE: PREVENTING DANGEROUS RSV IN INFANTS
We’re officially in respiratory virus season. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it typically runs October through mid-May, and the agency expects the U.S. will see a
This protective enzyme could help stop fatty liver disease from getting worse
Scientists have identified an enzyme that may act as a natural defense against the worsening of fatty liver disease, which affects an estimated 100 million Americans. The enzyme, called UBE2N, helps liver cells clear away damaged mitochondria and break down fat, potentially preventing the inflammation, scarring, and cell damage associated with the more dangerous condition MASH.
'Gold Rush': Rick Ness Reveals Dangerous Health Issue in Dramatic Season 17 Premiere
Plus, Parker Schnabel finds himself on Tony Beets' property line while a new face joins the treasure hunt.
Extreme Heat Warning Health Alert Issued for Santa Barbara County
A long-duration heat wave is forecast to bring dangerously hot weather this Friday through next Thursday.
Michigan State's Injury Report Looks Like a Christmas Shopping List
A wave of sidelined stars and season-ending blows leaves the Spartans dangerously thin as they prepare to face a surging Wisconsin team with a depleted roster.
Good science requires much more than evidence
Empiricists believe that scientific theories are true only if they make correct empirical predictions: if we can't verify these predictions, then there is no reason to expect that they tell us anything about reality. However, Professor of Philosophy at King's College David Kyle Johnson argues that this is mistaken. In response to Bas van Fraassen, who has written on this subject for the IAI, he argues that we have many reasons for believing a theory to be true, such as it being parsimonious and having large scope — qualities which have been used throughout the history of science as criteria for judging theories. In 2024, Princeton philosopher Bas van Fraassen wrote a short article for IAI News entitled “Science Does not Describe Reality: The Limits and Benefits of Explanation.” At the time, I was working on two projects (a science book and a Great Course) that, when completed, would (among other things) defend science’s ability to describe reality. I wanted to write a response to van Fraassen, but the projects demanded too much of my attention. But now that those projects are complete, I am in a position to explain the objections to van Fraassen’s thesis. Summarizing van Fraassen’s argumentIn a nutshell, his argument is this: What scientists do is make predictions based on theories and then invite others to test to see whether those predictions are borne out. “If theory T is right, result R should happen in experimental condition C.” Many think that running an experiment that shows that R happens in condition C is proof that theory T is true (and should be believed). But, van Fraassen argues, that R happened in condition C is only a reason to think that R happens in condition C. That’s the only observable, or empirical, result we can actually see, so that is all that we are really justified in believing. (The underlying theory that made that prediction still may or may not be true.) That is why he calls those who accept his position “empiricists.”Before I explain what is wrong with this position, let me explain what it gets right. What van Fraassen Gets RightFirst, a theory correctly predicting the results of an experiment is not, strictly speaking, “proof” that the theory is correct. The basic line of reasoning is this:If the theory T is true, result R should happen. Result R did happen. Thus, theory T is true.In other words:“If T then R. R. Thus, T.”This is a deductively invalid, fallacious mode of reasoning, called “affirming the consequent.” Those premises do not guarantee that the conclusion follows. “If I am in Pennsylvania, then I am in the USA. I am in the USA. Thus, I am in Pennsylvania.” Clearly that argument doesn’t guarantee its conclusion; neither does the above argument.However, science is not a deductive method of reasoning; it is an inductive one. And inductive arguments merely try to raise the probability of their conclusion, not “prove” them for certain. Thus, the fact that an experimental result doesn’t prove a theory is true is irrelevant; it’s not supposed to. That is not what scientific reasoning is about.___If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational.___Second, it’s also true that a single experimental result doesn’t provide enough justification to believe that a theory is true. Scientists do not come to a consensus about whether a theory is true by looking at a single experiment; they look at all the evidence to determine where the preponderance of evidence points. The mere fact that I am in the USA raises the probability that I am in Pennsylvania, but not nearly enough to conclude that I am in Pennsylvania. However, if I am also regularly encountering people wearing Eagles and Phillies hats and seeing advertisements for Founding Father tours, I probably am. In the same way, a theory successfully predicting the outcome of one experiment is not enough to conclude that it is true; but if a theory makes a wide variety of predictions that are all vindicated by multiple experiments, performed by many different groups and people, all actively trying to prove the theory false (which is what good scientific experiments are designed to do)—that is a good reason to conclude that the theory is true. In other words, if you repeatedly try to prove something false but can’t, that is a very good indication that it isn’t. The problem of underdeterminationIn reply, those whom van Fraassen calls “empiricists” often point to the “problem of underdetermination.” For any given theory that makes successful predictions about what happens in experimental conditions, there are countless other possible theories that make exactly the same predictions—and since they do, the experimental evidence in question is just as much reason to accept any of those theories as it is to accept our original one. Thus, the argument goes, we have no way of knowing whether our original theory is true, or one of the other “predictively equivalent” theories is true. SUGGESTED VIEWING How Occam's Razor changed the world With Johnjoe McFadden As an example of underdetermination, philosophers often offer this example. The evidence of fossils seems to provide reason to conclude that the universe is quite old; ancient fossils are what the “ancient universe” hypothesis predicts. But it’s also possible that God created an ancient-looking universe 200 years ago, complete with a “fake” fossil record for us to find, to make it look old. The existence of fossils is what that theory predicts too. So, the argument goes, the fossil record can’t be used as evidence that the universe is ancient; the fossil record supports the “200-year-old ancient-looking universe” theory just as much. The problem of underdetermination points out that, for any theory with supporting evidence, we could invent another completely different theory that predicts exactly the same evidence, and thus undermine that evidence’s ability to support the original theory.But this “argument from underdetermination” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what scientific reasoning is and how it works. To explain, let me use another rather strange (but very real and commonly discussed) philosophical thought experiment called “The Grue Problem.” The “Grue” ProblemSuppose I want to know what color emeralds are, so I observe a few, see that they all appear green, and form the theory that “all emeralds are green.” I thus predict that the next 100 emeralds I find will also appear to be green. And let’s say that happens, and so I thus conclude that my theory that all emeralds are green is true. Now, one might rightly point out that I don’t know for sure that all emeralds are green—I have not seen them all. Maybe some I haven’t found yet are blue. Fair enough. After all, we used to think that all swans were white, until we found some black ones. But let’s say that I go on a quest and collect every emerald in the universe—and, for the sake of the argument, let’s say I can do this, and can even know that I have every one of them. So, I collect them all, look at them all, and verify that they all appear green. Can’t I now rightly conclude that all emeralds are green?Inspired by the problem of underdetermination, a friend might argue that I cannot.Sure, they all appear green now—but there could be another kind of color called “grue.” Something is grue if it is green up to a certain point in time, but then spontaneously turns blue. And there could be an infinite number of “shades” of grue. Something that is one shade of grue will turn blue at noon today, but something that is another shade of grue will turn blue at noon tomorrow, etc. So yes, the emeralds appear green now; and since they haven’t turned blue yet, they are not some “past” shade of grue. But they might be some “future” shade of grue (e.g., they may turn blue at noon tomorrow). And since all future shades of grue are consistent with “being green up to this point in time,” the evidence you have is completely consistent with the notion that all emeralds are some future shade of grue, rather than green. Indeed, that they would appear green until now is what the “some future shade of grue” hypothesis predicts. So, we have just as much reason to conclude that all emeralds are some shade of grue as we do to conclude that they are green.You’re probably thinking “It’s not equally possible that the emeralds are grue; they are obviously green.” You are right! But explaining why your instinctive reaction to my friend’s argument is correct will help inform why van Fraassen’s “empiricist” is wrong and science actually does describe reality.The main mistake my friend makes is in thinking that the “empirical evidence” (of all the emeralds appearing green) is (or even should be) all I am using to draw the conclusion that all emeralds are green. It is not. I am also considering known facts about how colors typically work; things don’t usually change color, and when they do, they don’t do so suddenly, without cause, and all at once. So, even though the simple evidence of the emeralds all appearing green up to this point is consistent with them being some future shade of grue—that is even what the grue hypothesis “predicts”—it is still exceedingly unlikely that they are. The hypothesis that they are green is much more likely. Understanding science refutes the problem of underdetermination The misunderstanding about science that the “empiricist” pointing to “the problem of underdetermination” makes is similar to the one that my friend made. Science is not just about considering experimental evidence; in fact, it’s not even just about considering empirical evidence. As Ernan McMullin and many other philosophers of science have pointed out, the inference that makes science is “inference to the best explanation” (sometimes called “abduction” or “retroduction” by McMullin). While, depending on the circumstances, scientists use many different kinds of reasoning, science as a whole is, simply put, the process of considering multiple competing explanations and comparing them to certain criteria—explanatory criteria (the kinds of things explanations must be and do, by definition, to be a good explanation)—to see which explanation is the best.And these criteria do not deal only with empirical results. Yes, successful predictions raise the probability of a hypothesis, but it’s also the case that the more new assumptions a theory makes, the less likely it is to be true; every new assumption presents an opportunity for the theory to be false. (The fewer assumptions a theory makes, the simpler or “more parsimonious” it is said to be.) Likewise, the more existing evidence a theory contradicts, the less likely it is, because in order for a theory to be true, every piece of evidence it contradicts has to be somehow faulty. (The fewer established theories a new theory contradicts, the more “conservative” it is said to be.) And, obviously, the more something explains, the better explanation it is. (This is called having “scope.”) If a theory raises unanswerable questions, it’s not expanding our understanding, and thus is not wide-scoping. Scientists consider all these things when deciding which theory to accept, because the theory that adheres best to these explanatory criteria is most likely to be true.___the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth.___The reason the grue hypothesis is no good is because it invents an entirely new kind of color—not just a new shade, but an entirely different category of color (a different way colors work)—and thus is not parsimonious. It raises unanswerable questions about how and why emeralds would just spontaneously change from green to blue (and thus does not have wide scope). And it contradicts what is already well established about how color works (and thus is unconservative).The theories that the problem of underdetermination points to do the same thing. Yes, the theory that God created an “ancient-looking universe” (complete with an ancient-looking fossil record) two hundred years ago is also consistent with the empirical evidence (of a fossil record) that presently exists; but that theory is monumentally unparsimonious (it requires many extra assumptions about infinite entities) and not wide-scoping (it raises unanswerable questions about why God would do such a thing). So, I can rationally conclude that it is false.Indeed, the history of science includes many examples of theories that were rejected because they lacked parsimony and/or scope, even before their falsity (and the truth of their competing theory) was confirmed by observation. As I point out in my book, geocentrism was rejected by the scientific community because it lacked parsimony, almost 200 years before the observation of parallax confirmed that the Earth moves around the sun. And the continuum theory of matter was completely rejected by 1860, because it couldn’t explain chemical reactions or organize matter into a periodic table, even though the experiments that eventually confirmed atomic theory weren’t even proposed until the 1870s. Solving the best of a bad lot problemIn response, the “empiricists” are likely to object, this time pointing to the “best of a bad lot” problem. “We have no reason to conclude that an explanation that has been shown to be better than others is true because we have no guarantee that the true theory was among those that we were considering.” If you have a “lot” (a collection) of poor explanations, even the best one is not true.The responses to this problem, however, are numerous. Peter Lipton argues that the set of hypotheses that scientists consider are not just randomly selected and thus unlikely to contain a theory that is true; they use existing knowledge to home in on what is most likely to be true. A doctor trying to explain abdominal pain is not going to bother wondering whether demons are causing it; they are going to stick with things like appendicitis and kidney stones, because they are most likely. Further, despite its name, inference to the best explanation is not just the process of comparing hypotheses and accepting the best one; we also want one that is a good explanation in its own right. If it’s not, we are going to keep looking until we find an explanation that is. And while that process does not guarantee that we will come across the exact truth, it’s very likely that the theory that emerges as the best will be at least approximately true, and thus we will be justified in believing it. And lastly, as I point out in my book, although many theories not based in scientific evidence (like geocentrism and continuum theory) have been completely overturned, science almost always progresses by the refinement of scientifically established theories—not their replacement. (Although our sun is not the center of the universe, heliocentrism was our first step in understanding the Earth’s true place in the universe.) So even if a theory we accept today may not be completely right, accepting it is a step on the journey toward the complete truth. The example of atomic theoryNow, it’s worth pointing out that most empiricists are not skeptical of all scientific theories; they are only skeptical of the ones that hypothesize the existence of “unobservables.” It’s not like they think that round Earth, heliocentrism, and germ theory are just useful (but untrue) “instruments” for making predictions about how to most efficiently navigate the seas, predict planetary motion, and treat diseases. They admit that the Earth actually is round, that the planets revolve around the sun, and that germs exist and cause disease. These facts and entities can be observed; the theories that suggest they exist are true. It’s only when theories start hypothesizing the existence of unobservables—like electrons, or quantum fields—that can’t be observed directly, that we should start doubting the theories’ truth. And to be fair to van Fraassen, in this published work, he doesn’t really say that we should doubt the truth of such theories. Only that scientific reasoning does not rationally force us to accept them as true. Skepticism, or agnosticism, he argues, is warranted. SUGGESTED READING Science is based in metaphor By Andrew Reynolds But the history of atomic theory throws a monkey wrench into that argument. Atoms used to be unobservable; again, scientists first accepted the theory that they exist because it had such grandiose explanatory power. But then atoms were seen with electron microscopes. They thus moved into the category of the observable. But this didn’t substantially change anything about what scientists were justified in believing; it certainly didn’t change any “atomic skeptics’” minds. It just confirmed what everyone already knew! If the hypothesis that something exists clearly provides the best explanation for what we can observe, then the belief that it exists is what is rational. The fact that the thing itself is not technically observable does not make doubting its existence rational.What’s more, the atoms were seen with an electron microscope. But electrons are themselves unobservable. How can an electron microscope reveal an atom if electrons are not real? This leads us to what is famously known as Hilary Putnam’s “miracle argument.” It’s (not) a miraclePhilosopher Hilary Putnam’s miracle argument is somewhat famous. Basically, he argued that a scientific theory being able to repeatedly make successful predictions—even about unobservables—without being at least approximately true would require a “miracle.” In other words, it would be such an improbable occurrence that it could not rationally be believed—the better explanation for why scientific theories about unobservables make the right predictions is because the unobservable entities and structures they hypothesize exist.Van Fraassen has addressed this argument. Indeed, in his original article, where he references Alison Gopnik’s point about orgasms not being “necessary for procreation” even though the desire for orgasm “drives the creation of progeny,” he is pointing to his own argument about how organisms are not naturally selected by evolution to get true beliefs; to the extent that belief-forming processes are selected for, the ones that are selected are the ones that are useful for survival—not the ones that produce true beliefs. In the same way, van Fraassen argues, scientific theories are accepted, not because they are true, but because they aren’t falsified; they make successful predictions; that’s what makes them “stick around.” So, the fact that they make successful predictions (and thus became accepted) is not a reason to think they are true.This argument is similar to C. S. Lewis’s “argument from reason,” which he used to argue against evolution: “The truth of evolution undercuts our ability to know that it is true.” Lewis’ argument famously failed; Elizabeth Anscombe, by Lewis’s own admission, demolished Lewis in a debate on the topic, and I have explained elsewhere why modified versions of the argument fail as well. In short, it’s because it fails to recognize that a belief-forming process can make an organism more likely to survive because it reliably produces true beliefs. It is therefore not the case that beliefs generated by naturally selected belief-forming processes are automatically false or unjustified.In the same way, the reason a theory “sticks around” could be because it’s not falsified, because it “makes correct predictions.” But the reason it makes correct predictions is most likely because it is true. (In pointing this out, I am echoing the arguments of Musgrave, Lipton, Psillos, and Kitcher, who refuted van Fraassen’s argument and analogy long before his 2024 article.) It would be a huge coincidence that it could do so without being true. And that is the point of Putnam’s miracle argument. Thus, contrary to van Fraassen’s suggestion, the mere fact that a theory’s predictive success is why it “sticks around” or “becomes accepted” in the scientific community is not a reason to be skeptical about its truth. ConclusionLet me close by saying something about the fact that empiricists don’t doubt the truth of all scientific theories, just the ones that hypothesize unobservables. In today’s society, this theory is dangerous to espouse publicly. The nuance between being skeptical about all of science, and just the highly technical theories about unobservables, is guaranteed to be lost to the average reader. And there is so much unjustified skepticism and doubt about the findings of science and experts that a headline like “Science Does Not Describe Reality” could easily fuel the anti-science movement, worsen climate change denial and cause the next pandemic.This is why I believe it was important to still respond to van Fraassen’s article, a full two years after he wrote it. Not only, as I have argued, does it represent a philosophically inaccurate view of how scientific reasoning works and what scientific reasoning can do, but it is a dangerous view to boot. It should thus be rejected.
Laughter Shocktober brings dangerously unrehearsed comedy to Nevada City Oct. 8
Laughter Shock, Nevada County’s notoriously unpredictable improv troupe, returns to the Nevada Theatre for one night of unscripted comedy with Laughter Shocktober, Thursday, October 8 at 7:30 p.m.
Florida vs Missouri Prediction: Can Anyone Slow Down the Gators?
Florida is rolling after a fantastic first month of the season, but Missouri is dangerous at home. Here's the CFN preview and prediction.
Why Sonny Gray could be in trouble against Yankees' lineup
The Yankees could be a dangerous matchup for Gray.
Campus Scout | Your ‘business professor’ is actually AI slop
Zǎoshang hǎo, it’s your friendly Campus Scout here! Sorry about the Mandarin, folks. Scout’s artificial intelligence assistant, his new, improved and too-dangerous-to-be-publicly-released Brain-Blaster 2.0 must’ve had some Mandarin in its training data. Scout is not sure how it got there, but he knows Brain-Blaster 2.0 has super intelligence, so there must be a reason it...
What's behind HHS claims that gender-affirming care 'may' radicalize
The report is the agency's latest effort to chip away at trust in established health care models for transgender people. Critics say it frames transgender identity as illegitimate or even dangerous.
This Stat Explains Exactly How Rays Won 98 Games
The Tampa Bay Rays won 98 games by dominating close situations, going 25-4 in one-run games and 61-35 in games decided by three runs or fewer. Elite pitching control, MLB's lowest strikeout rate and a versatile offense could make Tampa Bay dangerous in the MLB playoffs.
Nearly 40% of global population exposed to dangerous ozone pollution in 2026: Report
Ground-level ozone harms human health, ecosystems and crop yields.
MSU health officials warn campus about dangerous synthetic opioid
Michigan State University health officials issued a warning to the campus community about cychlorphine, a synthetic opioid linked to more than 100 deaths in the United States, including a 16-year-old boy in California.
Arkansas Could Make Texas A&M’s Bad September Even Worse
Texas A&M returns home desperate for an SEC win after back-to-back losses, while Arkansas arrives with a dangerous passing attack and renewed confidence.
This Is College Football’s Surprise Team of the Year
Who saw Mississippi State coming? Through four weeks, the Bulldogs have gone from an afterthought in the SEC to 4-0, 2-0 in conference play and No. 16 in the country . After winning just five games last season, Jeff Lebby’s team suddenly looks like one of the most dangerous teams in the SEC. And the…
Sylvester Stallone Says He Had Bulimia When His Body Became a Dangerous ‘Obsession’
At 80, the star of the “Rocky” and “Rambo” franchises says he abused his body and used steroids. The actor also opens up about dealing with anxiety and figuring out love late in life.
The dangerous assumption people make about aging — and how you can prevent a silent but potentially deadly disease
The data center debate
We’ve been warned in the past two weeks that artificial intelligence (AI) may kill us all in the next five to 10 years. Industry leaders have suggested there are dangerous...
The data center debate
We’ve been warned in the past two weeks that artificial intelligence (AI) may kill us all in the next five to 10 years. Industry leaders have suggested there are dangerous...
This weather threat costs us billions. And it’s about to get worse.
Scientists are chasing hail to understand what’s happening to these dangerous projectiles.
Blood test could gauge if a baby has a dangerous infection in 15 minutes
Feverish babies in hospital are often assumed to have a serious bacterial infection and are treated with antibiotics. But a test that gauges whether the infection is bacterial or viral, which tend to be milder, could prevent unnecessary drug use
Health experts warn to avoid kratom products
We’re taking a look at what kratom is, why officials say it can be so dangerous and what some cities and states are doing to regulate its sales.
Trump picked a fight with the media... and lost
Jonathan Freedland speaks to the Guardian’s Shrai Popat about why Trump seems weaker these days, and why it could be dangerous to underestimate him
Hands-on science can be cool
After spending many long days conducting experiments to find a new way to combat bacterial infections in crops, Misha Hegde and Mia Soleil Maurer have been rewarded with international recognition and access to top research facilities. But these are not typical scientists. They are 16-year-old German high school students.“Our supervisor told us that in order to start a project, you need to begin with either a question or a problem,” says Misha, adding that she and Mia had read about antibiotic resistance in certain plants being treated for bacterial infections. “We found out that antibiotics overuse is very common in agriculture,” explains Mia. “Our aim was to create an alternative to antibiotics and to try to raise awareness of the problem of overusing antibiotics.”Their subsequent research has focused on harnessing bacteriophages, the natural predators of bacteria, to eliminate pathogens threatening food crops treated with antibiotics. At the Schuldorf Bergstraße Jugend forscht MakerLab in Seeheim-Jugenheim, located in the German state of Hesse, they discovered a novel phage that infects the Rhizobium rhizogenes bacterium, which causes the hairy root disease that can reduce yields of tomatoes, carrots, soya beans and other food staples.The students believe their method could curb antibiotic use, while protecting plants from infections without disturbing the natural soil microbiome. “The application of phages is host-specific, so they would only kill the targeted pathogen or disease-causing bacteria,” explains Mia. It may also offer environmental benefits, since applying antibiotics can contaminate groundwater.Getting to this point has not been easy. The childhood friends admit to feeling frustrated when their trials did not yield the expected results. “We spent six months on our first experiment, just doing the same thing over and over and over again, to the point where we thought, is it even worth it? Why are we doing this?” Misha says. “You just need to be brave enough to take that first step and keep going.”The benefits of inquiry-based learningTheir determination has paid off. In 2025, the pair won first prize in biology at Jugend forscht, Germany’s national competition for young people interested in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. They were also among the winners of the German Research Foundation Europa-Preis, which is awarded to selected national winners at Jugend forscht, and took third place in the 2025 European Union Contest for Young Scientists.The Jugend forscht Foundation opens doors for young people to connect with scientists as well as industry professionals. Jessica Bönsch, executive director of the Foundation, sees Misha and Mia as prime examples of how young people can develop a deeper understanding of science through their own research projects. “The experience of working on your own research question is very important,” she explains, adding that “inquiry-based learning engages with real-life problems in a way that can be more motivating than traditional classroom teaching.”The Jugend forscht Foundation offers financial support through sponsor pools in Germany’s federal states. Some projects are developed in cooperation with student research centres, university labs or informal collaborative learning areas called makerspaces. Other activities start as hands-on “garage projects” and can grow within the Jugend forscht network and infrastructure.The Jugend forscht Foundation is also a partner of Science Comes to Town, an EU initiative to strengthen public awareness about science and create bridges between researchers and communities. The EU-financed project involves universities, research institutions and other stakeholders in three host cities — Brest (France), Kiel (Germany) and Split (Croatia).“It's so important for people not to live in a bubble, because I think science can be very scary if you misunderstand it,” Mia says of SCTT. The initiative’s aim of raising awareness about science is “absolutely amazing,” Misha adds. “I think it's the best way to kind of make science digestible for the public. In a world where misinformation in science is getting more radical, more dangerous, becoming more of a threat to the trust in scientific infrastructure and foundations, we need such programmes.”Misha and Mia also believe that SCTT can help break down gender stereotypes in science by encouraging young women to study and pursue careers in scientific fields. Both students have benefited from female mentors and encouragement they had when they were much younger. Mia’s love of science began with a class trip to a lab, while Misha — with a smile on her face — says she wanted to study history until “a teacher kind of coerced me into joining a school science club.”Recognition beyond EuropeIn May, Misha and Mia were among the finalists at the Regeneron International Science and Engineering Fair held in Phoenix, Arizona, and involving nearly 1,700 pre-university students from over 60 countries. “It was very crazy because there were so many people and so many teenagers interested in science,” Mia recalls. The event was also challenging. “It was eight hours of continuously presenting your project,” adds Misha.Attending the fair was a chance for the young women to see first-hand the value of international collaboration as well as how research cultures differ. “America is a bit more willing to take risks, and I think that's something we can learn about here in Europe,” Misha explains. However, she continues, “I think Europe has the talent, has the innovation and has the resources” to be competitive.Misha and Mia plan to continue their phage experiments in the new school year, inspired by the project’s hands-on nature and the support they receive from their supervisors. They have also attracted the interest of professional scientists and received invitations to leading research facilities, including the Centre for Synthetic Microbiology, jointly run by the University of Marburg and the Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Microbiology in Germany. “It is so cool that we can do something to try to move the world in our school and at this age,” Mia says.After completing secondary school, Mia plans to study microbiology and pursue a career in medical research, focusing on Ebola and other infectious diseases. “This has been my dream for so long,” she says. Her friend Misha is interested in biological research with a focus on medicine. “I've gotten addicted to the process of going to the lab, planning out experiments, then failing, trying again,” Misha says. “I think there's just so much to be discovered, so much to be done.”The students' names and photos were published with the permission of their parents.Science|Business, which connects policymakers, academics and industry through its news reporting, analysis and events, is an SCTT partner.
Reform and the UAE – a threat to British politics
By Alex Carlen The United Arab Emirates likes to present itself as part of the solution to the climate crisis. The oil-rich Gulf state has committed to Net Zero by 2050, hosted COP 28, and even declared “championing climate action” as one of three strategic objectives for this week’s session of the United Nations General Assembly. But behind the scenes the UAE has quietly built one of its closest political relationships in Europe with the party most hostile to climate action in Britain: Nigel Farage’s Reform UK. There is no evidence that the UAE is funding Reform. But a new FairSquare report, Petro-populism: the UAE–Reform threat, published today, documents a growing political relationship that should concern anyone interested in the integrity of British democracy. Reform’s leaders have embraced the UAE’s political model and promoted positions that align closely with the Emirati government’s priorities, while the UAE has given Farage and his party unusually warm access and public backing. What is emerging is not simply a relationship between British politicians and a wealthy Gulf state, but a channel through which an authoritarian government can cultivate political influence here, and abroad. Democracy for Sale relies on its readers. If you already support us, thanks so much. If you don’t, sign up to support fearless independent investigative journalism. Subscribe Back in January, Nigel Farage appeared at a GB News event in Dubai. On the 50th floor of a tower overlooking the luxury resorts and upscale residences of Palm Jumeirah, the Reform leader declared: “I want Clacton to look like this.” At the event – which Farage never declared on his official register of interests – senior Emirati officials mixed with British expats. Farage was keen to flatter. “We recognise you are our friends”, he said, assuring them that “a Brexit London, a Reform London, will remember you.” Controversy surrounding Reform’s finances and its susceptibility to foreign influence have centred around high-profile donations from billionaire crypto donors, and the jailing of Nathan Gill, Reform’s former leader in Wales, for accepting bribes to give pro-Russia speeches. Far less attention has been paid to Reform’s blossoming new alliance with the UAE, an oil-rich authoritarian state with a track record of ruinous anti-democratic interventions. Farage wasn’t always so fond of the UAE. Back in 2023 he called it an “absolute monarchy with an abysmal human rights record.” Now Reform’s hierarchy calls the UAE home. Deputy leader Richard Tice splits his time between his constituency and Dubai and has called on the UK to learn from the UAE. The party’s treasurer Nick Candy runs a firm which has been in partnership with a UAE-state linked firm since 2024. Nadhim Zahawi sits on the board of an Abu Dhabi think tank alongside an array of the most senior UAE officials and is reportedly close to three brothers of the country’s despotic ruler Mohammed Bin Zayed. Reform’s leading lights have effusively praised the UAE’s governance model, defended it from criticism, and advanced its political agenda in the UK. GB News, whose two major shareholders – the Legatum Foundation and Paul Marshall – have strong links to the UAE, has been more than happy to broadcast UAE propaganda and was forced to pay damages in 2025 after airing a false claim about a UK charity by the UAE “disinfluencer” Amjad Taha. The UAE has responded in kind. When the UAE Minister for Foreign Affairs conducted an official visit to the UK in May, Farage was the only non-government figure granted an audience. UAE state media publicised the meeting, and said that they discussed “the strategic relations between the two countries and ways to enhance them in a manner that serves mutual interests.” For the UAE these ‘mutual interests’ largely concern its paranoia over political Islam, and in this regard the UAE-Reform alliance is part of a broad and troubling pattern. Following a crackdown on dissent at home in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, the UAE has offered material and political support to a range of violent and authoritarian actors willing to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood with no regard for the consequences. Its meddling in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, and most notably Sudan, have been devastating. The UAE’s strategy of seeking out partners on the political fringes who it believes will advance its interests is not unique to Britain – it extends beyond the Middle East to Europe and the US. In France, it has offered clandestine support to Marine Le Pen through secret meetings, as well allegedly funding trips to the region after which Le Pen returned with a renewed focus on the UAE’s perceived enemies – Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Left-wing opposition leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon has accused the UAE of smearing him and of “encouraging discrimination, hatred or violence”. In the US, the UAE actively supported the rise of Donald Trump, establishing itself as a key ally during both his first and second terms. Around these relationships sits a wider ecosystem of figures willing to amplify UAE narratives, that even extends to Andrew Tate and Tommy Robinson. Subscribe In Britain, the UAE has used a combination of aggressive diplomacy and illicit, disruptive tactics to achieve its policy goal of eliminating any perceived threat from political Islam. In 2012, for instance, it threatened to block billion-pound arms deals with the UK and stop inward investment if David Cameron did not act against the Muslim Brotherhood and rein in the BBC’s coverage of the group – going so far as to suggest, with no supporting evidence, that the group had infiltrated the BBC. It has financed smear campaigns against a high-profile UK charity and funded a mercenary to secretly surveil, and possibly assassinate, a British national on British soil. In Reform UK, the UAE has finally found an ally willing to not only ban the Muslim Brotherhood, but to publicly vilify the group and repeat the UAE’s claims that dangerous Muslims are a fifth column in British society, a narrative that aligns with the Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments that underpin Reform’s populist politics. The Rycroft review into foreign interference concluded that “hostile states and non-state actors have a clear incentive to attempt to undermine UK democracy.” The UAE’s network and alliance with Reform must be understood within that framework. It is a powerful, disruptive and deeply authoritarian actor with the resources and networks to intervene in our politics, and a track-record of doing so in a multitude of other countries. The evidence of the threat the UAE poses is overwhelming. The question is whether parliamentarians are willing to call the UAE out and demand action using the tools that the government has to respond. Placing the UAE on the “Enhanced Tier” of the Foreign Registration scheme alongside Russia and Iran would send a powerful signal to the UAE that its meddling will no longer be tolerated, and would place Farage’s next trips to the UAE under the scrutiny they deserve. Alex Carlen is research and advocacy manager at London based human rights organisation FairSquare and author of its new report Petro-populism: the UAE–Reform threat. Subscribe
Is football too dangerous for kids’ brains? These scientists are racing to find out
A new study found that one in four professional football players who died between 2016 and 2021 had CTE—a degenerative brain disease—but what about children who play these sports?
Romania’s political deadlock risks handing power to far right, PM nominee warns
A partnership between the socialists and the far right would set a dangerous precedent for the EU, Siegfried Mureșan told POLITICO.
Florida's Success Prompted Warning From Pete Golding
Riding a hot streak into a high-stakes showdown, the Florida Gators represent a dangerous trap for Ole Miss as Pete Golding warns his Rebels against post-LSU complacency.
MIT’s tiny flying robot gets 450% faster with AI
A new AI control system lets MIT’s tiny flying robot move with insect-like agility, boosting its speed by about 450 percent and allowing it to pull off 10 somersaults in 11 seconds. The technology could eventually enable miniature robots to search earthquake rubble and navigate dangerous spaces that conventional drones cannot reach.
Opinion | Why A.I. Is Dangerous for Science
Beware the flashy but unproven A.I.-powered advances.
Scientists reveal how our cells conduct emergency repairs for DNA
Two new studies from Johns Hopkins University are providing scientists with an unprecedented view of how human cells repair one of the most dangerous forms of genetic damage: a break that severs both ...
Maui Health Medical Minute: Is it dangerous to interact with AIs or chatbots?
AI chatbots can be helpful tools, but they aren’t a substitute for real human connection or professional mental health care.
Survivor 51’s Big Change Has Jeff Probst Warning of a ‘Dangerous’ Mistake
Survivor 51 is changing the rules of expectation. Jeff Probst says the show’s new Open Era will make familiar patterns less reliable, and players who assume they know what comes next could make a dang...
See Mamaroneck roadway where state DOT plans to add bike lanes
A Mamaroneck business owner believes that bike lanes on Boston Post Road will increase traffic backups and be dangerous for young cyclists.
Column: SC arts board targets LGBTQ art and creates political test for art
The board of the South Carolina Arts Commission made four dangerous political decisions at their Aug. 20 meeting.
New nanoparticles make hidden chemical differences light up
Scientists have developed ultra-bright nanoparticles that can detect tiny amounts of chemicals and distinguish between molecules that look almost identical. The technology could one day provide a cheaper way to catch dangerous drug impurities or trace pollutants using simple low-cost lasers.
The Human Brain Isn't Meant to Be Awake Past Midnight, Scientists Warn
Dangerous things can happen.
Scientists solve a 50-year mystery and discover a new human blood group
Scientists have identified the genetic cause behind the mysterious AnWj blood group antigen, solving a puzzle that began in 1972 and establishing a new blood group system called MAL. The discovery could make it much easier to find extremely rare AnWj-negative patients and donors and protect them from potentially dangerous transfusion reactions.
Iraola on Bournemouth return, Araujo and Ngumoha's England call
Liverpool boss Andoni Iraola has been speaking to the media before Sunday's Premier League game against Bournemouth at Vitality Stadium (kick-off 14:00 BST). On returning to the Vitality Stadium for the first time since he gave up his job as Bournemouth manager, Iraola said he is looking forward to "meeting and hugging" the players and staff, but noted: "There is another part that is the most important one right now - that we need to go there and beat them and be as ruthless as possible." Iraola said that Bournemouth haven't changed much since he left: "They continue to be very dangerous, a very good team."
High-resolution dataset tracks health impacts of urban heat stress
Heat stress is a leading cause of weather-related deaths and can be especially dangerous in cities where phenomena like urban heat islands drive temperatures higher than surrounding rural areas.
In Sudan, attacks on hospitals force patients to make dangerous journeys
Amid a civil war in Sudan, it’s now difficult for people with cancer and other long-term illnesses to receive treatment that was once readily available
Rabies confirmed in Brown County cow. MDH recommends shots for 9 people who were exposed
MDH recommended nine people obtain rabies post-exposure prophylaxis as they may have been exposed to saliva from the infected animal. The disease is extremely dangerous and life-threatening to both humans and animals.
Giants are Catching the Rams at the Worst Possible Time
This is a very dangerous game for the New York Giants.
Biggs releases MAHA-aligned health policy platform for Arizona governor campaign
Rep. Andy Biggs released a list of health policy commitments in his campaign for Arizona governor. Public health experts say proposals to loosen vaccine requirements could have dangerous consequences.
The Strange New Politics of AI. Plus. . .
It’s Thursday, September 17. This is The Front Page, your daily window into the world of The Free Press—and our take on the world at large. Today: Douglas Murray asks, why do we allow terrorists to die of old age? The American nonprofits backing Hamas. A conversation with Dara Horn and Coleman Hughes. And much more. But first: inside the unlikely coalition warning that AI may kill us all. Last week, an AI researcher named Jacob Coxon made headlines around the world after saying that he had resigned from Anthropic because he believes AI might cause human extinction—and his co-workers do, too. Unlike the rest of us, potentially, the story just won’t die. The Pro-Human Assembly, a conference held Tuesday in Washington, D.C., about the existential dangers of artificial intelligence, couldn’t have come at a better time—or with a more eclectic coalition. The Archbishop of San Francisco was there. So was Steve Bannon, screaming about the Chinese. Bernie Sanders did a quasi-dramatic reading of messages posted to an online forum by rogue AI agents. Ashley Judd paraphrased a graphic Andrea Dworkin quote for reasons that remain a mystery to me still. It was odd. People in the AI industry have talked openly about the possibility of this technology causing human extinction for years, but it hits differently in the wake of the Hugging Face incident. If you don’t know what that is, all the more reason to read my dispatch today. As the doomers see it, the best-case scenario is a future in which humans are basically kept as pets: well cared for, but with zero autonomy. The worst-case scenario, obviously, is the everyone dies thing. What should be done? I heard lots of ideas but no easy answers. There are currently zero federal regulations on AI, which is sort of strange even to think about. After all, we regulate microwaves, and the people running the microwave industry have never once refused to rule out the possibility that their products will end all human life on Earth. What I saw in D.C. left me even more convinced that you would be hard-pressed to find anyone who believes nothing should be done. You know, except for President Trump. — River Page River Page • Tech and Business [ The AI Doomers Have a Plan to Save Us. I Went to Find Out What It Is. ](https://www.thefp.com/p/the-ai-doomers-have-plan-save-bernie-sanders-bannon) Read story How Robert Kraft Made Macklemore a Martyr—and How to Better Fight Antisemitism On Monday, New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and a group of other NFL owners banned Macklemore from performing at their stadiums after the rapper delivered a “Free Palestine” speech while opening for Ed Sheeran. Kraft cited the rapper’s “broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery.” Once multiple venues refused to host shows with Macklemore on the lineup, the tour’s promoter officially dropped him. Today, Josh Kaplan says that the move was counterproductive, arguing that though well-intentioned, Kraft’s decision turned an irrelevant footnote into a martyr. “You cannot cancel people into liking you,” Josh writes. Read his column on what a better response to Macklemore would have looked like. Read [ Robert Kraft Made Macklemore a Martyr ](https://www.thefp.com/p/robert-kraft-made-macklemore-martyr-antisemitism-palestine) This raises the question: What actually works against antisemitism? On the latest episode of Conversations with Coleman, recorded in front of a live audience in New York, Dara Horn joins Coleman Hughes to talk about her new book The Final Solution to the Jewish Question. She argues that antisemitism is a script that has repeated itself across countries and ideologies, and that most people don’t understand that well enough to fight it. Don’t miss their conversation. Watch [ The Lie at the Center of Antisemitism, with Dara Horn ](https://www.thefp.com/p/the-lie-at-the-center-of-antisemitism-coleman-hughes-dana-horn) Listen now Douglas Murray • U.S. Politics [ Douglas Murray: The 9/11 Failure That Still Haunts America ](https://www.thefp.com/p/douglas-murray-911-failure-justice-terrorist-guantanamo-bay) Twenty-five years after the September 11 attacks, the men who planned them have still not faced trial. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and most of the accused have been locked up in Guantanamo Bay since 2002. Judges have retired, and plea deals have collapsed. Today, Douglas Murray examines how this happened and argues that a justice system that allows terrorists to die of old age in an interminable pretrial process is one that has failed. Read his latest column on what that failure says about our unpreparedness for the era we are now living in. Read story The Editors • U.S. Politics [ When Nonprofits Support Terrorists ](https://www.thefp.com/p/when-nonprofits-support-terrorists) A newly declassified CIA brief from 1998 found that Osama bin Laden used nonprofit shell organizations—including U.S.-based Islamic groups—to fund his terror plots. Today, a similar story is unfolding as multiple organizations on American soil present themselves as nonprofits, taking advantage of tax-exempt status while seeking to advance the ideological mission of terrorist groups like Hamas. Read our editorial on the latest evidence of this dangerous trend—and why there’s no excuse for making the same mistake the CIA revealed 28 years ago. Read story Simon Sebag Montefiore and Bari Weiss Live in New York For decades, the Middle East has shaped American foreign policy and loomed large in the public consciousness. Few understand its influence on our politics better than Simon Sebag Montefiore, who argues that America’s quagmires in the Middle East stem from a deep misunderstanding of the region—on both the left and the right. Join him October 1 as he sits down with Bari Weiss live in New York City to kick off his U.S. book tour for The Cauldron: The Making of the Modern Middle East. Get Tickets Now MORE FROM THE FREE PRESS [ Sydney Sweeney’s Naked Truth ](https://www.thefp.com/p/sydney-sweeneys-naked-truth-caitlin-flanagan) Caitlin Flanagan Read story [ I Thought Ukraine Was Losing. Then I Was Almost Hit by a Russian Drone. ](https://www.thefp.com/p/elliot-ackerman-ukraine-drone-gas-station-train) Elliot Ackerman Read story [ The Dangerous Ideology Behind the AI Warnings ](https://www.thefp.com/p/dangerous-ideology-effective-altruism-artificial-intelligence) Shyam Sankar Read story [ Amanda Knox: Patrick Clancy Can’t Win ](https://www.thefp.com/p/amanda-knox-patrick-clancy-grief-internet-crime) Amanda Knox Read story THE NEWS The Federal Reserve raised interest rates by a quarter point, its first hike since 2023, signaling that another increase could follow as the central bank tries to bring inflation under control. President Donald Trump fired back by demanding that rates be cut sharply, though he stopped short of criticizing Fed Chair Kevin Warsh by name. The Houthis fired drones and missiles at Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, including a major oil port on the Red Sea, and Saudi jets struck back with air strikes across Yemen in an escalating front of the Middle East war. (For more on the Houthis, read Zineb Riboua’s column from earlier this week.) A sweeping Russia and Iran sanctions bill passed the House in a 262–159 vote and is now heading to Trump for his signature. Named after the late senator Lindsey Graham, the legislation would hit countries that purchase large volumes of Russian oil and gas with tariffs of up to 100 percent, and is aimed at cutting off revenue that funds Russia’s war in Ukraine. European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen proposed making Canada the European Union’s first-ever “associate member,” drawing a standing ovation from European lawmakers. The proposal, framed as a response to a world grown more hostile, faces an uncertain path as EU member states would have to approve it, and one diplomat said that “nobody really knows what it means.” The House voted unanimously to send billionaire Leon Black a criminal contempt referral after he defied a congressional subpoena to testify and hand over documents related to his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. Black chose to fight the subpoena in court rather than comply. Charlie Kirk’s family filed a wrongful death notice Wednesday against Utah Valley University, alleging that a series of security failures left him exposed to a rooftop sniper. The notice is a required legal step before the family can sue. Merriam-Webster added 1,400 words and definitions to its dictionary, including looksmaxxing, vibe coding, and cuffing season. The publisher said the new entries offer “a window into the world today.” The Free Press earns a commission from any purchases made through all book links in this article.
Researchers to develop microsensor for potentially dangerous gas emissions
Professor Mohammad Younis to lead National Science Foundation project that could detect problems with lithium-ion batteries.
Google confirms a dangerous Pixel security flaw was exploited by hackers
Pixel owners were hit by zero-day attacks
The Giants showed they can be ‘dangerous’, will the Rams?
Matthew Stafford calls the New York Giants “dangerous”, and plenty more NFL news on a Wednesday!
Truth and Politics in the Age of Post-Truth
Get E-International Relations delivered to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber, or make a donation, to support our work. Subscribe This is an excerpt from Global Politics in a Post-Truth Era. You can download the book free of charge from E-International Relations. The term post-truth is by now so ubiquitous in describing the state of politics in the Western world and even beyond that the most pressing issue of the day appears to be about making democracy work in the era of post-truth rather than questioning the normalisation of the term itself in the first place. The critical turning point appeared to have occurred in 2016 when the term was chosen by the Oxford English Dictionary as ‘The Word of the Year.’ On its website, the Dictionary notes the transformation of post-truth from ‘being a peripheral term to being a mainstay in political commentary and connects ‘the spike in frequency’ directly with the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom and the election of Donald J. Trump in the United States – both occurring in 2016. Paired with the noun ‘politics,’ post-truth is defined as an adjective ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’ The Oxford English Dictionary traces the first use of the term to a 1992 essay in The Nation by the playwright Steve Tesich as he reflected on the 1980s Iran-Contra scandal and the 1990–91 Gulf War: We are rapidly becoming prototypes of a people that totalitarian monsters could only drool about in their dreams. All the dictators up to now have had to work hard at suppressing the truth. We, by our actions, are saying that this is no longer necessary, that we have acquired a spiritual mechanism that can denude truth of any significance. In a very fundamental way we, as a free people, have freely decided that we want to live in some post-truth world (Tesich 1992, 13; emphasis added). He then continued, The Gulf War is over but the war at home goes on. The gulf between rich and destitute widens – between those of us who live in a modern post-industrial nation and those of us who live in the Third World countries of our inner cities. The present administration’s response to this internal crisis has shifted from benign to malignant neglect. The current levels of misery and decomposition of our cities and the economic gulags of our ghettos are acceptable. Since there is only so much hope to go around, there is a freeze on hope. The have-nots have now been reclassified as never-will-haves (Tesich 1992, 13). In the context of Tesich’s essay, truth includes both facts, as in what happens, and ‘moral absolutes,’ as in the ‘self-evident truths mentioned in our Constitution’ (Tesich 1992, 14). Together, these two notions of truth entail the obligation to both act and react. The two passages cited above show that even in the early post-Cold War years, Tesich was already deeply concerned that the American people are neither prepared to act on truth nor react to truth that is disconcerting, or what he calls ‘bad news’ (Tesich 1992, 12). Accordingly, Tesich’s insight as captured by the term post-truth is not that truth is irrelevant to what we know, but rather it is irrelevant to how we act. In contrast, ‘post-truth politics,’ as defined by Oxford as a term that pitches ‘objective facts’ against ‘emotion and personal belief’ such that the latter appears to have overtaken the former in shaping ‘public opinion’ and thereby, democratic politics. When Tesich’s post-truth politics and its current usage are juxtaposed, the two are in fact not identical in terms of what truth is and how it relates to politics. Against such consideration, this chapter provides a critical survey of selected historical events and theoretical considerations for the purpose of gaining a more nuanced understanding of the relation between truth and politics. Truth and Language One notable impact of post-truth politics is that language is being overtly deployed as a political weapon not only by politicians and those in power, but among the general population. It seems that once facts are irrelevant to the validity of what is being said, language becomes the platform for an all-out political contest in which what is said is no more than an act of will expressed as an assertion of power and/or an exercise in defiance. As early as in the writings of Thucydides (460–400 BCE), the vulnerability of logos – which is the human capacity for rational discourse in tumultuous times – was already noted. Thucydides belonged to a school of Greek thought which maintained that language is conventional and that the association between name and things is a result of ‘human use and habit’ rather than ‘nature or divine dispensation’ (Connor 1984, 99). The conventional nature of language means that it is incapable of providing its users with any independent criteria for judgement. In Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War (431–405 BCE), the subversion of logos as seen in the manipulation of language was introduced through his account of the civil war in Corcyra (Thucydides 1972, 236-245). The war first broke out in 427 BCE between the pro-Athenian democratic faction and the pro-Spartan oligarchic faction before it spread to the rest of the Greek world. There was a general breakdown of law and order, resulting in extreme violence and death. Language underwent changes that were reflective of the events of the time. The English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) translated Thucydides’ description of the situation as follows: The received value of names imposed for signification of things, was changed into arbitrary. For inconsiderate boldness, was counted true-hearted manliness: provident deliberation, a handsome fear: modesty, the cloak of cowardice: to be wise in everything, to be lazy in everything... he that had been so provident as not to need to do the one or the other, was said to be a dissolver of society, and one that stood in fear of his adversary. In brief, he that could outstrip another in the doing of an evil act, or that could persuade another thereto that never meant it, was commended (Hobbes 1839–1845, 8: 348; Thucydides 1972, 242-243). What concerned Thucydides most was that the meanings of words are no more than linguistic conventions that require logos to support them. The Corcyrean civil war was a reminder that such capacity cannot be assumed. This is why history understood as an authentic account of what happens matters. Guided by logos, the historian’s task is ‘the search after truth’, which is established through ‘the absence of the fabulous,’ including ‘the rejection of myth and unverifiable stories’ (de Jonge 2017, 2). Thus, history plays an important role in facilitating the stability of language – without which distinctions and judgements cannot be rendered communicable. Just like Thucydides, Hobbes was a nominalist who subscribed to the view that there is no inherent meaning to words. Hobbes’ state of nature, where there is no common authority, is precisely one in which distinctions cannot be made. As Hobbes put it, there is ‘no Mine and Thine distinct’ nor is there distinction between ‘the notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice’ (1968, 188; emphasis in original). This is clearly an unsustainable condition for everyone. Behind Hobbes’ famous words that life in the state of nature is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’ is his uncompromising argument for the ‘Leviathan’, which is described by the late American political theorist, Sheldon Wolin (1922–2015), as the ‘sovereign definer’ (Hobbes 1968, 186; Wolin 2004, 238–243). Accordingly, the social contract is importantly a ‘linguistic contract’ that binds all parties to ‘general names agreed upon’ (Peters 1979, 125; Hobbes 1968, 111). Through Thucydides and Hobbes, we can identify a line of thinking that sees politics as a contestation over the use of language, which is based on shared conventions and norms. Thus understood, politics is not a collective quest for the true nature of our being or an epistemological exercise in pursuit of true knowledge. Rather, politics is about humans living with one another by finding a shared language to communicate with one another on matters that affect them all. Truth is in that sense contingent on what is being said as opposed to setting the standard for it. In other words, truth is the embodiment of shareability among us. While truth as such ensures the viability of a political entity, truth by no means represents a normative standard to adjudicate among contesting actors in what they say, let alone in what they do. During Thucydides’ times, ancient China was also experiencing a tumultuous time as the ruling Zhou dynasty deteriorated into the period of the Warring States (481–221 BCE). This was when the rulers of Zhou no longer presided over the territories brought under its control through conquest. Instead of professing allegiance to the Zhou royalty, the lords of these territories became kings themselves to rule over their own land. The period was one marked by endless military campaigns as each of the seven major states aimed to conquer the rest (Lewis 1999). Yet, the period was also known for its intellectual vibrancy as different thinkers challenged the restoring of order among these warring states – including offering ideas and advice to rulers on good governance. Among these thinkers was Confucius (551–479 BCE). His thought, which came to be known as Confucianism, went on to become the state ideology of China from the Han dynasty (206 BCE–222 CE) until the end of the Qing dynasty in 1911 when China became a republic. The founding text of Confucianism was the Analects, which is a collection of dialogues between Confucius and his students as recorded by them. One key concept Confucius advanced is the ‘rectification of names’. Though the term only appears in one exchange in the Analects, it is considered a major aspect of Confucius’ thought. Generations of Confucian scholars from past and present, including Western academics, have debated over its interpretation (Makeham 2003). The passage in question reads as follows: Zi Lu said: ‘The monarch of the state of Wei wants you to govern the country, what is the first thing you plan on doing?’ Confucius said: ‘First it is necessary to rectify the names.’Zi Lu said: ‘Is that really what has to be done? You are being too pedantic, aren’t you now? How will you rectify these names?’Confucius said: ‘Zhong You, you are too unrefined. A gentleman, faced with a matter that he does not understand, takes a skeptical attitude. If names are not correct, one cannot speak smoothly and reasonably, and if one cannot speak smoothly and reasonably, affairs cannot be managed successfully. If affairs cannot be managed successfully, rites and music will not be conducted. If rites and music are not conducted, punishments will not be suitable. And if punishments are not suitable, the common people will not know what to do. So, when the gentleman uses names, it is necessary to be able to speak so that people understand. If one can say it, one can definitely do it. A gentleman should not be careless with words’ (Analects 13:3 in Cao 2016, 148). This translation is offered by the contemporary philosopher Cao Feng. As Cao notes, the passage is what started the whole debate over ‘exactly what kind of names did Confucius... wish to rectify’ (Cao 2016, 148). Of the three major groups of interpretation examined by Cao, beginning with classical Confucian scholarship, one is arguably the most influential and certainly most pertinent to the issue of language and politics. This is the interpretation that was first associated with the Neo-Confucian master, Zhu Xi (1130–1200), who argued that the ‘rectification of names is simply the rectification of politics’ (Cao 2016, 149). Within this interpretive framework, rectification has the dual functions of correction and prescription by ensuring that predetermined hierarchical roles are strictly adhered to through following ‘the system of rites and propriety’ (Cao 2016, 151). In addition, the rectification of names entails ‘using names to rectify actuality’ (Cao 2016, 151). Yet Cao rejects this whole body of interpretive works by arguing that these were ideas developed later. Instead, Cao suggests the following: The original meaning of Confucius’ rectification of names may, then, be quite simple. Confucius did not mean to establish a concrete, normative system of “names”; rather, Confucius was simply the first person in history to realize or remark upon the importance of language in politics. As a politician, he noticed and foresaw the impact that the indeterminacy, ambiguity, and arbitrariness of names would have on politics. Confucius recognized the political consequences of language’s not accurately expressing meaning or not being accurately received by people. He realized the great role that names, as a means of distinguishing right and wrong and establishing norms, could play in society and politics (Cao 2016, 168). Scholarly debates aside, Cao’s view has the advantage of identifying an interpretation of this controversial exchange in the Analects that enables its readers to extrapolate from it the observation that the meaning of words depends as much on their users as on their interpreters; neither of which can be predetermined. Accordingly, a good ruler is someone who can speak without ambiguity to his subjects and make good his words through actions. Stated differently, Cao’s view on what concerned Confucius then, who was living through times of protracted political upheaval, is that language is an indispensable political tool for those in power and can be deployed by both good and bad rulers alike. To sum up, this historical survey shows that politics as a war of words is by no means a distinctive marker of contemporary politics nor the Western world. Be it ancient or current, east or west, language is subject to manipulation to serve political purposes and when there is an outright war of words that defies existing norms, it is indicative of a political situation in which people no longer share a language and truth becomes irrelevant. Accordingly, political order entails stability in language use. Truth and Politics As previously noted, current use of the term post-truth as an adjective to the term ‘politics’ suggests that once there was a time when politics aligned with truth. Indeed, if we start with Plato’s Republic as the key founding text of Western political thought, we see that the ideal polis (city-state of ancient Greece) is where truth and politics converge, and justice is achieved. Written around 380 BCE when Athens was still coping with its defeat by the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War, the Republic is a defence of the rule of the ‘philosopher king’, defined as someone who is ‘guided by the truth’ and is ‘always and in every way’ in pursuit of the truth (Plato 1974, 490a). For Plato, truth converges with virtues and hence, letting the philosopher take charge of politics is to let the wisest and the most virtuous lead the less wise and the less virtuous even if it requires compulsion (Plato 1974, 499b). In Plato’s words, ‘…until the philosophers attain power in a city there will be no respite from evil for either city or citizens…’ (Plato 1974, 501e). The uncompromising rule of philosopher-kings is made palatable by the claim that we are all ‘earth- born brothers’ with random mixtures of gold, silver, bronze and iron, but only the gold can rule (Plato 1974, 414–415). Understandably, academic debates over the interpretation of Plato’s Republic revolve around the question of whether truth as attained in philosophy can be realised in politics as action and whether such a connection is even desirable. Without getting into the details of these scholarly exchanges, I suggest that they all share the concern that truth acquired through the rigorous process of philosophical reasoning is not without problem when applied to the real world of living humans. This is because not all humans are philosophers – and indeed, in Plato’s view, not everyone is capable of becoming a philosopher given the protracted and arduous training that one needs to endure to become one. Hannah Arendt (1906–1975), a highly influential political philosopher of the twentieth century, notes that ‘Plato was the first to introduce the division between those who know and do not act and those who act and do not know’ and that such a separation has remained ‘at the root of all theories of domination’ (Arendt 1958, 223, 225). What Arendt points out in this remark is not the gap between theory and practice, but rather that Plato provides the normative ground for those who know the truth to tell those who do not know what to do. Arendt herself took on the challenge of understanding the relationship between truth and politics through her analysis of Nazism and Stalinism. Arendt’s insight, which was controversial when The Origins of Totalitarianism was published in 1951, was to identify Nazism and Stalinism as representative of a new form of political rule – totalitarianism – making it distinct from ‘other forms of political oppression... such as despotism, tyranny and dictatorship’ (Arendt 1973, 460). Arendt defines totalitarianism as a self- contained system of ideas driven by their ‘logic’ and marked by a mode of reasoning called ‘ideological thinking.’ Ideological thinking as such is a distinctive form of political reasoning defined by three characteristics. First, ideological thinking claims to provide a ‘total explanation’ of all historical happenings, encompassing the past, the present, and the future. Second, while ideological thinking is an attempt to account for ‘factual reality’ in its totality, this mode of thinking is paradoxically divorced from reality and experience. This is because experience, being rooted in specificity, is clearly limited in its claim to totality. It follows that as its third characteristic, ideological thinking aims to emancipate thought from the limitation imposed by experience through a ‘specific method of demonstration.’ The method involves arranging facts into an ‘absolutely logical procedure’ that starts from an ‘axiomatically accepted premise’. It is, in short, a ‘process of deduction from a premise’ – which is the only possible movement in the realm of logic that leads to one definitive conclusion. This is how the ‘logicality of ideological thinking’ provides the basis for total explanation and the ‘principle of action’ for totalitarian movement (Arendt 1973, 468–474). Stated differently, totalitarianism is a form of uncompromising idealism that exists in one’s head irrespective of shared reality as experienced. It is the perverse form of what Arendt later refers to as ‘rational truth’, which is the product of the ‘speculative mind’ that belongs to philosophy, mathematics and the sciences. The ‘speculative mind’ is the mind working on its way to generate axioms and theories by relying on the cognitive capacity of the human brain (Arendt 1977, 231). The presence of others has no bearing whatsoever on rational truth. In contrast, ‘factual truth’ is what happens when humans are ‘living and acting together’ (Arendt 1977, 231). Factual truth is therefore particular and temporal by definition. But more importantly, factual truth is ‘political by nature’ because it can only be validated in the context of the human community (Arendt 1977, 238). In other words, factual truth is about humans in their plurality rather than in their singularity. For factual truth to be sustainable, we need what Arendt calls ‘common sense’ – understood as ‘community sense’ (Arendt 1982, 72). There is also another distinction about truth that Arendt makes which is pertinent to understanding how totalitarianism works. The issue is whether the so-called totalitarian ideology is simply an unnecessarily cumbersome way of saying that it is an all-round and polished lie. Here, Arendt calls totalitarian ideology the ‘modern lie’ – in contrast to the ‘traditional lie’. The latter is restricted by two conditions: that it is a lie about the ‘particulars’ and that it deceives only the ‘enemy’ – which means that the liar is not engaged in self- deception. The modern lie, however, involves a ‘complete rearrangement of the whole factual texture’. It also intends to deceive everyone alike, to the extent that those who initiate the lie eventually ‘fall victims to their own falsehood’ (Arendt 1977, 249–254). This distinction between the traditional and modern lie is important. It indicates that not only is totalitarianism a lie, but the lie is in fact too big to fit into the standard meaning of the word. To tell a lie from truth, we need a common standard. In the case of a traditional lie, the common standard is precisely ‘the fabric of factuality’. As such, a lie always appears as a ‘tear’ to that fabric. Yet, modern lies require making a surrogate reality with a completely different context for facts to fit ‘without seam, crack, or fissure, exactly as the facts fitted into their original context’. Arendt notes that as long as those who concoct the surrogate reality are prepared to engage in self- deception to ‘create a semblance of truthfulness’, there is nothing to prevent ‘these new stories, images, and non-facts from becoming an adequate substitute for reality and factuality’ (Arendt 1977, 253–254). Totalitarianism therefore requires a person to stand outside of the system itself in order to make sense of it. Arendt points out that it is futile for us to argue with (for example) a Nazi or a Stalinist on race or class. To confront totalitarianism requires more than just a confrontation with specific facts. It is a more fundamental confrontation between reality as experienced and its total rejection. This means that Nazism and Stalinism are more than radical ways of conducting racial conflict or class struggle. Rather: Totalitarian politics – far from being simply antisemitic or racist or imperialist or communist – use and abuse their own ideological and political elements until the basis of factual reality, from which the ideologies originally derived their propaganda value– the value of struggle, for instance, or the interest conflicts between Jews and their neighbours – have all but disappeared (Arendt 1973, xv). Accordingly: The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (that is, the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (that is, the standards of thought) no longer exist (Arendt 1973, 474). Who then is the ‘ideal subject’ of totalitarianism? Although there is a revival of interest in Arendt’s observation on truth and politics since the onset of post- truth politics, not enough has been said about her reply to the question (Hyvönen 2018; Klinkler 2018; Lee 2019; Zerilli 2020). Yet if we take a look at Arendt’s portrait of this ideal subject, her view is even more pertinent to our current challenge. As a self-contained system of ideas that is detached from experience, totalitarian thinking offers consistency in ways that reality cannot. Arendt notes that this kind of consistency is especially appealing to those who have lost a sense of bearing in the world (Arendt 1973, 353). They constitute what she calls the ‘masses’. The ‘mass man’ is thus a highly isolated and atomised individual, who is ‘obsessed by a desire to escape from reality’ (Arendt 1973, 318, 352). In his ‘essential homelessness’ the mass man can ‘no longer bear its accidental, incomprehensible aspects’ (Arendt 1973, 352). This longing for escape from reality is a ‘verdict against the world’ in which one is ‘forced to live’ but ‘cannot exist’ (Arendt 1973, 352). Such a situation is ripe for the ‘revolt of the masses’ against ‘common sense,’ which is ‘the result of their atomisation, of their loss of social status’ and with it, the ‘whole sector of communal relationships in whose framework common sense makes sense’ (Arendt 1973, 352). In short, the masses are people who are considered to be ‘superfluous or can be spared … [who] cannot be integrated into any organisation based on common interest’ (Arendt 1973, 311). Whether one agrees with Arendt’s analysis of the social conditions in the interwar years that led to the formation of the ‘masses’, her portrait of the ‘mass man’ is a powerful account of what can happen to an individual who has become disposable to the society that they used to belong to. Hand in hand with this phenomenon is indeed the collapse of ‘common sense’ that leaves the dislodged individual scrambling for reconnection. By offering the masses a substitute reality validated by the ‘logic of an idea’ rather than by experience, totalitarianism makes it possible for them to live in a world where there is no condition of plurality. Between ‘facing the anarchic growth and total arbitrariness of decay’ and ‘bowing down before the most rigid, fantastically fictitious consistency of an ideology’, the masses will likely ‘choose the latter’ (Arendt 1973, 352). A world created by ideology, then, is more attractive to the masses not because ‘they are stupid and wicked, but because in the general disaster this escape grants them a minimum of self- respect’ by conjuring up ‘a lying world of consistency which is more adequate to the needs of the human mind than reality itself’ (Arendt 1973, 353). Moreover, it is precisely this ability to guarantee consistency that makes it possible for the leaders of totalitarian movements to demand ‘total, unrestricted, unconditional and unalterable loyalty of the individual member’ (Arendt 1973, 323). While this chapter is not a study of the social factors that led to specific contemporary developments such as the result of the Brexit referendum or the election of Donald Trump in 2016, Arendt’s ‘mass man’ seem to have found their counterparts among the supporters of Brexit and Trumpism. Studies of voters’ profiles in both events point to a disproportionate share of supporters from white male lower income backgrounds without university educations. These are individuals who have either already lost their jobs to globalisation or who are at high risk of losing their job with very little capacity to be retrained for the twenty-first century market economy of advanced industrialised states (BBC 2016; Pew Research Center 2018). In short, these displaced workers are part of the tapestry forming the modern equivalent of Arendt’s ‘mass man’ – ready to be the recruits of totalitarianism. Conclusion If we step back to take a more comprehensive approach to the relationship between truth and politics, both historically and theoretically, it is not so obvious that 2016 is a defining moment. From ancient China and ancient Greece to our so-called post-truth age, the indeterminacy of language appears to be a persistent political challenge. Language is always open to manipulation by its users to serve power. Nonetheless, the tendency these days is to single out the ubiquity of social media and the proliferation of Internet platforms as the incubator for the countless cyberwars of words that in turn fuel the real world of politics. In this context, language is no longer the conveyor of objective facts and accurate information, but rather the medium for expressing subjective opinions and feelings, as captured by the Oxford Dictionary’s definition of the term ‘post-truth politics’. In contrast, the historical approach used in this chapter shows that it is in fact too easy to point the figure at the Internet and digital communication for the political challenge that we face today. What is being suggested here is that with or without the Internet, language, be it used to convey facts or emotions, is simply a tool for communication that humans have invented. While language per se cannot adjudicate what is true or not true, what is right or wrong, it embodies such capacity when language is a shared norm. That shared norm cannot be sustained without some semblance of cohesion in any given community. Any war of words, irrespective of its platform, is indicative of the breakdown of such cohesiveness. Returning to the original context in which the term post-truth politics was first used by Steve Tesich helps to identify the important distinction between truth as the standard for knowledge and truth as the standard for action. The two do not necessarily coincide. Placed in the context of the history of political thought, this distinction is in fact at the heart of Plato’s Republic. Yet when the philosopher as the quintessential bearer of truth becomes king, the polis that he rules over is far from the ideal of a just state that it purports to be. Instead, it is one that is held together by lies and coercion. What Arendt reveals through her study of Nazism and Stalinism is that it is dangerous for the kind of truth that philosophy generates – ‘rational truth’ – to become the guide to politics. Politics guided by rational truth can only be uncompromising and follows a logic of its own that cannot afford the ambiguity and indeterminacy of reality as lived experiences of humans. A world of post-truth politics can be an opportunity for a new kind of politics if it is indeed about dismantling the idea that truth is the ideal that politics should strive for. But as it stands, the post-truth politics of today is more about invoking a past that never exists to judge the presence as a crisis in naming when the real crisis is about rebuilding a shared space that has room for all – be they of the left, right or centre; cosmopolitan or parochial; civic-minded or self-centred; liberal-minded or bigoted. Politics is and always will be about striving for that space, without which no human can thrive. References Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Arendt, Hannah. 1973. The Origins of Totalitarianism. Rev. ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Arendt, Hannah. 1977. “Truth and Politics.” In Between Past and Future, 227–264. New York: Penguin Books. Arendt, Hannah. 1982. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, edited by Ronald Beiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. British Broadcasting Corporation. 2016. “Brexit vote: The breakdown.” BBC News, December 7, 2016. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38227674 Cao, Feng. 2016. “A New Examination of Confucius’ Rectification of Names.” Journal of Chinese Humanities 2: 147–171. https://doi-org.subzero.lib. uoguelph.ca/ doi/ 10.1163/23521341-12340032. Connor, W. Robert. 1984. Thucydides. Princeton: Princeton University Press. de Jonge, Casper C. 2017. “Dionysius of Halicarnassus on Thucydides.” in The Oxford Handbook of Thucydides, edited by Sara Forsdyke, Edith Foster, and Ryan Balot. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780199340385.013.17 https://www-oxfordhandbooks-com.subzero. lib.uoguelph.ca/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199340385.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199340385 Hyvönen, Ari-Elmeri. 2018. “Careless Speech: Conceptualizing Post-Truth Politics.” New Perspectives 26 (3): 31–55. https://www.proquest.com/ scholarly-journals/careless-speech-conceptualizing-post-truth/ docview/2204515132/se-2?accountid=11233. Hobbes, Thomas. 1839–1845. The English Works of Thomas Hobbes, edited by Sir William Molesworth. London: John Bohn. Vol. 8. Klinkner, Melanie. 2018. “Reasonable Truth.” International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 14 (3): 393–99. doi:10.1386/macp.14.3.393_7. Lee, Haiyan. 2019. “When Nothing Is True, Everything Is Possible: On Truth and Power by Way of Socialist Realism.” PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 134 (5). Cambridge University Press: 1157–64. https://doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2019.134.5.1157 Lewis, Mark E. 1999. “Warring States Political History.” In The Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BC, edited by Michael Loewe and Edward Shaughnessy, 587–650. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Makeham, John. 2003. “Zheng ming (Rectification of names).” In RoutledgeCurzon Encyclopedia of Confucianism, edited by Xinzhong Yao. Vol. 2: 813-814. New York: Routledge. Oxford Languages, n. d. “Word of the Year 2016.” Accessed 19 August 2017. https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2016/ Peters, Richard. 1979. Hobbes. Westport: Greenwood Press. Pew Research Center. 2018. “An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters.” Report, August 9, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/ politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on- validated-voters/ Plato. 1974. Republic. Translated by G. M. A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett. Tesich, Steve. 1992. “Watergate Syndrome: A Government of Lies.” The Nation: 12-14. January 6/13, 1992. Thucydides. 1972. The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books. Wolin, Sheldon. 2004. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Westen Political Thought. Expanded Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Zerilli, Linda M. G. 2020. ‘Fact-Checking and Truth-Telling in an Age of Alternative Facts.’ Le foucaldien 6, no. 1: 2, 1–22. Theresa Man Ling Lee is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Guelph (Canada). Lee is a political theorist who specializes in contemporary political thought. Her research and teaching areas include continental philosophy, Marxism and critical theory, feminism, postmodernism, philosophy of social science, psychoanalysis, multiculturalism, human rights, disability studies, modern Chinese political thought and comparative political theory. Lee has published on a wide range of subjects in these areas, including intercultural pedagogy and the challenges of teaching as a person with multiple minority designations in a Canadian university classroom.
Kenneth Walker III will have another monster game vs. Colts
Kenneth Walker III’s Kansas City Chiefs debut was lit. He announced himself as the new major weapon of an offense that suddenly looks far more dangerous than it did a year ago. After torching the Denver Broncos for 173 rushing yards and two touchdowns, Walker now gets a matchup that could be even more favorable. The Indianapolis Colts just watched […] The post Kenneth Walker III will have another monster game vs. Colts appeared first on ClutchPoints.
Matthew Stafford shares early thoughts on 'dangerous' Giants
Matthew Stafford and the Rams will face a "dangerous" Giants team that impressed in their season-opening win over the Cowboys.
Minnesota health department specialist talks Asthma Peak Week
If you or someone you know lives with asthma, right now isn't just the start of fall, it's historically the most dangerous time of the year. The third week of September is known as Asthma Peak Week. Every year around this time, hospitals and emergency rooms see a spike is asthma attacks and respiratory emergencies. Andrea Hickle, the asthma program manager for the Minnesota Department of Health, joined FOX 9 News at 5 to talk about Asthma Peak Week.
Islamophobia is rising – and Britain’s politicians have been dangerously complacent in tackling it
Mainstream figures have been enabling anti-Muslim racism, creating the ideal conditions for the rise of hard-right political parties, says Arun Kundnani, editorial director of Monthly Review Press
Shadows Over CEE: Hybrid Sabotage and the Creeping Political Drift Away from Ukraine
Mysterious blazes at UAV production plants, improvised explosives at critical power grids, and foiled arson plots: hostile hybrid operations across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are no longer a theoretical threat. Yet, as defense supply chains come under literal fire, the region’s political consensus on Ukraine is quietly eroding at the polls, creating a dangerous […]
Accepting political violence as a form of expression is ‘dangerous,’ Jonathan Turley warns
Fox News contributor and constitutional law attorney Jonathan Turley discusses what he calls a rising trend of political violence on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin.’
Todd Monken's Browns must end this Deshaun Watson charade immediately
The Cleveland Browns looked dreadful during their season opener on Sunday. Jacksonville smashed Cleveland 34-10 in a game that was never close. Cleveland’s Deshaun Watson-led offense never looked dangerous throughout the game. Now the Browns will have some tough questions to answer leading up to Week 2. Browns head coach Todd Monken defended Watson […] The post Todd Monken's Browns must end this Deshaun Watson charade immediately appeared first on ClutchPoints.
Political debate over AI intensifies amid warnings about ‘catastrophic risk’
(CNN) — The debate around artificial intelligence is ramping up in Washington, with Democratic lawmakers sounding alarms on the dangers they say the technology poses and Republican leaders suggesting those concerns are inflated and secondary to winning the AI race with China.Some Democratic lawmakers last week pressured House Speaker Mike Johnson to reconvene the chamber immediately to work on AI regulation, citing what they describe as the “catastrophic risk posed by advanced artificial intelligence.” But the Louisiana Republican on Sunday resisted those calls, instead saying industry leaders should meet with lawmakers to find “balance” in any potential guardrails.“If Congress just races in and does some sort of emergency session to try to regulate AI, we will lose the race to China, and that is a threat to every single American,” Johnson said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama told Democrats to make artificial intelligence regulation a central part of their agenda during a private fundraiser Thursday, warning that the technology could be dangerous “if we don’t get on top of it.”In a fireside chat with House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Obama said whoever runs in the 2028 presidential election should have a “very clear plan” on AI, adding that he saw the need for a “blueprint” on AI guardrails even at the end of his presidency a decade ago.“Certainly, if I were running for president next year, this would be one of my central agendas, and I would have a very clear plan, and I would talk about this, and I would say, ‘Here’s our plan for safety, here’s our plan for making sure our kids are not corrupted by this,’” he said, per excerpts of the remarks provided to CNN by his office. Obama’s remarks were first reported by the New York Times.Concerns over the rapid acceleration of AI reached a fever pitch after Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei wrote in a 3,800-word essay Saturday that the race to develop artificial intelligence is in dire need of a slowdown. The call to action came after an OpenAI test model breached the Hugging Face online platform, deepening concerns about cybersecurity.In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Saturday, Amodei called on industry leaders to work together to avoid “the wrong paths” and the possibility of AI harming humanity.One Anthropic researcher, Jacob Coxon, resigned from the firm over worries that the industry wasn’t doing enough to prevent AI from destroying humanity by the end of the decade.Obama said Democrats need a plan to get their agenda on AI underway should they win the House majority in this year’s midterms.Speaking to Jeffries, who is presumed to be speaker of the House should Democrats prevail in November, Obama said, “Once you are speaker, I would strongly urge that the Democrats put together a framework for a very public conversation, and you can break it out into three or four or five issues.”Obama stressed that the framework should be centered on the reality that the technology can’t be stuffed “back into a box.”“This is something that is moving very fast in private hands, and if we don’t get on top of it, I think can be dangerous. If we do get on top of it, I do think it’s beneficial,” Obama said, laying out examples of AI’s potential use in drug development and finding pathways to a clean energy future.“We don’t want to shut off those opportunities, but we have to understand that this is a tool,” he said.Jeffries agreed with the former president in a statement provided to CNN on Sunday.“President Obama is correct that decisive action must be taken on Artificial Intelligence,” he said, adding, “In the majority, we will move urgently on this issue with a legislative response that recognizes the importance of American companies continuing to lead in the Artificial Intelligence area, while putting in place meaningful guardrails that protect the American people from bad actors and the very real damage that can be done to humanity.”Jeffries also accused Republicans of having “abdicated their responsibility to govern” and said Democrats “will not repeat their error.”A source familiar with Obama’s thinking said the former president sees Amodei’s letter and similar reaction from other tech moguls as an encouraging development.But President Donald Trump waved off their concerns, saying he is not worried about any existential threat posed by AI, focusing instead on the US winning in its development of the technology over China.“We’re leading China in AI. We’re the most sophisticated country in the world, and frankly, I want to keep it that way,” Trump said to reporters at the Amgen Irish Open on Sunday.About the concerns expressed by Democrats and others over the technology, the president said, “I think you have a lot of negative forces that are bringing it up that shouldn’t be bringing it up, and they’re bringing up things that won’t happen.”One of Trump’s top economic advisers, Kevin Hassett, also rejected the calls for slowing the technology down, saying on Sunday the bigger concern is a scenario in which a “malevolent actor has access to an AI that’s better than the one we have that can protect us.”Hassett, the National Economic Council director, said on “State of the Union” the White House may hold meetings this week about addressing Amodei’s concerns, but he did not specify whether Trump had floated greater safeguards.“I have concerns that if we don’t win AI, we’re going to be put in a very bad position,” Hassett said. “We are leading China right now.”CNN’s Alison Main and Molly English contributed to this report.The-CNN-Wire™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.THE-CNN-WIRE (TM) & © 2026 CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC., A TIME WARNER COMPANY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Obama Urges Democrats to Move A.I. Oversight to the Center of Their Agenda
During a private fund-raiser, the former president warned that the technology could be “dangerous” if not managed urgently and with a clear plan.
The politics and possibilities of ‘AI could kill us all’
I found myself fielding a lot of questions from folks who don’t usually talk much about AI this week. They were mostly along the lines of “do you think AI is going to kill us all?” or “how worried should I be about this human extinction stuff?” Motivating this wave of existential anxiety was the highly dramatic resignation of now-former Anthropic employee Jacob Coxon, who quit his job while publicly sharing his concerns about safety practices at the leading AI companies. More specifically, he declared that almost everyone at OpenAI and Anthropic, the leading AI labs, believes that there’s a decent chance the AI systems they’re producing could “kill us all” by the end of the decade, and the companies aren’t “acting responsibly.” Other AI safety researchers, including those still employed at Anthropic and OpenAI, all confirmed that yes, Coxon is correct, they’re all worried that their company’s products might prove fatal for the entire human race as well. Two more AI employees quit and joined the chorus. Now, the warning shot has been covered everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Fox News to WIRED to the Guardian. I understand why all this sounds scary, but my response to those who have asked, has generally been: No, you don’t need to worry that AI will kill go rogue and kill us all. But that does not mean we shouldn’t worry, period. Far from it. The companies building AI products are now among the wealthiest and most powerful entities in the world. And they very much are building enormous engines of mass surveillance, extraction, and automation. They can and have allowed their AI systems to carry out felony hacks of other companies, provided the government with autonomously generated kill lists, and sold enterprise technology to firms around the world that is explicitly intended to replace jobs. But “AI” has done these things not because they have all-powerful minds of their own but, ultimately, because people have programmed, calibrated, and directed them to. In other words, it’s not AI we need to worry the most about. It’s the people and corporations working to profit from and gain power by deploying it. The technology is sophisticated, sure, and, especially in cybersecurity contexts, potentially disruptive to plenty of existing systems. But if we want to stop this predatory, profiteering, and extractive form of AI—and it’s worth noting that at this point, most people do—we absolutely can. A quick note/plea: I can only do all of this with the support of readers like you, so if you find value in independent, critical tech journalism and analysis, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. I want to keep as much of this un-paywalled as absolutely possible, and I need your support to do so. Many thanks to all who continue to chip in, it’s very much appreciated. Onward. Subscribe First, some context: AI industry folks like Coxon have been discussing the prospect that AI will destroy humanity for years. Even before the beginning of the AI boom, many working in the industry, from the executive staff to the rank and file researchers, have obsessed over ‘x-risk’, or the possibility that AI will become sentient or semi-sentient and move one way or another to exterminate humanity. This is ostensibly why Elon Musk bankrolled OpenAI in the first place, and is the grounds for his lawsuit alleging OpenAI betrayed its charter by abandoning its nonprofit status to become a commercial enterprise. Many AI engineers and startup founders have calculated their own personal p(doom), or the probability that the tech product they are working on will initiate an actual humanity-extinguishing apocalypse. 10-25% p(doom)s are pretty common. (I wrote about a long weekend I spent among these folks at one of their top conferences here, to give you an idea of their ideas and belief systems.) Sam Altman himself drove the narrative of the imminent rise of a super-powerful AI, or artificial general intelligence, to prominence by declaring that the technology he was building posed an existential risk to humanity. This idea is in other words baked into the DNA of modern AI companies and into the products they engineer. It’s also why the industry is routinely accused, by myself and others, of “doom marketing,” ie, using such proclamations and framings to impart the sheer power of the technology behind your product onto investors, partners, consumers, and the state. Some ambient understanding of this tendency may have helped prevent the press from repeating the claim every time one of the x-risk folks made it over the years, including when they quit their jobs at AI companies while doing so. Yet Coxon’s AI x-risk alarm has broken containment, as they say, and has exposed the idea to the mainstream media once again. This has happened, I think, for a number of reasons. First, when AI CEOs were going around saying AI might kill everyone in 2023, their companies were well-capitalized, but not nearly to the extent they are today. They were more easily dismissed as eccentric geeks of the sort that Silicon Valley is supposed to produce. Now, not only do their products have much greater market saturation, but people are more aware of a) the often unethical ways the executives and companies comport themselves b) the other adverse impacts of AI that have already arrived, and c) the physical cost of building these systems, particularly when it comes to data centers. Finally, toss in the constant stream of headlines in 2026 about AI models going rogue or potentially upending the world’s infrastructure. [ ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) [ With the backlash to data centers, Flock and AI glasses, a mass opposition to big tech is underway. Silicon Valley is in denial. ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) Brian Merchant · Aug 27 [ Read full story ](https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/with-the-backlash-to-data-centers) As a result, general sentiment was already overwhelmingly skeptical of AI and its overlords, so the table was pretty well set for someone to come along and say ‘just a reminder, the companies that are building the product that promises to take your job and leave a data center in your neighborhood also think that it might exterminate the human race’ and get a strong reaction from the media and the public. The question is: Should we understand this stuff as hype, strategically fanned to feed already swelling valuations? Is it doom marketing? Genuine cause for alarm that the infrastructure that undergirds modern life is facing a novel threat vector? Or reason to be sincerely worried that AI companies are amassing too much power, and that their products are genuinely dangerous? The answer, I’m afraid, is “yes.” Let me try to untangle all of this a bit, because arguments over how to navigate this moment are extremely heated right now, as they are essentially arguments over how to approach the politics of AI at a moment where there may be a unique opening for action. Those sympathetic to AI alignment concerns and x risk arguments—which increasingly includes a faction on the left who want to shut down AI over safety concerns—argue that people who dismiss AI as all hype have their heads in the sand. Meanwhile, critics of the x-risk narrative—which I might note includes a cadre of investors and tech folks on the right, too—argue that it is hype and can be used to further inflate valuations or for pursuing regulatory capture. The challenge is that many feel that dismissing AI as just hype or purely marketing also diminishes the urgency of taking on the AI industry as the novel and threat to labor, civil society, and the public sphere it is; others that by accepting the industry’s own terms, we imbue it with undue power and enable it. But let’s be clear: Declarations that AI is so powerful it might end the world are a kind of marketing, and anyone who says otherwise is just as off base as those who say that’s all that it is. If you don’t think that these sub-trillion dollar companies have higher-ups who noticed that when their founders talked about super-powerful dangerous AI they got spikes in media interest and phone calls from investors, or that those founders didn’t notice that themselves, and lean into certain narratives to advantage their products, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not all marketing is a Pepsi ad campaign with a celebrity spokesperson. Yet confronting the AI industry should certainly be considered an urgent project. Do I share the x-riskers’ fear that out-of-control, super-intelligent AI agents might end the world? I do not. I’ve read a good deal of AI extinction literature over the last couple of years and I have not come across a credible, step-by-step documentation of how exactly AI might move from self-recursively improving AI to killing every single human on the planet. Most of what I’ve read seems predicated on a sort of reverse Ian Malcolmian logic: Eventually, it becomes smart enough and AI, uh, finds a way (to exterminate humanity). Are the AI companies also overstating and dramatizing what their products can do? Yes, pretty much all the time. They’re in a knife fight for market share and are trying to win customers and government contracts before their investors come knocking. And yet. They have concentrated enormous amounts of compute, have extensive data collection and surveillance capacities, have inserted themselves into the state in numerous capacities, including military kill chains, and they are being run by egomaniacal billionaires who are rushing to monopolize an entire new market. The way I think about their most recent frightening-seeming exploits is not as a “swarm of rogue AI agents building a new civilization” or whatever, but as corporations with a hitherto-unimaginable amount of compute at their disposal recklessly experimenting with automation programs, completely unafraid of any repercussions because we have been unwilling or unable to impose any on them. So I think we should welcome any newfound imperative to hold them accountable. I also think that ultimately, the AI critics, Pause AI folks, leftists, doomers, effective altruists, and, honestly, most of the public, want a lot of the same things: legitimate checks and limits on AI companies’ power, actual transparency into what the companies are doing, and for more of AI to be under public control. (Ultimately, a lot of what animates the x-risk fears are rooted in just that: a fear of losing control.) How we move towards all this, exactly, is the question of the day, and while there’s much to be argued over in terms of building a viable political platform to challenge the AI industry’s power, I do want to cast a vote against one particular approach. Not to pick on Chris here, as there are a lot of folks out there proposing stuff like this, and the policy ideas actually stem from AI safety groups. But not only would this be challenging to land politically (I can already hear the ‘China will beat us to AGI’ calls) and all but unworkable in practice, this approach is a) far too limiting, b) fails to address the current harms caused by AI and c) would likely only wind up serving Anthropic and OpenAI; it’s what regulatory capture looks like in action. Full model transparency is the floor for what should be on offer here. If these companies believe their products will kill us, the very least we deserve is to know how. It’s in the public interest. I would also argue we might get a lot of the way to stopping any currently envisioned robot apocalypse simply by forcing AI companies to assume liability, and to submit to the full brunt of the law. If Sam Altman were liable to be charged with a felony for approving the hack on Hugging Face1, if Google was forced to pay defamation fines each time it published a false and injurious AI Overviews, these companies might suddenly find cause to restrain their models’ output, and we might hear less about rogue AI. We would need to introduce new frameworks and available tools for tracking automated lawbreaking, to be sure, but I’d wager that little would frighten the AI companies more than actually being held accountable for what their products enable. To that end, Illinois has passed an AI liability law, which the industry fought tooth and nail, and Florida is considering one. The next steps would be towards moving AI under public control; again, it’s only reasonable, since everyone, not just AI insiders, should get a say over how a technology whose developers say might kill us is developed and deployed. Dismantling the whole industrial project as currently structured should be on the table, too, pending democratic input. But that’s for another post. For now, suffice to say that while I won’t be losing any sleep about an AI-enabled extinction event, Mr. Coxon and co. have given us an opportunity to underscore the urgency of the clear and present damage AI companies are doing, the extreme power they wield and the extent to which they hold themselves unaccountable, and the abundance of political capital there is out there for taking them on. Subscribe 1 Purely speculative! I do not know if he did or not.
Homeless woman tries to torch $250K Mercedes as new NYC camp turns ‘dangerous’: business owner
A homeless woman tried to torch a luxury SUV outside a high end lighting business in Manhattan -- one of several terrifying encounters workers say they have endured after the resurgence of a West...
For China, a Mock A.I. Attack on WeChat Signals a Dangerous New Era
The demonstration of a potent cyberweapon has exposed China’s vulnerabilities and added to the urgency of A.I. safety talks between Beijing and Washington.
Anthropic says it blocked possible efforts to use AI for biological weapons development, Iran-linked cases
The company detailed five cases involving potentially dangerous biological research, saying it banned the associated accounts and strengthened its safeguards.
Down in the Polls, Republicans Embrace a Familiar Tool: Fear
At an unusual midterm gathering, President Trump and his allies painted Democrats as dangerously un-American.
Kratom ban meets quiet compliance as retailers clear shelves
Kratom was classified as a Schedule I drug on Aug. 28, as Gov. Maura Healey's administration sounded the alarm about the unregulated products that can lead to dangerous health effects. Inspectors fanned out across the state as the order went into effect to check for compliance.
Southern California braces for, 'very dangerous and unusual heat' -- plus oppressive humidity
Sweltering heat and higher than normal humidity is causing dangerous conditions for Southern Californians on Wednesday.
A Nazi-curious party just won big in Germany. The White House approves.
How a very dangerous state election in Germany helps reveal Trump’s real foreign policy.