BRUSSELS — The European Union should ready its Anti-Coercion Instrument, otherwise known as its “trade bazooka,” for use against Washington over its push to raise EU drug prices, Belgium’s deputy prime minister has said.

Frank Vandenbroucke, who also serves as the country’s health minister, issued the call in a position paper published Thursday by the Egmont Institute think tank, co-authored with his deputy head of cabinet Gloria Ghéquière.

He also said the EU should be ready to suspend the tariff concessions it granted to Washington under the Turnberry trade deal from August 2025 if the U.S. imposes additional duties on European goods.

The Trump administration has been pressuring European governments to pay more for medicines under its “most-favored-nation” policy as it seeks to bring American drug prices into line with those in other wealthy countries.

Washington argues that Americans are unfairly shouldering the costs of pharmaceutical research and development, while Europeans reap the benefits.

The MFN policy ties American drug prices to the lowest prices charged in a basket of wealthy countries, including France, Germany and Italy. The U.S. has already concluded MFN pricing agreements with 26 pharma companies, which have agreed to benchmark the prices of drugs supplied to the U.S. Medicaid program.

The intended effect is for drugs manufacturers to either increase prices in third countries, to lower their U.S. prices, or both.

Washington is also ramping up pressure on individual member countries to pay more for their drugs. In June, the U.S. launched a so-called Section 301 investigation into Germany’s alleged “persistent underpayment” for innovative drugs. The investigation could lead to additional tariffs, exceeding the 15% ceiling agreed under Turnberry.

Capitals are banding together to counter the U.S. pressure. At an informal meeting in Dublin last week, ministers from Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Belgium discussed creating an EU-wide pharmaceutical task force to coordinate their response.

“If we don’t work together and act as a team, countries are inevitably tempted to go it alone,” French Trade Minister Nicolas Forissier told POLITICO.

In the paper, Vandenbroucke and his colleague argue that Brussels should open an ACI investigation in response to Washington’s drug pricing policy. The instrument allows the EU to impose tariffs and restrictions on services in response to foreign threats to trade if backed by a qualified majority of member countries.

“The procedure is quite heavy, but already opening an examination would have an effect of its own,” the paper argues.

The authors also highlight a clause in Pfizer’s MFN agreement requiring it to share additional revenue from higher prices outside the U.S. with the American government. “Higher foreign payments thus become a source of revenue for the American government itself,” they write.

The deputy PM questioned the underlying basis of the policy. Because the U.S. market is so lucrative compared to all the rest, drugmakers would accept withdrawing from third countries as long as it meant keeping U.S. prices high.

Vandenbroucke, an economist by training, said the net effect would likely be an extreme increase in European drug prices — or the withdrawal of drugs from the market — while producing comparatively modest price cuts in the U.S.

According to one forecast cited in the paper, prices could triple in countries used as benchmarks, while U.S. prices would fall by just 7.5% to 15%.

“The consequences would reach well beyond the medicines budget, putting pressure on the solidarity that universal insurance is designed to secure,” the authors write.

We live in an era where wars are fought not just on battlefields, but also on our screens, in our minds and through the narratives we are led to believe. Narratives are influencing perception while missiles destroy infrastructure. What happens when the war for truth becomes more dangerous than the actual battle itself? Who’s controlling the narrative?

When wars end, the fighting over what they meant begins: who won, who was to blame and who can be trusted to keep the peace. These questions are settled less on the battlefield than on screens, in feeds and in group chats. For a Middle East emerging from the war that began on February 28, that contest may decide whether any new security order holds.

The region is now asking what comes after deterrence. That question brought policymakers, military leaders and researchers from the United States, Europe, Asia and the Gulf to the TRENDS 6^th Annual Conference, held in Abu Dhabi and organized by TRENDS Global, in collaboration with its global offices. The answer cannot be measured only in missiles and alliances. Information resilience should be treated as security infrastructure, planned and funded like air defense, not managed as public relations.

What happens when the war for truth becomes more dangerous than the actual battle itself?

The struggle over perception can now matter as much as events on the ground. That is no longer hyperbole. In any crisis today, governments, media outlets, political movements and non-state groups compete in real time to define what is happening. Disinformation, coordinated propaganda and now content generated by artificial intelligence (AI) mean a false account can reach millions before an official one is drafted.

As former BBC correspondent Karen Allen put it at the conference, “Now in an instant, I’m able to influence millions of people,” and algorithm manipulation is what we are increasingly seeing.

This year’s war showed how real that is. Within days of the first U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran, an AI-generated video of Dubai’s Burj Khalifa on fire, with crowds fleeing, was viewed tens of millions of times, according to BBC Verify. Fabricated images of damaged U.S. facilities in the Gulf spread just as fast, some posted by Iranian state-linked outlets. UAE Minister of State Noura Al Kaabi later described the attacks on the country as coming “from the sky and behind our screens.” Her government’s answer was to treat “fake news and misinformation as a security threat.”

A more damaging false story was not a single video. It was the idea that the Gulf was a party to the war. The UAE did not want this war and said so. On March 3, Minister of State Reem Al Hashimy said the UAE did not “seek to expand the circle of confrontation,” that it had “repeatedly confirmed” its territory could not be used for any military operation against Iran, and that “returning to the negotiating table is the only rational way forward.” The attacks continued anyway. Reuters reported, citing UAE defense figures, that 186 ballistic missiles and 812 drones were fired at the country in the first days of the conflict.

Information resilience should be treated as security infrastructure, planned and funded like air defense, not managed as public relations.

Tehran sought to blur that record, framing strikes on Gulf cities as retaliation against American aggression. Its foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, told NBC News that Iran had “not attacked our neighbors,” only “American bases,” and called the hotels hit in Dubai “collateral damage.” Countering that narrative does not require propaganda of our own. It requires putting the record in front of the world quickly and repeatedly: the UAE’s public calls for restraint before the war, its refusal to let its territory be used against Iran, and the hundreds of missiles and drones fired at it, most of which it shot down. Facts published fast, through verified channels, in Arabic, English and Farsi, are harder to bury than corrections issued too late.

Even after a war ends, the threats do not disappear; they simply take different forms. Ceasefires and reconstruction depend on public trust. If populations come to believe that the peace is a betrayal, or that a neighbor cannot be trusted, no deterrence framework or security pact will survive contact with domestic politics. Spoilers understand this. Their cheapest weapon is a story.

Seen from the Gulf, the lesson of recent years is that speed and credibility beat silence. Crisis communication is not a side function of security. When official channels inform the public quickly, consistently and honestly, rumors have less room to grow. When they hesitate, someone else fills the gap.

None of this is simple. Governments everywhere are still working out where countering disinformation ends and controlling speech begins, and that debate should stay open. But the common ground is wider than it looks: a society cannot be secure if it cannot tell what is true.

The harder test comes now. After a war, influence campaigns shift from shock to slow erosion: relitigating who was to blame, questioning whether Gulf governments can protect their people, and setting neighbors and communities against each other. Young connected audiences are the main target. They are also the best defense.

Protecting our societies from that influence does not mean closing them. It means official channels fast and credible enough that people turn to them first. It means platforms held to clear rules on labeling AI-generated conflict content, as X began to do in March. And it means a generation of young Emiratis and Gulf citizens equipped to verify what they see and able to tell the region’s story themselves rather than leaving it to others.

The harder test comes now. After a war, influence campaigns shift from shock to slow erosion.

This is not only a Gulf problem. The campaigns aimed at audiences in the Gulf also shape how Washington and Brussels understand the region. The UAE and its partners already work closely on defense and intelligence. Detecting and exposing cross-border influence operations belongs on that shared agenda as a joint effort between governments, platforms and researchers.

Diplomacy, investment, and deterrence will rebuild the region’s security. Whether that security holds will depend on something harder to measure: what people across the region believe about each other, and about who protects them. For the UAE, winning that argument with facts is not public relations. It is part of keeping the country safe.

---

Najla Al Midfa is an Emirati researcher at TRENDS Research & Advisory, a company under TRENDS Group. Her research focuses on geopolitics, international relations, economic diplomacy and regional security, with a particular interest in the UAE’s foreign policy and strategic partnerships. She holds a master’s degree in Global Affairs and Diplomatic Leadership from the Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy, where her thesis examined the UAE’s economic diplomacy through its Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement strategy.

---

Sources

• Sixth Annual TRENDS Conference 2026 kicks off on October 12 — WAM (Emirates News Agency), September 2026
• TRENDS 6th Annual Conference 2026 — Sustainable Security: programme and speakers — TRENDS Research & Advisory
• AI-generated Iran war videos surge as creators use new tech to cash in — BBC Verify, March 7, 2026
• Factbox: Iranian missiles and drones fired at Gulf countries — Reuters (republished by Al-Monitor), March 3, 2026
• X suspends revenue sharing for undisclosed AI war videos — AFP, March 3, 2026
• UAE urges the US, Israel and Iran to return to the negotiating table — Euronews, March 4, 2026
• Fake news treated as security threat during Iran war, says UAE minister — The National, September 15, 2026
• NBC News, “Iran’s foreign minister denies seeking war with neighbors,” March 2026. https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/irans-foreign-minister-denies-seeking-war-neighbors-rcna261954

As you get older, your body gets weirder, malfunctioning in some awfully creative, uniquely torturous ways, like how those with a prostate will have to wake up a few times a night to dribble out an obnoxiously small amount of pee. This is because the prostate commonly enlarges in men as they age, though why it does so when cancer isn’t involved has been a little bit of a mystery.

A research team from Johns Hopkins University, publishing their findings in the Journal of Pathology, may have found an answer.

Doctors knew that benign prostatic hyperplasia starts in one specific part of the organ: the transition area around the urethra. Why that tiny ring of tissue suddenly started pumping out extra cells out of nowhere while the rest of the gland kept on doing its thing wasn’t well understood.

By running single-cell RNA sequencing on around 130,000 individual prostate cells, the researchers discovered a brand-new subtype of basal epithelial cells called WIF1+ (which, written out, looks like an improved form of Wi-Fi), and it’s that cell that might be why you have to bleary-eyed shuffle to the bathroom at one, three, and five in the morning.

Your Prostate’s WIF1+ Cells Are Betraying You

The prostate is broken up into several distinct areas, but these WIF1+ cells are holed up almost exclusively in the transition zone. Tissue samples taken from men with enlarged prostates showed a huge surge in these cells, promoting tissue growth and cellular remodeling that puts your urethra in a chokehold, thus explaining why only a little bit of pee comes out at a time.

As obnoxious as that sounds, that might be why the transition zone rarely gets hit with prostate cancer, as these cells might actively dampen local inflammation and tweak specific growth signaling pathways.

There’s some more research to be done to prove direct causation, but if this finding proves true, it will go a long way in identifying a clear target for future drug therapies, thus giving a glimmer of hope to men who just want to sleep without having to drain a leaky hose a few times a night.

The post Scientists Might Finally Know Why Older Guys Pee Multiple Times a Night appeared first on vice.

If you’ve intuited by now that the people at the very top of the corporate hierarchy are complete and utter wackos who have little regard for human life, you’d probably think that there’s just something about the version of the corporate CEO that came around sometime during the Industrial Revolution that is uniquely psychopathic.

A research team publishing their findings in the Asian Journal of Business Ethics, however, found that corporate psychopathy is nothing new, since there is strong evidence of a maniac fostering a toxic workplace dating back to 1629.

And of course, they were an executive with the Dutch East India Company, one of the old world’s foremost examples of a corporation run amok.

Jeronimus Cornelisz was an under-merchant for the Dutch East India Company and a contender for the worst boss in recorded history. When the company’s flagship, Batavia, hit a reef near Western Australia, senior management hopped into a longboat to go get help, leaving Cornelisz in charge of roughly 200 stranded survivors. What followed was absolute chaos and insanity that ended with mutiny and massacre, as Cornelisz immediately initiated a hostile takeover.

The Hallmark Traits of a Corporate Psychopath

According to study author Clive Boddy of Anglia Ruskin University, Cornelisz ticked off all ten hallmark traits of a modern corporate psychopath, which are…

Not being in it to help, but for the attainment of money and power.

Use superficial charm to gain trust.

Surround themselves with loyalists and yes-men.

Clear the path of anyone who might challenge them.

Create division among enemies.

Create a climate of fear.

Refuse to take responsibility when all of their bad ideas inevitably blow up in their face.

Cornelisz met all 10 criteria, and he did so by purging the existing island council, replacing them with loyal lackeys who swore personal oaths to him, and exiled potential whistleblowers to nearby islands so they could starve to death. To stretch out the remaining water and food, he ordered his goons to systematically murder around 100 men, women and children, all while subjecting women to sexual abuse and hoarding the ship’s gold inside his personal tent so he could start a pirate empire.

It’s Not All Bad, Though

In the midst of all of Cornelisz’s chaos, the exact kind of person Cornelisz thought he was rose to power — a soldier named Wiebbe Hayes. Cornelisz had left Wiebbe and his group stranded on an island. The group found freshwater to drink and plenty of food to eat. They eventually fought off Cornelisz’s gang until a rescue ship arrived.

As Clive Boddy explained, “Perhaps the most striking finding is that another leader facing the same circumstances achieved completely different outcomes. Hayes built cooperation, discovered new resources and kept people alive. This was effectively a natural experiment in leadership. One group prospered while the other descended into murder and abuse.”

As for Cornelisz, his insane lust for power did not end well for him. Authorities chopped off his hands and hanged him by the neck. Goes to show that corporate psychopaths like him have been making life miserable for people for centuries, and while they have their fun for a time, it ultimately rarely ends well for people like him.

The post The First Corporate Psychopath Got Shipwrecked on an Island and Tried to Start a Pirate Empire appeared first on vice.

As the world teeters on ecological collapse, it’s occasionally nice to hear that an animal that was once thought to have gone extinct was just really good at hiding. Take the Bangka slow loris, an extremely slow primate that lives in trees and is also venomous.

For years, it had been considered critically endangered, maybe even fully extinct, as the last time any scientific team saw one was back in the 1930s. But it’s back, and according to new research published in Spixiana, there are at least 90 of them hanging out on the island of Bangka, off the southern coast of Sumatra.

Scientists thought this nocturnal tree-dweller was gone, but local residents and Indonesia’s Alobi Wildlife Rescue Center knew better. They’d been looking into the loris’ gigantic glassy eyes for about a decade, as Alobi workers had been spotting the loris since about 2015. As researchers assumed these slow-footed creatures had been lost to time, they’d actually been hanging out in backyards and getting nearly hit by cars. What the neighborhood cats and raccoons are to your neck of the woods, the slow loris was to Bangka.

Toxic Armpits and Secondary Tongues

“Slow” isn’t just a nickname. It’s a pretty good description of the creature’s whole demeanor. You’d think it would make them a great snack for predators, but that’s where its venomous qualities come into play. It secretes a toxin from armpit glands that it licks to mix it with its saliva and then delivers a venomous bite capable of putting a grown human into anaphylactic shock. It’s also got a specialized “toothcomb” for gouging bark and a secondary tongue underneath its main tongue that it uses to clean the toothcomb.

The species evaded scientific detection for nearly a century even though it’s only about an hour away from Jakarta. As for why researchers assumed it had gone extinct, it’s the usual explanation: the man-made horrors of obliterating its habitat to mine tin and to plant palm oil plantations so your chocolate bar is smooth and creamy.

The post Adorable Venomous Primate Thought Extinct Discovered Hanging Out in People’s Backyards appeared first on vice.

💾

BRUSSELS — Europe’s biggest media companies have asked regulators in Brussels and London to stop Meta from introducing new terms they say would let it copy publishers’ websites to build artificial intelligence, as a backlash that began in the U.S. spreads across Europe.

In a letter Monday, the European Publishers Council, whose members include POLITICO’s owner Axel Springer, called on EU competition boss Teresa Ribera and tech chief Henna Virkkunen to press Meta to put the terms on hold before they take effect Oct. 30.

The group wants Brussels to check them against EU copyright and competition law, and has requested an urgent meeting with the teams of both commissioners.

“The Commission remains committed to ensure that Meta’s practices fully comply with all applicable obligations under EU law, including competition rules and the Digital Markets Act,” Commission spokesperson Ricardo Cardoso told POLITICO, referring to the EU’s rulebook for Big Tech. He said Brussels was aware of both Meta’s changes and publishers’ concerns.

The U.K. competition watchdog has moved as well. British publishers have complained to the Competition and Markets Authority that Meta is so dominant they are compelled to accept its terms. 

The watchdog’s chief, Sarah Cardell, told British lawmakers on Tuesday that it had asked Meta to explain the changes and would meet the company on Wednesday. She named Meta as a possible candidate for Britain’s new rules for tech giants.

The terms cover businesses that use Meta’s tools to run Facebook pages, Instagram accounts or ads, which includes almost every newsroom. 

The fight began in the U.S. last week, when Nieman Lab, a journalism research outlet at Harvard, reported on the terms after receiving a tip from a small business owner.

As first written, they let Meta send automated programs to copy websites linked to those accounts and use the material to “train” its products, Nieman Lab concluded. There is no opt-out, and a business that continues to use Meta’s tools after Oct. 30 will be deemed to have consented.

Publishers say the terms would hand Meta content for free that other AI companies pay to license.

Rapid reaction

On Friday, Meta communications chief Andy Stone responded on X that the Nieman Lab report was “false” and that there was “no change to how Meta uses web crawlers.”

Stone said the update aimed to let Meta pull accurate product information from shopping sites for ads, not to scrape news sites. The company also said the crawling language already existed in other Meta terms and was just being gathered in one place.

Late Friday, however, Meta revised the terms and deleted the word “train,” saying the terms cover only its advertising and business products.

“We’ve heard you and want to clarify,” a spokesperson for Meta told POLITICO over the weekend, adding the change was “not about scraping news sites.”

Publishers say that changes little, however. 

Meta has given them verbal assurances that they can keep using its tools without surrendering their content to AI, but the terms themselves don’t guarantee that, the European Publishers Council’s letter says.

“Meta’s supposed Friday night correction is a farce,” said Jason Kint, who heads Digital Content Next, a U.S. publisher group whose members include Axel Springer. “Exactly what you’d expect from a gatekeeper notorious for abusing its market power.”

Others have gone further. 

“This is unscrupulous theft,” Germany’s newspaper and magazine associations said in a joint statement on Tuesday. They want Brussels to block the terms while it reviews them, warning that once articles are copied into AI systems, they can’t be clawed back.

Joseph Bambridge in London contributed reporting.

LONDON — Labour swept to power with a big, expensive promise: to create a government-owned energy company, hand it billions to invest in British renewables, and watch it grow, eventually, to rival other state-owned energy giants. 

Two years on from the foundation of Great British Energy, that isn’t what has happened. 

Analysis from POLITICO shows billions of pounds from its budget have been redirected to schemes not included in GBE’s initial remit, stripping away some of the cash earmarked for costly, large-scale renewable energy projects like wind and solar. Those funds are being used instead for very different purposes, like planning new nuclear schemes and reviving Britain’s creaking electricity grid. 

Set up by then Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, the government backed GBE with £8.3 billion of fresh funding. Its purpose at the time seemed clear. “Great British Energy will own, manage and operate clean power projects,” Miliband pledged, “and generate energy in its own right.” 

Labour officials familiar with GBE plans told POLITICO in 2024 local projects would get around £3 billion of its total budget, while the rest would go on helping the company establish itself in the market, including by taking stakes in wind and solar projects. 

Yet now experts can’t agree on what, exactly, GBE is for. 

How to spend it

Miliband’s GBE pitch to the public was ambitious.  

The company would allow Britain to become a bigger player in its own clean energy market in Labour’s dash to hit green goals, he said. Referencing huge state-owned companies in Denmark and France, he told Channel 4 News weeks after the election that GBE was “not going to become Ørsted or the generation arm of EDF overnight. But that is the long-term vision.” 

Soon after GBE passed into law, though, former Chancellor Rachel Reeves reassigned £2.5 billion of its budget to help developers design small-scale nuclear power plants and prep sites where those mini-nukes will eventually go.

The government also scaled back its funding for those local, smaller-scale projects, which include getting solar panels onto school and hospital roofs. The mooted £3 billion for GBE’s Local Power Plan became just £1 billion when more details were announced this February. 

GBE has set aside another £1 billion to build up clean energy supply chains.  

And that’s all before Prime Minister Andy Burnham used Labour’s annual conference to pledge another whack of GBE’s budget to a totally new venture: Great British Grid. 

Enter GB Grid  

In a bid to put his own stamp on Miliband’s pet project, Burnham announced that the new unit would sit within GBE, using some of its budget to speed the build out of Britain’s creaking grid network.  

GB Grid will invest alongside existing grid operators in a bid to cut costs, Energy Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh said last week, at a time when the grid regularly struggles to handle the levels of power being generated by developers. 

Energy experts are torn over whether GB Grid, in particular, is a smart pivot for the government — but acknowledge it is not the same thing Miliband promised to deliver.  

“I think the focus has shifted, but I don’t think that should be seen as a problem,” said Joshua Emden, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research think tank. 

GB Grid would have access to £4 billion of GBE funding, according to media reports published at the time of Burnham’s announcement, although officials from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero insist they “don’t recognize” that figure. 

It is still enough for Kemi Badenoch’s Conservatives to pile the pressure on ministers to explain why their plans have changed. 

“Taking half the GB Energy budget and putting it into a venture that was only announced a few weeks ago leads to the obvious question of: What actually is GB Energy for? And does the GB Energy of today bear any resemblance to what the government envisaged in July 2024?” asked Shadow Energy Minister Harriet Cross. 

Doubters and defenders  

Some energy industry officials are doubtful that setting money aside for grid investment is the best use of public cash.  

“If it does that last mile [of grid] to a data center, if it helps where there isn’t actually any program or plan, [then] fine. We’re not going to say: ‘No, don’t spend it on making the grid better,’” Dhara Vyas, chief executive of the industry group Energy UK, told a panel at Conservative Party Conference earlier this month. 

But transmission operators — who run the network — are already spending tens of billions on the grid, she said. “The energy transition will be paid for by the private sector.”  

GBE “made a slow start and has focused on low-impact activities, important though they are,” said Bill Esterson, a Labour MP and chair of parliament’s Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. Creating GB Grid, he argued, “suggests a shift in emphasis to build what the country needs where the network companies are not delivering.” 

The pivot “makes sense as an efficient use of government money,” argued IPPR’s Emden, if there’s a choice between investing in power generation — where there’s competition between providers — and in the grid where private networks have a “total monopoly.” 

GB Energy has “the foundations now to create something genuinely useful,” argued one government figure. “Politicians of all stripes should give it the space to get on with the job.”  

A spokesperson for DESNZ said “securing new homegrown energy and building a grid fit for the 21st century work hand in hand. Great British Grid will bring public and private investment together, helping to build the infrastructure Britain needs.” 

Additional reporting by Nicholas Earl.

Last Wednesday, the head of an AI tech company casually announced, in a long-winded post on X, a discovery that, if true, would represent a major breakthrough in biomedical research. Dario Amodei, CEO of Anthropic, wrote that his company’s large language model Claude had found “a molecular machine that we suspect could represent a new gene editing mechanism.” 

So what does this “molecular machine” actually do? No one is entirely sure yet. But that hasn’t stopped tech bros from already upholding it as a new version of CRISPR, the enzyme-wielding tool that cuts up DNA like nobody’s business, sparking a revolution in ultra-precise genetic modification that has spanned research in everything from agriculture to cancer therapy. It’s no surprise its discoverers earned a Nobel Prize in Chemistry. If an AI program really just made a similar discovery, it would be big news.

Indeed, Amodei goes on to say that this finding could be a step toward developing cures for most diseases in five to 10 years. The company’s press release goes into more detail, but basically says that Claude was prompted to search through a massive database of DNA sequences for reverse transcriptases, enzymes that copy RNA into DNA. “After 21 hours spent searching this data by roughly 950 agents using 210 million tokens, one of the agents spotted something remarkable: a repeating pattern of DNA sequences that occurs next to the gene for an odd-looking RT,” the statement reads. Except that nothing about that is so “remarkable,” at least according to numerous people who study and work in this field.

“It is too soon to say that Claude — or the team of human researchers involved has discovered a ‘new CRISPR,’” Dimitri Perrin, an associate professor at the Queensland University of Technology, writes in The Conversation. He goes on to emphasize that what Claude found — a previously uncharacterized enzyme system found in viruses that infect bacteria — isn’t necessarily going to be useful. More research is needed, but Perrin explains that for now, the discovery is “CRISPR-like in its architecture, but there is no evidence that it is CRISPR-like in its function.”

---

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

---

“Claude’s work isn’t even close to being in the same league as DeepMind’s AlphaFold system for predicting protein structure, which is proving to be truly transformative,” Michael Le Page, a senior reporter at New Scientist, wrote. Social media exploded with other examples of people dunking on Anthropic’s PR, with Simon Maechling, a PhD chemist, writing on X, “Claude discovered something in biology. Nobody knows what it does. But we already have the press release. … Finding something interesting isn’t the same as understanding it. Understanding it isn’t the same as showing it works. And showing it works isn’t the same as making it useful.”

Perhaps AI researcher Timnit Gebru summarized it best: “Please see what experts in this field are saying about this ‘discovery’ and not these scammers or press stenographers. This hype DDOS from them isn’t going to stop any time soon and we’ve seen how the mainstream media is doing press-release-as-a-service at this point.”

So it seems like Anthropic is making some pretty bold claims over something that is mildly cool and worth investigating, but at this point, also seems unlikely to revolutionize medicine or science. Why does this matter? A tech company making extreme claims is far from new. Big deal. But contrast all this hype (not to mention the energy spent debunking it) with the buzz just a few weeks ago about how, in just a few years, AI will supposedly gain sentience and kill off humanity. Consider how Anthropic CEO’s Amodei is among those pushing such a narrative, including warning that his company’s tools carry a risk of being used for cyberattacks or terrorism, including developing deadly viruses. Taken together, this presents a false dichotomy: AI will either end disease and suffering or inflict it in untold measure. Might there be a third option?

For anyone who buys the AI spiel, it’s a tool with boundless power. For now, however, the tech companies still rely on an old-fashioned kind of power offered by the state, which is precisely why other tech CEOs were seen sucking up to Chinese President Xi Jinping during his recent U.S. vacation. Amodei missed meeting Xi, for what it’s worth, but had a private dinner with President Donald Trump late Sunday night and later this week joined other tech leaders for a luncheon hosted by Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson. There — joined by Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and others — the president signed a “morally binding” artificial intelligence document, which sounds promising, until you hear Trump repeatedly tell reporters that tech companies can supervise themselves. “The self-regulation is very important,” Trump said. The document signed seems to have zero enforcement or legal mechanisms, so in this context, it appears “morally binding” just means “self-policing.” 

 

It’s no mystery why the president — heavily invested in the AI industry as he acridly dismisses any notion of regulation — is cozy with the idea of AI’s alleged abilities. In his latest effort to sell the American public on the coming “golden age” of AI (of course Trump would use that phrase), on Monday the Trump administration both launched America.gov, an AI chatbot powered by Google’s Gemini and Elon Musk’s Grok, and signed an executive order to rename AI “super intelligence.”

As Gebru observed, the grift has no end. All the more reason to pour cold water on outrageous claims about flagging little enzymes in huge databases. (Let’s avoid anthropomorphizing these programs by using the verb “discover.”) The goal of Anthropic’s AI propaganda — because that’s what it is — is to get most people skimming past the headlines to only catch “AI finds new CRISPR” and think a cure for cancer and world peace are right around the corner. All we have to do is hand the keys and all our money to Silicon Valley. Whether it’s utopia or dystopia, that’s the pitch: cede control of this tech to the billionaires in charge. In that sense, blindly swallowing AI’s positive hype can be as dangerous as its alleged existential risks.

The post AI hype promises miracles. That’s as risky as doomsday talk appeared first on Salon.com.