BRUSSELS — The European Union and Canada have agreed a framework to invest more European money in Canadian critical minerals, as part of a broader agreement to boost raw material and energy trade between the two jurisdictions.
The EU confirmed Friday it had concluded negotiations that would “facilitate European investments in critical Canadian resources, in particular in critical raw materials,” following talks between senior EU officials and the Canadian government in Montreal. The investments would be made through the European Investment Bank, the EU’s lending arm.
The two jurisdictions will also carry out a “long-term feasibility study” on exporting Canadian liquified natural gas to Europe. Canada is rich in gas but currently doesn’t have infrastructure to liquefy and export it from its east coast.
The commitments are part of a much broader effort to deepen the relationship between the EU and Canada, who see themselves as likeminded democracies in a world that is increasingly pulling away from the international rules-based order that has dominated since World War II.
“[W]e will accelerate collaboration to support investment in critical raw materials projects, both in Canada and in the EU, along the value chain, including extraction, processing, refining, manufacturing and recycling activities,” the EU and Canada said in a joint statement.
They also said they would “explore cooperation opportunities on raw materials projects in third countries identified as projects of common interest.”
The joint statement, which aims to build “an even closer association between Canada and the EU,” also covered security, trade, tech and artificial intelligence, competition policy, financial services and cultural exchange.
MONTREAL — Prime Minister Mark Carney is positioning Ottawa’s C$1.6 billion investment in Canadian artificial intelligence company Cohere as a downpayment on his country’s national security.
“We’re not waiting for the future of AI to be decided somewhere else by those we don’t know or … don’t trust,” Carney said Thursday in Montreal ahead of the start of the Canada-EU summit.
Carney framed the upcoming congress, which includes meetings Friday with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa, as a shared endeavor to build a stronger transatlantic alliance in the face of global disruption.
“Sovereignty now requires secure access to semiconductors, critical minerals, payment systems, clean energy technology, vaccines, space-based communications and artificial intelligence,” Carney said. “Canada is taking a major step forward in artificial intelligence.”
In a pre-summit speech earlier Thursday in Montreal, von der Leyen cited April’s multi-billion dollar merger between Cohere and German counterpart Aleph Alpha as a key piece of the deepening Canada-EU cooperation that is set to unfold at Friday’s talks on AI.
“Both Canada and Europe believe this technology should serve people. So we will work together to tackle head-on the safety and security issues of runaway AI. We will develop together rules and standards and strong global governance,” she said.
Carney said Canada was making a commercial investment alongside private investors including Nvidia, Bell and Germany’s Schwarz Group.
Cohere co-founder and CEO Aidan Gomez announced the initial close of its Series E funding round on Thursday, which is targeting up to C$7 billion at a C$35.7 billion valuation.
Gomez joined Carney at Mila, the Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute, for the Canadian portion of the funding announcement.
“We believe that artificial intelligence would become one of the defining technologies of this century, and that Canadians should help build it, shape it and benefit from it,” Gomez said, standing next to the Canadian leader.
The Canada-EU summit is unfolding against the backdrop of economic threats by U.S. President Donald Trump against both transatlantic partners.
Carney dismissed suggestions Thursday that the summit could draw reprisals by Trump against the participants. “This is a process which we’re doing absolutely in the interest of the Canadians, but ultimately the U.S. will see that,” he said.
BRUSSELS— The European Union and Canada are teaming up on compute power — a key element for training artificial intelligence models — with Canada set to join the EU’s supercomputer network.
European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said on Thursday Canada “will now become part of this network”, confirming a POLITICO report from earlier this week that both sides were discussing the country’s entry into the European supercomputing network.
Canada joining “enables Canadian industry, startups and researchers to access European supercomputing,” von der Leyen said. “Paired with Canada’s pioneering AI industry, this would allow us to develop highly competitive, innovative and safe AI systems.”
The EU’s supercomputing network is run by the EuroHPC Joint Undertaking, an EU public-private vehicle with an €8.2 billion budget. The network consists of 14 supercomputers (some ranked in the global top 10), 19 AI-focused AI factories and 10 quantum computers.
The vehicle will also run seven massive AI data center hubs, known as AI gigafactories, set to be built next year with a total investment cost of €30 billion.
Experts praised a possible EU-Canadian compute power team-up, but warned it’s only the start.
“Compute cooperation is one of the most obvious short-term ‘middle power’ cooperation plays in AI,” said Anton Leicht, technology and international affairs fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
But he added that for now “it doesn’t put a dent into the actual dependence” on the U.S.
“As long as the U.S. builds gigawatt-scale clusters, no amount of cooperation that doesn’t result in massive buildouts will help,” he said.
Canada’s engagement in the EU’s supercomputer network builds further on Canada’s previous partial involvement in the EU’s flagship research and development program, Horizon Europe.
Horizon Europe partially funds EuroHPC.
To date, 38 countries have participated in the EU’s supercomputing network: 27 EU member countries plus non-EU countries including Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Israel and Turkey.
A new startup called &Truth is joining the race to automate formal verification, a painstaking process that uses math to prove software works as intended.
LONDON — Enforcement of the U.K.’s upcoming social media ban for under-16s will probably require older teens to show a form of photo ID, according to the U.K.’s online safety regulator Ofcom.
In a government-commissioned report, Ofcom said it had identified just four methods that are “highly effective” at determining whether a user is 16 or over — while noting that “the risk of circumvention cannot be entirely eliminated, and some children will succeed in bypassing age checks.”
The advice comes after the U.K. government vowed to take a tougher approach than Australia to enforcing its ban — due to come into force next year — by requiring platforms to use “highly effective age assurance” to identify underage users.
It will inform regulations to implement the ban which ministers have said they aim to introduce to parliament this year.
Three of the methods identified by Ofcom — photo ID matching, using a digital ID service, or banking-based checks — require a passport or driving license at some stage, while the fourth, facial age estimation, may in some cases need to be followed by a supplementary check using one of the other methods because of a high margin of error at younger ages.
“This ban will shape the future of children’s lives online, so it’s important to get it right,” Ofcom CEO Melanie Dawes said.
While the age checks would involve processing of personal data, “available methods can be delivered in a way that protects users’ privacy and complies with data protection law,” Ofcom said.
It also said social media platforms should take steps to mitigate circumvention, like enabling users to report suspected underage accounts, and using age inference technology to spot activity from users who may be underage.
The regulator said it will consult on further guidance for platforms once regulations to implement the social media ban are laid.
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?
Najla Al Midfa, researcher, TRENDS Research & Advisory
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 6th 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
To experiment with AI’s predictive skills, I let Codex loose on a fantasy team. It tried to bench Erling Haaland at first, but it soon learned the error of its ways.
It feels like the skies above our AI-frenzied world have darkened in the past month. Employees at Anthropic and Google startedquitting, citing fears that the AI was spiraling out of control. After a string of agents started hacking websites, researchers used AI to discover vulnerabilities in critical systems, leading to large swaths of the web going dark last week and giving rise to a scary term: Black October. At the same time, as it continued to ramp up AI spending, Microsoft offered buyouts to 60,000 employees — over a quarter of its workforce — and economists once againwarned of a bubble.
It’s hard to reconcile the incongruity between the recent bad news and good news. For most of us, the state of AI is anxiety-inducing — especially when it comes to our livelihoods. According to a Pew Research Center study published in August, 71 percent of Americans think AI will lead to fewer jobs in the next two decades. That figure is up 7 percentage points from where it was two years ago. Sure, in the best-case scenarios, AI could erase inefficiencies at work, streamline our daily lives, cure diseases, and generally improve the human condition.
But what if you are the “inefficiency” at work that gets erased?
That tension is at the heart of Ethan Mollick’s latest book Co-Existence: The Next Phase of AI. If there is such a thing as an AI sage, it would be Mollick, an associate professor at the Wharton School and faculty director of its Generative AI Labs. To the nearly half a million subscribers to his Substack newsletter, One Useful Thing, he delivers semiweekly updates from the jagged frontier of the technology’s development. His message in any medium is resoundingly clear: You need to use AI in order to understand it. And to get the most out of using it, he argues that you have to accept that AI is not going away; it’s only going to become more important.
That ethos doesn’t make the existential threats of AI any less daunting, but that’s not the point. Unless you’re an early Anthropic employee or a United States senator, there’s probably not much you can do directly to rein in AI’s potential harms. But you can, according to Mollick’s worldview, decide how the technology could fit into your life and think about how you fit into an AI-dominated future.
I recently spoke with Mollick about his new book, what life and work might look like in the agentic AI era, and what it means to be an artisan when even knowledge is industrialized. His theories about living with AI are meant to help you navigate the future, regardless of the latest forecast. This interview has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
We’re entering a new era for AI, and the vibes are different. AI agents are something that many of us will encounter, interact with, and maybe even embrace. I’ve always known you as someone who jumps on the cutting edge of this technology to figure out what it can do. What do you think most people don’t understand about the next generation of AI?
I really think people haven’t internalized what agents do. Agents mean many things, and we can talk about personal agents, like Muse. But the fact that the problems that plagued working with AI agents before — you had to guide them each step of the way, they made mistakes, hallucinated constantly — that’s kind of gone. You can regularly get hours, days, weeks of work out of a system.
It’s not just a theoretical thing anymore. I talk to coders all the time who are a hundred times or more productive than they were before. And in other fields, we’ve kind of moved past the theoretical discussion about AI being, “This is going to be a big deal,” to, “It’s here.” From a whole kind of co-intelligence perspective, we’ve gone from, “Here’s how we use AI and work with a chatbot back and forth,” to, “These systems are now doing real work in ways that matter to real people and are reshaping real fields for better or worse.” And if you’re used to using AI a year ago, if you’re not paying for one of these systems, it’s really easy to have lost track of what’s going on.
What about the practical, everyday ways that AI is disrupting our lives? And what do you think are the limits of that disruption?
So outside of the job world and homework cheating, I think life has changed only a little bit for people, partially because these systems were kind of complicated to use and you had to decide what you were using them for. But I think the advent of personal agents, like Muse and Dot, are going to lead to a very rapid change in a lot of ways.
Most people I know who aren’t experts who use these systems, like my parents, are using these things spontaneously. They’re finding that once you know how to prompt the AI to do something, it can do things spontaneously and come back to you because it has your email and everything else. Just as one example, I was unable to figure out how to cancel my standing $8-a-month wifi subscription from my airline, and I was like, figure this out. And it went to customer service, joined chats, then I have no idea what it did, but now I don’t have a subscription to wifi anymore, thank goodness.
“I deeply worry that if I de-skill myself entirely, I won’t even know how computers work.”
So there is this sort of lowering friction piece that’s super interesting, with good and bad elements to it. The bad side of lowering friction is both that every article gets written by AI, so there’s no human thinking in it anymore, and that companies don’t want 10,000 customer service agents coming to them demanding new things. So I think we’re just on the edge of seeing the mass change in everyday life. Right now, AI is a really good second opinion on everything. As agents become more popular, they start to take action.
How do you know when to let AI do the work, though? We know that offloading certain tasks to AI can make you worse at doing those kinds of tasks in the future. How do you take advantage of AI’s ability to do drudgery but also hold onto your own expertise?
If there’s a personal theme underlying Co-Existence, it’s that one. That is an incredibly hard choice to make, and we’re historically very bad at making it.
Students are the No. 1 case because they’re willing to offload homework because homework sucks and because the incentives for doing any piece of homework are terrible. But overall we need to do it to learn. So people offload that, but even if you’re trying to do the right kind of thing, like using AI only to help you learn and not to replace learning, it turns out that when chatbots are in assistant mode, as opposed to using them as a tutor, it feels like you’re learning even though you’re not. You feel like you’re in the loop even though you’re not. And so that assumes that we both know we want to offload and we do it intelligently and that we do it in a way that helps our long-term gain.
I am worried about us being able to do that. You have to draw lines for yourself about what skills matter to you or not, and you have to be thoughtful, in a way that we’re usually not, about what we’re giving up and what we’re not. Technology’s designed for us to give up stuff. We don’t walk 50 miles a day anymore in forced marches. I don’t know how to weave clothes. There’s a lot of stuff I’m very happy to not know: how to maintain my computer in some ways, even though that’s dangerous. I let Codex scan for security issues because it does a better job than me faster. But I deeply worry that if I de-skill myself entirely, I won’t even know how computers work.
So I don’t have an easy answer, but I think that that will be the defining question for most people in their career paths right now and their lives: What do I give up? I think we can be too sentimental about things that we’re giving up. It’s okay, but we don’t know the full chain of consequences. I think that struggle is going to be central to a lot of people’s experience. I wish I had an easy answer, but now that AI can do so many things, de-skilling is a real problem at this point.
We’re living through a huge transformation. That’s increasingly clear. Besides losing their jobs, a lot of people are scared of losing the sense of what makes them human and what makes them valuable. How do people hold onto that in the years to come?
There’s a transformation happening, and for some people, the work will get more satisfying. There’s a lot of coders who did not like writing lines of code, but they did like summoning software and figuring out what they wanted to build. Their lives are much better because the AI does all the tedious work. They can command things to be built, and it’s so much more exciting than it was before. It lets people who didn’t code start to do incredible coding projects. So on one hand, that’s deeply freeing of the kinds of work that we did. On the other hand, there are people who love writing those lines of code and that’s gone now. You’re a hand-weaver in a world of power looms. Your stuff might be elegant and beautiful, but it is not going to last in a world where industrialization happens.
Industrialization versus craft is a way to think about this. There’s a lot of craft that we’ve grown to really appreciate, like the handcrafted sentence. Those things will be under threat from the logic of industrialization, which is that we need to do more of it. I think that there’s going to be a shift. There’s satisfying work to do, but I think a lot of what was satisfying human work will be under pressure to disappear, because you took pleasure in something that was not automatable, but now is.
We’ve been through this in industrial revolutions before. This is happening at a very large scale to intellectual work, where craft was a very important part of what we did. Mathematics was craft, software engineering was craft. I think that we’ll be under pressure to produce more of it, which is what industrialization’s about, even if that destroys the value of doing this as a person. You get paid to do it now, but you’re not getting the same value you did before.
“We’re no longer in a place where AI is going away.”
I think we’re going to find lots of crises of meaning. Some people are going to find huge amounts more meaning in their work, either because the work itself is now much more interesting. Work is a lot of crap, too. We can say great things about it, but people spend a quarter of their work life saying they’re bored. It’s not like this was a great job for everybody. So some people will have much more excitement in craft. Some people will have it extracted out of their job, and it’s all going to be happening at once. I know it’s not a satisfying answer, but that’s what’s happening.
Forgive me for saying so, but that was an anxiety-inducing answer. It’s an anxiety-inducing time. I wonder what advice you have for us anxious people?
I think anxiety is real, and there’s different levels of anxiety. We’re going through a wrenching change, or we will be going through one that we’re on the edges of now. There is also existential risk about whether AI will kill us all, where we clearly need more regulation. The answers are unclear. Smart people seem to think that that’s a real danger. It’s hard to know. But leaving that aside, there’s anxiety about our own transformation, our jobs. I mean, the industrial revolutions worked out great in the end, but during it, [that] was the time of Marx and anarchists and Dickens writing about London. There’s a transition we have to go through here.
I don’t think we can pretend it’s not happening, and I see a lot of people taking comfort in the idea that maybe this all will collapse and AI will go away. Even if there was a bubble financially, we’re no longer in a place where AI is going away or stopping development. I worry a lot about people doing that. Once you face that, though, I find people often reconstruct meaning in very exciting ways. Thinking about what more you can do and where you find joy in this is actually quite exciting. So I think that anxious optimism is a reasonable place to be.
What I worry about is sticking your head in the sand saying, “I’m not going to learn AI. This will go away. I’m going to pretend it’s not happening.” I mean, I wish I could give you that option. I think there’s a lot of people who wish we could slow things down or turn a dial down, but there’s also a lot of exciting things. There’s a lot of hard problems in the world that are unsolved.
If you lean into the positive pieces, you can ask how we mitigate risk but also think about how we can build a better world. Part of what makes me nervous is people sitting out that second question and just filling up with anxiety rather than believing we have a tool that can rebuild things. How do we rebuild a better world for journalism or for nonprofits or whatever it is? I think it’s a reasonable question to ask, and I worry it’s asked too little.
One of England’s top judges, Geoffrey Vos, believes that AI could adjudicate plenty of civil cases. The question, he says, is where the line should be drawn.
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei says his AI company can drive a “race to the top.” Where’s the evidence? | Finn Gomez/Getty Images
We’re living through an AI-fueled “Black October,” and things are changing fast. Hackers are using AI to breach countless companies. AI tools have uncovered security flaws that could leave 70 percent of all websites vulnerable. Governments are scrambling to secure their sites. Banks, too. And because cyberhacks can hurt supply chains, some longtime AI watchers are going full prepper, stocking up on food, cash, and more.
In the center of this story is Anthropic, one of the world’s leading AI companies, which was explicitly founded on the promise that it would be a “good guy” company in a world of dubious tech giants.
Anthropic says all the latest developments are very serious. Its security chief wrote last week that things are “going to get a lot worse before they get better.” Two weeks ago the company warned that AI models could soon self-replicate on the internet-connected devices in your home, like smart fridges and robot vacuums. And its co-founder now says “the singularity” — when AI systems speed up technical progress in a way that’s hard for humans to comprehend — “is here.”
You might think, given its view of the risks, that Anthropic would be pumping the brakes on its cutting-edge AI progress. Just the opposite. Anthropic filed for a blockbuster initial public offering on Monday, chasing a valuation of $2 trillion even as it warns in the IPO filing that AI could “pose catastrophic or existential risks to humanity.” Every day, it is racing toward recursive self-improvement (RSI), where AI models are smart enough to build the next, even smarter AI models by themselves.
How does Anthropic justify that?
As its CEO, Dario Amodei, reminded the world last week, he built the company on one big bet: that instead of driving a race to the bottom, where companies skimp on safety in their rush to beat competitors in the market, Anthropic could actually catalyze a “race to the top.”
Why I wrote this story
As I’ve watched Anthropic double down on its “race to the top” strategy, I’ve been uncomfortably reminded of another very risky gambit: Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto fraud of 2022. There are important differences between the two; this is not a perfect parallel. But both involve a tiny handful of figures, strongly influenced by effective altruism, making huge bets on behalf of many, many other people.
EA culture prides itself on offering a counter to commonsense morality. The community has shown a willingness to take big risks and justify them with complex calculations. Sometimes that pays off. But believing you are intelligent enough to adopt a counter-intuitive, galaxy-brained strategy and end up saving the world with it often involves some hubris. And hubris makes me nervous in a field as high-stakes as AI.
The idea is that if Anthropic proves it can build AI that’s both powerful and safe, the market will expect both — so other AI companies will then feel compelled to compete on safety, too. That may sound nice in theory, but it means Anthropic has to keep building ever-more-powerful AIs.
“The forces that drive the race to the top are hugely more effective if the company practicing them is at the frontier,” Amodei wrote. “And looking at that strategy as a whole, I’m proud of our track record and stand by it.”
So there’s a very basic question that the public deserves a good answer to right at this pivotal moment: What is the evidence that Anthropic’s stated strategy — compete at the frontier so as to drive a “race to the top” — is actually successful overall?
From the outside, it looks like Anthropic has done more, on balance, to drive a race to the bottom. (Disclosure: Future Perfect is funded in part by the BEMC Foundation, whose major funder was also an early investor in Anthropic; they don’t have any editorial input into our content.)
In fact, part of the problem may be that Anthropic continues to treat this as a classic arms race. Specifically, the company seems to model it as a prisoner’s dilemma: If Anthropic stopped building more powerful AI, another player — whether it’s China, OpenAI, or another company — would just build it anyway. In this kind of dilemma, if the other player is going to defect, it’s rational for you to defect, even though nobody actually wants that outcome.
But what if this framing misses the point?
Game theory can make a huge gamble seem sophisticated, while making the obvious alternative — just don’t build a doom machine — seem naive. Yet the fact that Anthropic and others are now racing toward RSI makes it much more likely that we could lose control of AI and start to see massive damage to our world. When the cost of defecting from safety is that you create a serious risk of catastrophic harm — or of all humanity, including you, going extinct — is that still a “rational” move?
Instead of telling yourself that you can galaxy-brain your way through this with fancy enough game theory, maybe you’re better off just thinking of this as something much simpler: Russian roulette.
More and more leading voices in AI are starting to recognize that.
“We should stop AI progress now, starting unilaterally with Anthropic and/or OpenAI stopping — and then broadening out as a second step to more AI companies and negotiations with China,” Geoffrey Irving, who was until recently the chief scientist at the UK AI Security Institute, told me. “Unilateral pauses can’t hold for long, but they are the right first step: When you’re doing a very dangerous thing, the correct action is stop, even if others are also doing dangerous things.”
Anthropic did not respond to a request for comment.
The case that Anthropic has done more harm than good
Let’s be clear: The question is not whether Anthropic has done anything good on the safety front. It has. Standing up to the Pentagon, temporarily holding back access to frontier models, and publicly advocating for safer AI policies are a few examples, among others.
But the real question is whether the company’s “race to the top” strategy is working on balance — whether it’s net-negative or net-positive for safety.
Nathan Calvin, the chief strategy officer at AI safety advocacy organization Encode, recently set off a firestorm among tech watchers, writing on X, “When I look at many notable actions that Anthropic has taken over the past year, that evidence seems most consistent to me with the view that Anthropic is primarily trying to win the race to superintelligence, and that other considerations (including safety) are fundamentally secondary.” Here’s his list of what Anthropic has done:
And this is all just in the past year. If we rewind the tape further back, we see Anthropic pushing back on a landmark bill to regulate AI. Rewind even further back, and we see indications that Anthropic’s core strategy may have been flawed from the start. According to Reuters, in late 2022, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman heard rumors that Anthropic was building an AI-powered chatbot. So he ordered his employees to ship an OpenAI chatbot first. That chatbot was called ChatGPT. We all know the rest.
The rivalry between OpenAI and Anthropic seems not only to have hastened the arrival of generative AI, but also to keep pushing release dates forward to this day. The two companies have been known to release new or cheaper models within hours of each other, each one keen to protect its market share.
Even if you think Anthropic’s behavior was justified in 2022 because publicly demonstrating the risks of AI also demonstrates the need to regulate AI — a common claim within the company and AI discourse writ large — you have to ask: Is it still justifiable now, when AI has reached this level of power and sophistication?
Anthropic has indicated that it’s getting closer and closer to achieving RSI. In January, Amodei himself wrote, “I am concerned that LLMs are approaching (or may already have reached) the knowledge needed to create and release [biological weapons] end-to-end, and that their potential for destruction is very high. Some biological agents could cause millions of deaths.” And he wrote in September, “Given the accelerating rate of AI capability development, it’s my worry that in 6-12 months such a swarm could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet.”
But at this point, Amodei and his staffers are themselves perhaps the primary ones accelerating the rate of AI capability development.
“Anthropic seems to be doing the whole RSI thing more than anyone else, other than perhaps OpenAI,” Calvin told me. “And I just think that seems insane given their publicly stated views on the risks.”
“I think people at Anthropic should reckon more with the fact that it seems like the modal outcome is that the largest impact that Anthropic will have had is dramatically accelerating the race to RSI,” he continued. “On the current trajectory, everything else they will have done and thought and ideals they had will be a rounding error compared to their contribution there.”
Anthropic should be willing to invite scrutiny on this point — and, if it believes it’s actually making the field safer than it otherwise would be, to show us the receipts. How? It could put before Congress a bill that actually strengthens safety, instead of weakening it. It could stick to its former Responsible Scaling Policy and get other companies to do the same, instead of jettisoning its commitments. It could influence other labs not to build RSI, instead of leading the charge.
In the absence of such evidence, the “race to the top” logic just doesn’t hold water.
What if Anthropic just…stopped?
Amodei has begun advocating for “pacing the frontier” of AI development. “We must slow the pace at which we improve the capabilities of AI models,” he wrote in September.
The catch is that Amodei’s plan to slow down is contingent on others agreeing to slow down too — other AI labs, to start with, and also other countries. But more experts are now saying that it would be better if a frontier company like Anthropic unilaterally stopped.
“I’m glad that he proposed that we pace, but like, now we have to actually do it — and it seems like he’s saying he’s not going to do it unilaterally,” Daniel Kokotajlo, a former researcher at OpenAI who became a prominent whistleblower, told me. “That’s not very helpful, Dario! You should lead. What’s all this about ‘racing to the top’ and ‘leading by example’ if you’re just waiting?”
Voluntary unilateral action by individual companies is of course no substitute for federal regulation and international treaties. But Irving argues that it’s the right first step, because if the companies wait for governments to rein them in, it may well be too late. Governments are notoriously slow. An individual company can act today.
For starters, AI is not just one thing with one purpose, like the atomic bomb. It’s a much more general-purpose technology, like electricity. So what matters isn’t simply who gets it first, but who uses it in which ways. Besides, if the harms from AI are massive, then those harms are relevant for the other party, too. The Chinese don’t want to see catastrophic harms to all of human civilization, either. So we shouldn’t write off the possibility of coordination.
Former Vox reporter Kelsey Piper recently wrote about a colloquium at Anthropic where one participant objected: A decade ago, Facebook considered acquiring the tech that would later power TikTok. But, facing pressure due to privacy and safety worries, the company passed. That didn’t end up protecting us from the scourges of a world with TikTok — all it did was hand China an early monopoly on the tech. Piper writes:
Was this a policy success? Did we want to repeat it?
We were obliged to grudgingly concede that it didn’t sound like a policy success. We did not want to repeat it. China might be no excuse for the U.S. labs to do reckless things, but it is a real consideration.
Our next step might be bilateral talks with China, then. But by the point where you agree that Anthropic’s plans might depend on bilateral talks with China, you’ve already conceded most of the steps of Anthropic’s worldview that seemed so much like madness 10 minutes ago: continue working on AI for now, try to negotiate a slowdown, but don’t abandon work at the frontier and all the advantages that come with it.
But TikTok is not a good analogy for RSI. The former may be a cesspool that rots our brains and amplifies ethnic hatred, but its dangers don’t compare to the dangers of RSI. The TikTok case may indeed be best approached as a classic prisoner’s dilemma. But with RSI, the potential downside is so catastrophic that anyone who proposes to save the world precisely by building the tech that endangers it is making a hell of a gamble on behalf of everyone else. At the very least, the burden of proof should be on them to prove their confidence is justified.
AI insiders often think those outside of their industry can’t possibly understand the technical, geopolitical, and moral complexities they’re facing. But commonsense morality is commonsense for a reason: It tracks intuitions that are usually right (such as, if you don’t want a doom machine, maybe don’t build a doom machine) and trains us to be appropriately skeptical of huge, counterintuitive bets to the contrary.
Precisely because the AI landscape is a complex system — there are so many actors (including different AI companies and different governments), and actions from each can trigger actions from others in ways that are hard to predict — believing you’re smart enough to take highly counterintuitive actions and end up saving the world as a result is an extremely risky gambit. Instead, maybe it’s best to just do the straightforwardly right thing: Stop.
To be clear, “stopping” doesn’t have to mean peeling back everything that’s been done in AI so far. The powerful AI systems that are already out there can’t be put back in the box. And we may need some AI to defend from the AI that’s already out there.
“I’m not saying shut down all of your data centers,” Calvin said. “But I’m saying that in particular, pushing the frontier on RSI and making it so that you’re going to be the company that is doing more fully autonomous development than anyone else in the world, does that actually make any fucking sense?”
Increasingly, both AI insiders and the public are shouting no.
Anthropic’s S-1 filing is hundreds of pages long—and it leaves out quite a few financial details. “Anthropic owes investors more information,” one analyst tells WIRED.
BRUSSELS — Ursula von der Leyen’s push for a sweeping overhaul of the European Commission moved closer to fruition on Monday, as a group of external advisers handed over a report that will help shape the institution’s biggest administrative shake-up in two decades.
The report, drawn up by a high-level group led by former Commission Secretary-General Catherine Day, marks a new stage in the so-called large-scale review — an exercise intended to make the Commission more efficient, streamline its sprawling bureaucracy and turn it into a more attractive employer.
“Now we’re reaching the second phase,” von der Leyen said at the handover, referring to the conclusion of an initial phase that involved 15 internal workstreams and contributions from thousands of Commission staff.
“We need to be able to act effectively and to act quickly,” she said about the needed changes in the EU Executive’s machinery. “That means simpler procedures, clearer structures, better cooperation across departments so that our colleagues can focus their efforts where it makes the greatest difference.”
The external group, consisting of Day and eight other experts with experience in national administrations and international organizations including the OECD and OSCE, put forward nine interrelated recommendations aimed at making the Commission more agile and better equipped to adapt to future challenges.
Among its main proposals is a shift away from working in siloed departments toward greater collaboration across directorates-general, including through cross-DG portfolios.
This part of the exercise is politically sensitive. Behind the push to modernize the Commission lies the prospect of a far-reaching reorganization of its departments, potentially redrawing the responsibilities of powerful directorates-general that oversee billions of euros in EU spending.
As POLITICO first reported, several major Commission departments face an uncertain future under plans to overhaul how the bloc manages and distributes EU funds, raising the prospect of mergers or other structural changes.
Among the departments potentially affected is the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy (DG REGIO), which oversees cohesion policy funding, accounting for almost a third of EU spending. Other departments facing uncertainty include the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), responsible for Common Agricultural Policy money; DG EMPL, which oversees employment and social funding; DG MARE, which handles fisheries funding; and DG RTD, responsible for research and innovation.
The group also called for a stronger Secretariat-General to act as a strategic center driving results, and for a human-centered approach to artificial intelligence to simplify administrative processes and modernize the institution’s operations.
But the release of the report on Monday does not mean that any restructuring decisions have been taken. Day’s report will feed into a wider review overseen by Budget and Public Administration Commissioner Piotr Serafin, who is tasked with presenting final recommendations to von der Leyen by the end of 2026.
Catherine Day, Chair of the High-Level Group on the Future of the Commission’s Civil Service gives a press statement in Brussels on October 26, 2026. | Dati Bendo/European Commission Audiovisual Service
Serafin said at the handover that the external assessment, combined with feedback from Commission staff, provided a “mandate to go for far reaching changes.”
Day, for her part, said the Commission had already demonstrated a willingness to reform, pointing to the wealth of ideas emerging from within the institution.
“The work done on the large scale review has shown that there is a broad coalition for change right across the Commission,” she added.
A separate internal process produced an initial set of recommendations in July, drawn up by Commission officials. Those proposals were intended to kick-start a broader discussion within the institution rather than serve as final decisions.
Any major reshuffling of the Commission’s structure, however, is likely to take considerably longer.
Speaking in July to a small group of journalists, including POLITICO, Serafin acknowledged that structural reforms would be closely tied to negotiations on the EU’s next long-term budget, known as the Multiannual Financial Framework, which will determine how EU spending is organized from 2028 to 2034.
He indicated at the time that he did not expect decisions on major structural changes before those budget negotiations are concluded.
For now, Day’s findings will provide another input into Serafin’s final proposals, bringing von der Leyen one step closer to deciding how far she wants to go in reshaping the institution she leads.
Anthropic on Monday filed documents ahead of a blockbuster IPO that offers insight into the company’s financials, risk factors, and views on the future of AI.
LONDON — Liz Truss claims the U.K. would have managed successful missions to Mars within years — if only her 49-day premiership hadn’t been cut short.
The assertion comes in the former British prime minister’s new book “Bank Job,” which was published Monday and claims to explain “how the Bank of England broke the bond market and brought down the government” when her mini-budget in 2022 precipitated market turmoil.
In its closing chapter, the book paints a vivid picture of what Truss believes life in 2040 would be like if her policies had been given a chance to bed in. “Several missions to Mars have now been launched from Britain’s space port,” Truss’ book imagines.
The ex-PM also opts for some more grounded policy dreams.
She envisages a 2040 in which “there are now no European Union laws in Britain,” a “permissive regime for artificial intelligence” is in place, and tumbling energy costs and faster planning timelines have helped make the U.K. a leader in AI.
“Bitcoin received tax treatment consistent with its status as a form of money for commercial purposes,” she imagines. “No central bank digital currency was introduced.”
Since leaving office after a revolt in her own party, Truss has dismissed claims her economic decisions — which included a huge energy bills bailout and tax cuts funded by fresh borrowing — were responsible for crashing the pound.
She has instead pointed the finger at the central bank, the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility watchdog, accusing them of working against her. Her new book takes direct aim at the Bank of England, which proposed to sell £80 billion of gilts before the mini-budget, although delayed that sale amid market turmoil.
Truss lost her House of Commons seat at the 2024 general election, and has since been involved in launching the Conservative Political Action Conference in Britain.
Login
