LONDON — John Healey wants to keep his debut budget low-key — but he’s also got to show the British public his boss really does feel their pain.

The chancellor delivers the first financial statement of the Andy Burnham era Wednesday. The pitch? “Breathing space for today” mixed with some “fresh hope for the future.”

But with war in Iran driving up costs worldwide, government borrowing at its highest level in a year, and businesses warning they’re taxed to the max, Healey is up against it.

Here’s how POLITICO’s team of reporters will be poring over the big fiscal moment, unveiled at 12.30 p.m. U.K. time Wednesday.

U.K. Political Editor Dan Bloom

I’ll flip straight to the big table two-thirds of the way through the ‘red book,’ where Treasury officials list the total tax rises and spending cuts, and then the “headroom” against Healey’s fiscal rules in the executive summary.

The briefing suggests these numbers will be smaller than the £26 billion in tax rises and £23.6 billion in headroom former Chancellor Rachel Reeves notched up in March this year.

The Treasury has turned this into its comms strategy, pointing to “everyday fixes” and non-tax measures like scrapping business red tape. But these numbers will also show how Donald Trump’s war in Iran has reined in Burnham’s ambitions.

And they are indicative of something else — the budget just isn’t the main event this time. In the next seven weeks or so we’re expecting [former minister] Alan Milburn’s review of the benefit system, a U.K.-EU summit, a “10-year plan” and a white paper on “rewiring the state.”

Then next year is the spending review. That’s when the really hard choices will come — and the budget will give us a sign of how hard, since it will map out a path for departmental spending over the next few years.

U.K. Political Correspondent Sam Blewett

Andy Burnham’s team has been speaking a lot about “everyday fixes” — cheapo policies that can rectify real-life niggles. 

Headphone dodgers? You’re fined. Being ripped off by parking fines? We’ve got your backs. Balking at the cost of the supermarket shop? Gone are the tariffs on your gherkins.

That will buy the government a fair amount of goodwill, building a sense that the government isn’t entirely a useless beast being buffeted by global horror shows. But it’ll only go so far.

Healey is under pressure to show bold action on what really matters too — actual interventions that bring down the cost of living. We know already there will be support for household energy bills, a fuel duty freeze, support for pensioners and a hike to the minimum wage. All eyes will be on whether Healey has any more surprises on this front.

As costly as any support is for the exchequer, will it all pale in comparison to the effects of the Strait of Hormuz-sealing war with Iran? This is a self-declared “cost of living government” after all.

First, I’ll scour watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts to see where the semi-official number crunchers reckon real household disposable income is headed. Then the analysts at the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation will provide more insight.

After that, the voices that really matter will be those sitting down to ever-costlier dinner, nursing pricy pints and rolling their eyes at the petrol pumps. Will this budget give Brits enough reason to believe Burnham’s new government is a force for good, trying to ease the pain? Or will they deem the new-look administration just the same old ineffective bureaucrats who need sweeping away in favor of a more radical response?

Senior Foreign Correspondent Esther Webber and U.K. Defense Reporter Mason Boycott-Owen

The number one thing we’ll be looking out for in today’s budget is how exactly Healey — who quit as defense secretary in the dying days of Keir Starmer’s government over exactly this issue — tries to demonstrate he is raising defense spending against a tough backdrop.

The chancellor has tried to manage expectations for the Ministry of Defence at the budget pretty closely, initially stating that he would only seek to cover a £4.7 billion pound shortfall in its already-unveiled Defence Investment Plan.

In recent weeks, however, the Treasury has suggested he could do more to show the U.K. is moving towards spending 3% of GDP on defense, something Healey sees as an important marker on the way to meeting the NATO target of 3.5%.

Media reports leading up to Wednesday suggest an increase will come from money funneled into the British Business Bank and National Wealth Fund.

But could he have something else in his back pocket? Healey is well aware of the potential for awkward questions about his commitment to follow through on the promises he made just four months ago that he said were crucial to U.K. security, now that he’s in charge of the money.

Financial Services Reporter Eleanor Myers

A hike in bank taxes is all but inevitable in today’s budget – but the City of London will be nervously watching how high the increase goes. Along with the lenders, I’ll be looking out for how much taxes are raised, whether any changes are temporary, and whether the City — Britain’s financial powerhouse — gets anything in return.

The easiest move for Healey is to increase the surcharge banks pay on top of corporation tax. That currently stands at 3%, after Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt reduced it from 8% in 2023 to account for higher corporation taxes. Healey could simply reverse the surcharge to 8%, which would be unpopular with the banks and might not even go far enough for campaigners: the Trades Union Congress has called for an increase to 16%.

I’ll also be closely watching for how the bond markets react to the first budget under Burnham. Despite the prime minister describing Britain as “in hock” to the bond markets before he took office, odds are on for a “boring” budget, without any huge spending commitments that might spike borrowing costs.

But any cautious policy changes designed to placate the bond market will have to be tempered alongside demands from the Labour Party. It’s a tricky balance, and Labour MPs showed under Keir Starmer that they were willing to rebel when it mattered.

Senior U.K. Energy Correspondent Charlie Cooper

A sharp, painful spike in energy bills is coming for Britain; at this budget we’ll find out how much power Healey and Burnham have to help.

The latest energy price cap forecasts are brutal. Energy firms expect average, annual household bills to rise by more than £450 in January. They could go even higher in April. Why? Mainly because of gas. The fallout from the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran has sent wholesale prices soaring to levels not seen since December 2022.

Healey knows how bleak things look, but he may not have the fiscal firepower to offer much help. Burnham has hinted at removing gas standing charges from bills, which could save an average household a modest £27, according to one estimate. Meanwhile, payments to around 6 million low-income households — the Warm Homes Discount — are likely to get a top-up of between £100 and £150.

Businesses, meanwhile, could get details of a 10-year plan to bring their energy costs into line with European competitors, according to two people familiar with budget preparations.

But with the cost of living and cost of doing business set to rise so high, will that be it?

There’s “strong awareness” inside government “of how bad it will get,” said one senior government official. Unfortunately, they added, there are “not the pockets deep enough to do all the things we might like to do.”

Elsewhere, we’ll be watching closely to see whether net zero schemes — like the rollout of electric heat pumps — could face cuts to cover shortfalls in defense spending. 

Technology Reporter Joseph Bambridge

Healey put AI and innovation at the heart of his growth plan in a pre-budget speech back in September.

In that vein, the government has trailed a £600 million spending package to protect the U.K. from AI risks while growing its own share of the sector, calling it a “distinctively British” approach to mitigating risks from the technology while capturing the benefits.

The question now is whether more measures to support the U.K.’s tech and AI sector will come on Wednesday, with trade groups calling for bold moves to lower energy costs, tackle energy and planning delays, and help firms invest in AI and upskill workers.

Startups are also hoping for tax relief and further reforms to regulation and procurement rules. A relief for founders who re-invest their earnings in the U.K. has been a particular demand from the startup community, which has already bagged a win after Healey ruled out raising capital gains tax.

AI is also likely to play a significant role in the government’s plans to make Whitehall more efficient, as it did under Reeves.

The sector is also closely watching how the chancellor plans to meet his defense spending targets, in the hopes that drone makers and military tech firms might benefit from the uplift.

Trade Reporter Caroline Hug

I’m looking out for the chancellor’s VAT crackdown on foreign sellers, who register as U.K. based companies to avoid paying the tax. Healey is expected to make online marketplaces like Amazon, eBay and Temu responsible for collecting tax owed by all retailers.

We’re also waiting to see whether the government has more information on its de minimis crackdown, including whether it will introduce a handling fee for small packages below £135. The EU already has one in place.

Finally, we’ll be looking out for any more detail on the government’s suspension of tariffs on more than 100 food, drink, fuel and fertilizer products.

Six weeks after the EU unveiled its much-anticipated proposal to protect kids across the bloc from social media, European governments are pressing ahead with their own rules. 

National political leaders had spent months asking for unified age restrictions for social media access across the European Union, to avoid 27 different sets of rules. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s response came in September with the EU Kids Act, a signature initiative of her second term that would ban under-13s from accessing most current social media platforms and severely restrict access for under-15s. 

But it is becoming clear that individual countries don’t want to wait for the Brussels legislative wheels to turn — and in some cases, are proceeding with national laws that would kick even more kids off the platforms than what von der Leyen has in mind.  

“While we wait for the EU Kids Act – we are pushing forward with national legislation,” Denmark’s digital minister Christina Egelund said. “The problems are urgent. Children and parents should not be asked to wait.” 

Last week, Greece’s parliament passed a bill to bar social media access for under-15s, while Italy’s own stalled efforts to shield under-14s suddenly found new winds.  

By Thursday, the Commission will have to give the first indication of how it will deal with national laws. Its response to Austria’s proposal to bar social media access for under-14s will be the first test case.

Capitals continue to ultimately favor a unified EU law, which is in line with existing rules that give Brussels oversight of big platforms like Instagram and TikTok. A harmonized law also avoids fragmenting the market with different rules in different countries.  

Yet agreeing on a final text for the legislation and implementing the Kids Act will take more than a year — too long for national leaders eager to show they are serious about protecting the mental health of kids and reining in Big Tech. The age at which limits are set is also a sticking point, with countries preferring various thresholds between 13 and 16.  

“Greece decided to move forward with its own legislation on minors’ access to social media because protecting children is a pressing issue that calls for timely and concrete action,” a spokesperson for the country’s digital ministry said. “We have a responsibility to address an issue that is already affecting the daily lives of children and their families,” they said, adding that the Greek law is “complementary” to the EU’s and that Athens is still in favor of a bloc-wide solution.  

Portugal formally notified the Commission of its own law a little over a week after the Kids Act was proposed, formally asking the EU executive to say if Lisbon’s plans are in line with European rules. Cyprus’s ministers approved their own ban for under-15s on the day Brussels proposed its law. Austria and Germany have also not shown any signs of slowing down. Many of these countries had backed an EU-wide solution.  

The current trajectory could create a confusing situation for minors, who may find themselves locked out of social media in January 2027 only to then regain access under parental controls once the Kids Act is implemented later that year or in 2028. 

The Commission had stressed that the law would bring about “maximum harmonization,” meaning national laws would be scrapped if and when the EU-wide measures came into force.  

When France first formally informed the Commission of its national law to ban social media access for under-15s, “we said very clearly: you should be able, and you should be ready to repeal this law once there are European measures in place,” a senior Commission official told reporters when announcing the law in September.  

But a few weeks later, Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier told POLITICO that the EU executive was still considering how to respond to the laws that have been submitted to be checked for compatibility with European rules.  

The Kids Act will have to be negotiated between the Commission, the European Parliament and EU governments, meaning it may not be finalized for months. It would then come into force six months later. The senior official estimated negotiations would take eight to 12 months starting next September, putting the implementation date well into 2028.  

Capitals had backed a pan-European solution in part because it allows enforcement to align with the landmark Digital Services Act, which gives the power to oversee big platforms like Instagram and TikTok to Brussels. Industry and some civil society groups were also supportive of an EU-wide solution because they wouldn’t have to deal with dozens of national laws and different ages in different countries.  

But public sentiment around social media and teen mental health has taken a severe turn for the worse in recent years, culminating in multimillion- and, in some cases, billion-dollar settlements against Meta and TikTok across the U.S.  

In the meantime, European leaders and von der Leyen have spent the last year promising the public age restrictions for social media.  

“A European age limit will send a much stronger signal to Big Tech – enough is enough,” said Denmark’s Egelund. “It will also place the responsibility firmly and directly on those who should bear it – the tech giants.”  

BRUSSELS — The European Commission is exploring whether to use revenue from a global tax agreement on multinational companies to finance the EU’s next seven-year budget, four EU diplomats with knowledge of the proceedings told POLITICO.

The idea could facilitate an agreement on new EU-wide taxes, known as own resources, which has emerged as a major stumbling bloc in the ongoing budget negotiations.

The European Council President António Costa has urged countries to approve the new taxes to reduce national contributions to the bloc’s budget, which is worth €1.82 trillion according to the latest proposal from earlier this month.

Costa, who is brokering budget talks, is pressuring leaders to reach a budget deal among themselves by the end of the year — before elections in Poland, France and Italy threaten to derail the negotiations.

Yet after more than a year of haggling, EU governments are still at odds over five proposed new taxes that the Commission estimates would generate €65 billion per year. 

Among the options on the table, a corporate tax known as CORE — which charges a lump sum on companies’ revenues exceeding €100 million — has emerged as the most unpopular option and is particularly toxic in Germany.  

To break the deadlock, French President Emmanuel Macron supported funneling part of the tax on multinationals to the EU budget during a leaders’ summit in October, said two of the diplomats. They were granted anonymity, like others, to discuss the sensitive plans.

Supporters argue that this idea could garner more political support than CORE as it targets companies’ profits as opposed to their revenue.

“The corporate income tax is about taxing companies based on their profitability. CORE is not about that, CORE is about taking a toll blindly,” said Pascal Saint-Amans, a former OECD official and one of the architects of the global tax arrangement.

The tax deal

Under the OECD tax deal from 2021, EU countries are compelled to levy a 15 percent minimum corporate tax on large multinationals with an annual turnover exceeding €750 million.

Controversially, the U.S. secured an exemption from the rules as it introduced a national tax arrangement that was deemed equivalent to the OECD framework.

The end goal is to prevent countries from competing to offer lower and lower corporate tax rates to attract large multinationals.

Historically, many foreign multinationals operating across the EU such as Apple and Google have set their headquarters in Ireland because of its low taxes and light-touch regulation.

To tackle this phenomenon, the OECD deal compels countries undercutting the 15 percent rate to levy a “top-up tax” on large foreign companies. Currently, the revenue is collected by national governments.

However, European capitals could funnel part of these proceeds to the bloc’s budget, the diplomats said. 

This could hit countries such as Ireland and the Netherlands which charge low corporate rates and collecting large sums from the top-up tax. The Dutch government alone collected €449 million in 2026 from returns related to the global minimum tax, according to Bloomberg.

Saint-Amans defended the potential new own resource on the grounds that the multinationals’ “activities are taking place in Ireland, but are about managing the EU markets.”

“That’s how I believe that it could make sense to visualize” the top-up taxes, he added.

Costa’s team and the Commission are looking into this option ahead of bilateral discussions with EU countries starting next week.

Costa will test the waters with governments before proposing new budget figures and EU taxes ahead of a leaders’ summit on Nov. 26 and 27.

There is no doubt that ancient Egyptians drilled holes in granite. Archaeologists and laypeople have marveled at cores and tool marks for hundreds of years, wondering, "How'd they do that?" Into The Map decided to stop wondering and figure it out. — Read the rest

The post This ridiculous human-powered machine tests an ancient Egyptian engineering problem appeared first on Boing Boing.

BRUSSELS — The EU was split Tuesday over whether to offer “associate membership” status to Canada, with several countries refusing to sign off on a statement containing that phrase just 48 hours before a summit between the two sides in Montreal.

After EU capitals could not agree on the language in the statement in talks between ambassadors Monday, they used the so-called silence procedure on Tuesday. That meant a new text would be adopted automatically without a formal meeting or vote, if no countries objected by midday.

But Germany, which is leading the push to have the term “associate member” fully removed from the text, was among at least four countries that broke the silence procedure before that deadline, said two EU diplomats, granted anonymity to speak freely. That means the topic will be discussed Wednesday at another meeting of EU ambassadors, just one day before the EU-Canada summit kicks off.

The fracture shows how divided the EU remains on the idea of “associate membership,” which European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen offered to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during her State of the Union speech in Strasbourg last month.

Four EU diplomats told POLITICO at the time that she did not consult European capitals before floating the idea.

Von der Leyen, European Council President António Costa, the EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas and a host of commissioners will fly to Montreal for a summit with Carney on Thursday and Friday, aiming to deepen ties and cooperation on everything from trade and energy to education and the Arctic.

The EU’s border agency, Frontex, will be able to monitor social media for information about migration flows.

The European Commission on Tuesday unveiled a revamp of Frontex, strengthening its capabilities and capacity to tackle illegal migration. It will play a more prominent role in deporting people with no legal right to remain in the EU, including new powers to carry out return operations beyond the bloc’s territory and new oversight on social media.

The role of social media platforms in spreading information that contributes to illegal migration was central to the crisis in the Spanish exclave of Ceuta, where thousands of migrants illegally crossed the border within a few hours in July.

The new rules will create within Frontex “an online monitoring and response center to monitor publicly accessible social media content to detect developments relevant to external border management, and also to support action against illegal online content linked to border security risks,” EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen told reporters on Tuesday.

The agency will also “be acting as a trusted flagger under the Digital Services Act, flagging illegal content to online platforms, and requesting national authorities to issue removal orders where appropriate,” the Commission said in press material.

Being a “trusted flagger” under the DSA, the EU’s landmark social media rules, is a special status granted by national digital regulators. Content flagged by entities with this status is put on a fast track to be dealt with by online platforms.

Virkkunen said Frontex will apply for this status with national authorities, and she expected the border agency to be approved because of its “special expertise.”

PARIS — The French government explored ways of blocking social networks during last Saturday’s protests, two people familiar with the plan told POLITICO.

In the week leading up to Oct. 24, the French interior ministry was in touch with telecom operators to explore ways of cutting access to social networks or even to mobile internet in specific areas to prevent rioters from coordinating, according to one government official from the Prime Minister’s office and one employee of a telecom company.

The push culminated in Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu directly asking French telecom operators to be ready to block access to TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and X, in a letter revealed by French digital outlet Blast, which first reported on the government’s request.

Contacted by POLITICO, officials from Lecornu’s office, the technology ministry and the interior ministry did not deny the move nor the letter’s existence.

The government feared that the scenes of violence seen on Oct. 17 could repeat or escalate on the following weekend — a concern that did not materialize, as far fewer incidents were recorded on Oct. 24.

“What they wanted, above all, was to block the communication channels that allow gangs to meet up and organize,” said the employee of a telecommunications provider, who was granted anonymity to speak freely.

The move, however, would have also prevented peaceful protesters from communicating as well. Blocking access to social networks in a targeted area, such as a specific neighborhood, is not technically possible, while cutting access to mobile internet would cause major disruptions to other key services such as mobile payments, security-surveillance devices and emergency communications.

The government also considered a less radical solution that would disable geolocation display features “to prevent gatherings of people who don’t know each other, for example,” according to the official from the prime minister’s office.

Other limitations on social media access are being discussed in parliament as part of the debate on the so-called “who breaks pays” bill, which would hold people who “knowingly took part” in a riot financially responsible — whether or not they committed property damage themselves.

The same bill would require platforms to remove within 24 hours content that incites physical or sexual assault, theft, destruction, or property damage, “when such content is likely to cause a serious disturbance to public order” and within one hour content that encourages insurrection.

Other lawmakers are proposing measures ranging from tracking troublemakers via algorithmic video surveillance to penalizing online marketplaces that fail to prevent the sale of stolen goods.

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.” 

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.”

In other words, Amodei is sticking to his bet. 

But Amodei is gambling with, by his and his company’s own telling, the future of humanity. If AI goes wrong, it could lead to our gradual disempowerment, a galling concentration of power, or even complete extinction.

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.

There’s a perennial objection here: “But China!”

Yet the idea that we’re in a classic arms race with China has always been flawed.

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. 

Some insiders, perhaps aware that humanity is perfectly capable of shutting down overly dangerous tech development (we’ve done it before), are speaking out and quitting jobs at AI companies. At public gatherings, like the recent Pro-Human Assembly in Washington, DC, and the People’s AI Assembly in New York City, people are piling on the pressure to rethink the AI race. States are drawing up their own legislation to rein in the tech. And a single X post from Calvin got so much attention that no less than Amodei himself felt compelled to respond. The AI companies are being forced to pay attention. 

Attention may not be all you need, but it’s a start.

Mark Carney’s pursuit of a global alliance of middle powers has a Europe problem.

Canada’s prime minister wants to help build a new world order that can counterbalance the power of the United States and China. But his vision depends on a new relationship with a Europe that doesn’t see itself as a middle power at all. 

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has a different vision: a Brussels-centered bloc that extends the EU’s economic and geopolitical influence, starting with Canada. The idea, according to senior European lawmaker Siegfried Mureșan, is to create an opportunity for the EU to become the “global center of gravity for liberal democracies.” 

The competing visions will be tested this week when Carney and von der Leyen meet in Montreal for a summit intended to chart a new course for transatlantic relations. Both want to demonstrate they can prosper in a world upended by U.S. President Donald Trump. But they have different ideas about their curious new alliance — and face political resistance that could limit how far the partnership can go. 

Von der Leyen’s offer of “associate membership” in the EU surprised officials on both sides of the Atlantic. Four diplomats told POLITICO they were not consulted before she floated the idea in the State of the Union. The officials added that they don’t understand the label, which has yet to be defined. Germany has since led pushback on the plan.

“We’ve definitely put the cart before the horse,” one of the diplomats said. “We’re announcing something and then figuring out how to flesh it out.”

Trump called the membership idea “laughable,” but also threatened “very serious tariffs” should it come to be — a reminder that leaders in pursuit of Washington workarounds must avoid provoking the White House. 

The leaders are under pressure to leave Montreal with more than a liberal democratic photo-op. For starters, they need to decide what “associate membership” means — and disarm resistance in the EU capitals blindsided by von der Leyen’s plan.

Canada’s Ambassador to the EU Jonathan Wilkinson told POLITICO last month that people got too hung up on a label that was revealed prematurely. Carney called the Canada-EU relationship an “alliance for the future” when he addressed European lawmakers in Strasbourg.

Wilkinson said the Canada-EU project will show other democratic nations how to deepen partnerships. “It ties into very much what [Carney] talked about at Davos — and after Davos.”

Carney, von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa have two days to chart what’s next while American foreign policy continues to stress test geopolitical relationships in midterm campaigns that will shape Trump’s last two years in office.

The economic divide 

Ottawa considers the EU an obvious partner in its push to diversify trade away from the U.S. There’s already a free-trade agreement that both sides view as being underutilized. 

Leaders gathering in Montreal this week will celebrate the 10th anniversary of the Canadian-EU trade agreement, nicknamed CETA. But nine EU member countries have yet to ratify the deal, underscoring the challenge of turning rhetoric into reality. 

“We have shared challenges and many more shared opportunities,” Canadian International Trade Minister Maninder Sidhu told reporters last week in Dublin, where he was invited to participate in an informal meeting of EU trade ministers, a preview of what a more integrated Canada could look like. “Canada wants to be Europe’s most reliable partner.”

Sidhu said CETA utilization rates in EU member countries range from 60% to 80%, making a point about room for improvement and perennial challenges. “We know there’s room to grow.”

Von der Leyen’s associate membership plan “has been coldly received by member states,” a senior EU official said. “It [the summit] is more about what we do, how we can use the real potential of the CETA agreement.” CETA has been provisionally in force since 2017.

Trade talks between Canada and the bloc read like a lengthy transatlantic grievance list.

At a meeting between Brussels and Ottawa last October, the EU complained about Canadian taxes it says disproportionately hit European carmakers, opaque cheese-import quotas, cumbersome rules on cosmetics and what it considers discriminatory provincial taxes and markups on European wines and spirits.

Canada, meanwhile, warned that the EU’s deforestation rules could burden its exporters, questioned the impact of Brussels’ carbon border tax and pressed for greater recognition of Canadian standards in areas including AI.

The senior EU official described the relationship as constrained by “irritants and unfulfilled promises” that must be resolved if the two sides are to make progress.

There are hurdles ahead. Even as Canada and the EU imagine a deeper economic and security partnership, both are pursuing industrial policies that could shut the other’s companies out of lucrative public contracts — death by compounded trade barriers.

Brussels has concerns about Ottawa’s “Buy Canadian” initiatives and their compatibility with the EU-Canada free trade agreement. “Some member states didn’t like the ‘Buy Canada’ thing from Carney,” the official added.

Canada is likewise uncertain whether its companies will qualify for the EU’s proposed “Made in Europe” preferences foreseen in a major industry bill that would seek to channel public procurement spending to European companies. The EU is divided over whether to extend those preferences to trusted trading partners, a topic that is expected to come up in Montreal.

Canadian business leaders recognize the domestic appeal of “Buy Canadian” in the face of Trump’s threats, but warn there will need to be concessions.

“It’s something that will have to be resolved in order to move the relationship deeper, particularly with respect to industrial cooperation or collaboration,” Mark Camilleri, president of the Canada EU Trade and Investment Association, told POLITICO.

Camilleri likened the 10-year-old CETA deal to a garden overgrown with weeds. “It pains me to see market access being eroded through Canadian and European preferences,” he said.

Pressure is on

European and Canadian leaders are under pressure to deliver wins this week that demonstrate that “non-hegemons” — a descriptor Carney used in his Davos speech — can survive and thrive in an age of great-power rivalry.

Canadians currently support closer ties with Europe. But the EU faces political headwinds of its own, from fraught budget negotiations within the bloc to right-wing populist movements that are picking up momentum in some of its biggest economies.

One likely deliverable is a new digital trade agreement. Talks launched in March and were still underway last week. But the agreement lacks substantive text on artificial intelligence, leaving the two sides to find other places to cooperate, potentially through the EU’s proposed Cloud and AI Development Act. That proposal seeks to reduce reliance on U.S. tech giants, raising the risk of a new row with Washington. 

The European Commission is also pushing for Canada to join Erasmus+, the bloc’s student exchange program, according to one EU official. Carney has already publicly expressed interest. 

But Brussels has bigger ambitions for the partnership. The EU is pressing Canada to increase its funding for Ukraine, a test of Canada’s willingness to take on more of the security burden. 

For von der Leyen, securing that commitment would be a win. So would leaving the summit with a pledge from Carney to explore her offer of an “associate membership” — or whatever they end up calling it.

Zi-Ann Lum reported from Toronto, Sebastian Starcevic from Brussels and Camille Gijs from Dublin.

There are some days when there’s so much that needs to get done, I daydream about having a clone of myself. Between paying bills, life admin like renewing my driver’s license, keeping up with doctor’s appointments, and planning meals, it’s a lot. And that doesn’t even begin to touch the work that goes into making a podcast or managing my social life.

This feeling of overwhelm resonates with Sari Azout. She’s a mom of three who works in tech. “There is just so much doing,” she told Explain It to Me, Vox’s weekly call-in podcast. “I wake up, and I have to do meal coordination and get my kids up for breakfast, coordinate carpools. Then a lot of work during the day, but there’s the email from the teacher, there’s the 20 group chats asking if you want to participate in this group gift. They don’t call it ‘the invisible load’ for no reason.’”

Silicon Valley says it has a fix for this kind of mental overload. They don’t want to clone us — at least not yet. But they do think they have the next best thing: AI agents. 

Azuot was skeptical when she first got an invite to try an agent, but she says she eventually came around on the technology after back-to-school shopping snuck up on her. She used her agent to get it done. “It blew me away,” she said.  “I remember that night coming home just feeling so calm and reading my son a book and feeling present. And I was like, ‘Wow, I actually was very cynical about something that is giving me more time for living.’”

Azout’s experience is, more or less, the sales pitch for AI agents: They’ll help you save time with everyday tasks, so you have more of it for what you want to do. But what are agents, exactly? Are they really all that? And what do we gain — and give up — when we use the technology?  

On this week’s episode of Explain It to Me, I spoke with Reece Rogers, a senior software reporter at Wired, to find out. Rogers says to think of agents as the next evolution of AI chatbots like Claude and ChatGPT. 

“I’d create this mental model of a tiny digital assistant that’s constantly searching the web, going through your email, and checking your calendar, trying to find ways it could proactively be helpful for you,” he explains. “Agents are more proactive. It’s scanning your email 24/7 and sending you a message, maybe highlighting a potential calendar conflict.”

Below is an excerpt of my conversation with Rogers, edited for length and clarity. You can listen to the full episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you’d like to submit a question, send an email to askvox@vox.com or call 1-800-618-8545.

What agents are out there right now?

At the start of this year, there was a tool called OpenClaw that really sparked this with early adopters in San Francisco, but now there are much more consumer-friendly versions, with one of the most notable being Meta’s Muse. 

There’s also a tool from OpenAI called Dots. But where Meta’s Muse is free to download, OpenAI’s Dots is still behind a $100/month paywall. 

You tried an AI agent for a recent story you wrote. How was that experience?

One personal example, to share something that I’ve actually been using agents for, is our couch. It’s broken, and finding a new couch has been a pain. We want a sleeper bed, but we want these specific colors. We have this specific budget. I’ve been using Meta’s Muse and OpenAI’s Dots to try to find a few different options for us. 

One interesting thing is that Meta’s Muse is connected to Facebook Marketplace. There are these really good integrations where I can give it all these details, and it found a few good couches that are only maybe a couple blocks from me. 

I really enjoyed OpenAI’s Dots experience as well. I spent about an hour talking to it on the phone, and the AI agent made a packet of all these different options I could find. Just this morning, it flagged that one of them is now 40 percent off. 

Is that how this tech is typically used?

Most people are using this as part of a workflow. I attach it to my email, I attach it to my calendar, and I’m using it as a personal assistant to organize my life. But people have been quite creative. 

One of the breakout uses for Meta’s Muse is people have been connecting their bank account statements and then using it to scan for subscriptions they might want to cancel. So it can be used in many different ways, though I will say I do not connect it to my own bank account for a myriad of reasons.

I’m not going to lie, the idea of giving any third party access to my bank information does not thrill me. I don’t love that concept.

That’s one of my biggest concerns about these AI agents: how much personal information we’re handing over to these large companies. 

When I tested Meta’s Muse, it wanted access to my email, my bank account, even my passport expiration details. The pitch is convenience, but Muse users are automatically opted in to having all of their interactions with Muse used to train Meta’s AI models. 

I would definitely recommend, if you’re sharing personal details, go into the settings and turn that off because you might be handing over even more information about yourself than you initially realize.

What is the privacy situation with all of this? We all have various apps where we don’t read and still click “I agree,” but this feels like it could be more invasive.

Yes, especially because it’s all about automation. If you’re automating things and it has access to all of your data, it could make mistakes and embarrass you in ways you might not even be thinking about. 

There was this one really interesting story of someone who had connected an AI agent to their work Slack in addition to their bank account. And their agent just automatically posted how much money was in their checking account for all of their coworkers to see. 

Oh no.

I would be mortified. So there are these kinds of mistakes that these AI tools can still make. If you’re interested in experimenting with them, I would be really thoughtful with how you’re setting up these tools as well as what kind of information you feel comfortable sharing.

“You can see in the marketing that these companies are trying to find some way to entice new users.”

How are these AI agents being marketed? AI is not popular right now. Just ask any politician who has a data center coming to their state. People are not loving it. How are they trying to sell this to the average person?

The AI backlash really is at a fever pitch right now. You could almost see that in the way that AI companies are trying to market these tools. They’ve really, really leaned into cuteness and into adorable mascots. 

Muse, if you haven’t seen its agent, looks like a mix between a Labubu and an Ewok. It’s very furry, very cuddly, very cute. OpenAI’s tools also have similar kinds of blobs with large eyes that might be a little endearing. 

I feel like companies are hearing this kind of feedback that people aren’t trusting AI right now, or maybe they have moral or ethical reasons they don’t want to use these tools. You can see in the marketing that these companies are trying to find some way to entice new users.

Do you think AI agents are ultimately going to worm their way into our lives despite how unpopular AI companies are?

I do think so. I think in a couple months, maybe when I go home from Christmas, I would not be surprised if my mom had an agent on her phone because it does feel like it’s breaking through to average people in the way that ChatGPT had a moment a few years ago. 

Even though there’s a lot of distrust for large companies like Meta, I think there are some appealing parts of this that will bring in millions of people. I do see this as the future of the internet.

When I think of the dream of the average person working in AI in Silicon Valley, it’s “We’re going to use AI. It’s going to free up the free time of so many people. Work is going to get done faster. You’re going to have more leisure time.”

Has that been the case for the people you’ve spoken with who are using this? Has it given them more free time to enjoy themselves or has it done something else?

You would think so, right? You would think that if people are automating these boring aspects of their life, that they would have more time to go touch grass, go see a movie, have some fun. But it does feel like that time just gets filled with other work, other productivity measures. 

While agents may be able to take some more annoying or tedious things off of your plate, I am not as optimistic that it’s going to give us this utopia or freedom where I’m always at the beach.

On the first day of its war against Iran, the United States killed 123 children when it targeted and struck an elementary school. 

The strikes, ultimately approved by humans, were facilitated by the US’s Maven Smart System, an AI-enabled software platform developed by Palantir Technologies that allows the military to aggregate, organize, and process battlefield data. Operators fed Maven intelligence classifying the elementary school as an Iranian military facility, and the system, in turn, marked it as one of the priority targets for day one of the war. Though the site was formerly part of a naval military base, it had been converted into an elementary school in 2017 and had remained one since. The intel handed to Maven did not reflect this.  

This mistake resulted in what some reporters have called “one of the single worst massacres committed by the US government since the Vietnam War.”

Such scenarios may become more common as militaries continue to deploy a once-theoretical technology — AI-assisted or autonomous weapons, capable of making both targeting and launch decisions on their own — on real battlefields around the globe. And they raise a troubling, unresolved question: When human beings and machines collaborate in violating international law, who is to blame? 

In this case, the government and private sector are pointing the finger at each other. Some US Central Command personnel, according to Pentagon officials who spoke to Bloomberg, expected Maven to flag stale information or inconsistencies in the underlying intelligence assembled for potential targets. Meanwhile, a Palantir spokesperson told Bloomberg that the company “is not responsible for the underlying data nor identifying intelligence deficiencies,” while also denying that the evidence indicated that its software was at fault in the strike. 

This debate underscores the fact that AI and autonomous weapons are raising a new host of unresolved issues within the law, even as they’re actively assuming positions on the battlefield. In institutions where the line between human and machine decision-making continues to blur, how do we assign responsibility for war crimes? And, are the laws in place suited for the job?

In institutions where the line between human and machine decision-making continues to blur, how do we assign responsibility for war crimes?

To unpack some of these issues, I spoke with international law expert Allen Weiner, a senior lecturer at Stanford Law School, where he teaches courses on the law of armed conflict. Before teaching at Stanford, Weiner practiced international law in the US Department of State for more than a decade. We discussed the difficulties in attributing criminal responsibility, achieving justice for those harmed by lethal autonomous weapons, and much more. The conversation below has been lightly edited for length and clarity.

How do autonomous weapons challenge traditional understandings of responsibility when it comes to the law of armed conflict?

For most of the 20 years I’ve been teaching at Stanford, there’s been a real fascination and fixation on the problem of autonomous weapons. But the truth is that up until pretty recently, nobody really had any [of them]. It was more of an idea than a problem. It’s only in recent years that we have begun to see the deployment of tools that seem to have the capability [to make decisions themselves], so this does raise the question about compliance with illegal orders and where in the chain responsibility lies.

There are different theories about this. Some people say that if we’re engaged in an illegal attack, that has to be because of the programming or the code, so the manufacturers are somehow responsible for committing war crimes. 

Other people would say no, that’s not the case, especially if the military has said the tool is not allowed to make very substantial autonomous judgments, or can’t say no. Then it’s basically the commander, at the point they decide to deploy this weapon, who might be responsible for the illegal acts, even without knowing in advance what they’re going to be.

So to finish where I began, this does present a big challenge to our traditional understanding of responsibility for targeting decisions and of what it would mean if there were an obligation [for autonomous weapons] to say no. 

The real issue is not the obligation to say no, but this: If you train a tool and it wages war in a manner that’s unlawful, where does responsibility for that lie?

If a commander gives a clearly illegal order, such as, “blow up this school,” it seems clear that responsibility falls on the commander. But I could imagine a scenario where a commander is using an AI-assisted or autonomous weapon, isn’t giving it any illegal orders, is trusting that it will operate within the law, and the weapon breaks the law “on its own.” Where does responsibility fall in those cases?

I can imagine two different scenarios. One is that you say, “We’re going to carry out an attack against our enemy, and we want to hit them really, really hard.” Your tool has been trained to say, “We’re not allowed to hit civilian objects,” so it might say, “I’m not going to hit a school.” But if the military has said, “Don’t refuse any targets,” then it might override the way it’s been trained. 

We’re seeing this already, with the stories coming out about breaches where AI tools, Claude and ChatGPT in particular, interpret their instructions in a way that causes them to do something the person who gave the instruction would not have wanted. When Anthropic gave Claude a challenge to figure out if it could do something, the tool figured out, well, maybe we should break into Hugging Face as a way of solving this problem, and the people who gave the AI tool the challenge never intended that.

So if you said, “We want to launch a really punishing campaign,” what happens if the tool on its own says, “Nothing’s going to hurt them more than seeing their kids killed, so let’s attack the school?” That’s one risk, and it’s a real challenge.

So [as for who’s responsible], it’s not the commander who said “hit them hard,” because when he said that, he didn’t mean “attack schools.” It’s not really the companies, because the companies didn’t want them to hit schools either. 

But the tools are out there, reading everything on the internet, and it came across something that said the way you win a war is by attacking the things your adversary holds most dear, and they hold nothing more dear than their children. So it makes this kind of judgment on its own. And it’s not as if you can go back and say who ordered it to hit a school, which is the thing that is clearly illegal. So I do think there’s a risk of diffusion of responsibility here.

You could say the commander knew the tool might work this way, or the person who decided to contract with Palantir or with Claude, whoever it is, to build this tool. But if we’re really thinking about criminal responsibility, the level of responsibility you would need to convict someone requires a culpable mental state. You would need the person to intend, or at least know, that they were authorizing an attack against the school. And I can easily see a commander saying, “I had no idea.”

The decision to authorize this tool, or to give an instruction like “hit them very hard,” could be a basis for some other kind of accountability — administrative discipline within the military, a reprimand, your rank is lowered. But if we’re talking about criminal responsibility, which is what we often think about when we talk about war crimes, I think this diffusion of responsibility is going to make it very hard to identify any single individual who has the required mental state to give rise to accountability.

The second scenario is where the tool just makes a mistake based on the information available to it. We saw that with the attack on the girls’ school in Iran, where it was pretty clear the tool was looking at old data. Now, who’s responsible for that? 

Is it the people who said “give me targets based on this data set,” when they should have made sure the data and the maps were current? All of this strikes me as negligence or recklessness, and it does seem challenging to imagine a situation in which we would say yes, somebody here has committed a war crime. 

“There can well be war crimes, but identifying who the war criminal is might be a big challenge.”

A war crime has been committed, but is there a war criminal? That’s the situation we’re seeing. There can well be war crimes, but identifying who the war criminal is might be a big challenge.

There’s a professor of law, Rebecca Crootof, who proposes the idea of “war torts.” Instead of thinking about war crimes involving autonomous weapons solely through a criminal responsibility lens, maybe tort law — which allows victims to sue wrongdoers for negligent, reckless, or intentional harm — could address the diffusion of responsibility you mentioned. What do you think about that idea?

I think the idea is interesting. We have to separate out the obligations that countries have under international humanitarian law. In a situation like the one I just described, where there’s a war crime but no war criminal, that doesn’t mean the country is not responsible. There may not be an individual who’s criminally accountable, but if a country targets civilians in a circumstance that’s unreasonable, that’s a violation of international humanitarian law, and that could be a basis for claims between the two countries. 

Tribunals were established between Ethiopia and Eritrea, for instance, after the Eritrean War of Independence, that dealt with claims between the two countries for money damages, and some of them involved allegations of violations of the law of armed conflict. Iraq paid reparations after the first Gulf War for harms it had caused to people in Kuwait, under something called the UN Compensation Commission. So the idea that the state is responsible is well established, and one of the ways states would discharge that responsibility would be by paying money damages. That’s the domestic-law equivalent of torts.

Whether there would be a mechanism for [civilians] doing this in domestic law is an interesting idea. We would probably need legislatures, either state legislatures or the federal government, to create a private cause of action allowing people who have been injured to bring claims against, say, the manufacturers of these tools. But this gets procedurally very complicated, because there’s a whole body of law on federal sovereign immunity. 

Could you sue the Defense Department? Probably not. Could you sue an individual soldier? Probably not. Could you sue Anthropic or Palantir? Maybe. But it would probably require Congress to enact a new cause of action, because in general it’s very hard to bring private lawsuits in US courts for violations of international law.

The basic idea of what we would think of as tort or civil responsibility is really the whole essence of international law. On the substance, states do owe responsibility to one another, and they can engage in violations of international humanitarian law that would invoke their responsibility. But then the whole separate question is whether you have a forum within which to adjudicate that and get compensation.

Does that look different in cases where violations of international law were committed by a human soldier versus a machine?

Well, we don’t know, because there have been no cases in the latter category. All of the international humanitarian law violations that have been the subject of international law claims were ordered by humans. 

Now, if an American machine launches an attack against a girls’ school in Iran, and there were a court with jurisdiction, the US would be responsible. In some ways it wouldn’t matter whether it was an individual or a machine, because we don’t have to go down to the level of the individual actor, company, AI tool, or commander. The responsibility is the responsibility of the country. In some ways, that makes it easier.

If we pursued compensation through state-to-state claims, you’d be able to do that without getting into the details of who within the state that committed the war crime was responsible. The state whose school was attacked would say, “I don’t care. You committed a war crime, you’re liable to me, you’re responsible for the damages, and you can figure it out internally.”

But if we were doing something like a war crimes prosecution, where we’re trying to hold an individual criminally responsible, that would make quite a difference. We would have to deal with all of these difficult questions about responsibility and mental state that you and I are struggling with right now.

So, in most cases, the state would have to take responsibility regardless.

Right, and there are lots of [International Court of Justice] cases involving different aspects of the use of force. The principle that you can bring state-to-state claims for violation of these rules is quite well established. 

But with international law, states have to consent to the jurisdiction of a court. They can do that in advance by saying “I’ve signed up to the jurisdiction of a court and I accept any claims that might be brought against me in this court,” or they do it on a case-by-case basis. And it may not surprise you to know that some of the most powerful countries in the world, the ones most likely to use force outside their borders, have tended to be reluctant to accept the jurisdiction of international courts and tribunals.

Russia, the United States, Israel, and China have not accepted the so-called optional clause jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. So there’s the substance, about the responsibility of states, and then there are the procedural aspects of whether these cases could be brought in court.

And Trump recently said everyone on the International Criminal Court should “resign immediately.”

Yeah, exactly. 

And what about the role of these military tech companies, like Palantir?

“At what point does Palantir become a good target under international law? Or at what point does Anthropic become a good target under international law, if its AI tools are being used to promote the war effort?”

Another issue [I’ve been thinking on] because of the questions we’re talking about is when the companies themselves become combatants.

We know that a private company that manufactures airplanes, an airplane factory, is a good target under international law. At what point does Palantir become a good target under international law? Or at what point does Anthropic become a good target under international law, if its AI tools are being used to promote the war effort? I think that question is about when the connection of these private companies to the war effort, in a way we’ve never really seen before, meets the standards under international law.

A civilian loses their immunity when they directly participate in hostilities, or if they assume what is known as a “continuous combatant function.” Are there arguments to be made that some of these private companies are participating in hostilities by virtue of supplying the tools the military is using to wage war? I think that’s a really interesting question.

SpaceX’s Starlink and Starshield satellite communications services have been restored in Ukraine, allowing the country’s forces to operate drones at high speed, Defense Minister Yevhenii Khmara said on Saturday.

“The Ministry of Defense’s monitoring systems indicate that Starlink/Starshield speeds have been restored,” Khmara told reporters in WhatsApp messages. “We are recording speeds exceeding 400 km/h, and the connection is stable.”

Since last week, Kyiv had been reporting speed limits on Starshield, Starlink’s military-grade service, affecting Ukraine’s ability to use drones and carry out defensive strikes. The throttling came amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv, with Trump blaming President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for the continuation of the war with Russia.

On Friday, Ukrainian officials told POLITICO that drones continued to lose signal at speeds above 160 km/h, despite U.S. President Donald Trump saying on Thursday that SpaceX CEO Elon Musk had “put it back.” British Prime Minister Andy Burnham raised the issue in a phone call with Trump on Friday.

“This outcome is of primary importance for the front line, our military personnel, the operation of drones, logistics, and communications,” Khmara said.

He added that the ministry of defense would continue to “monitor and track the performance of Starlink/Starshield.”

The exposure was immense, with AI multiplying the risks — and yet time-tested global cybersecurity procedures appeared to be functioning. Then suddenly, it all broke down.        

The decision by a cybersecurity company on Wednesday to prematurely release information about a flaw in the popular PHP computer programming language left much of the web exposed to hackers, triggering a panic that brought to life months of warnings of how the AI-powered era could cause widespread damage.

The flaws in PHP, discovered using AI tools through a months-long process coordinated by OpenAI, caused cyber agencies across Europe, the U.S., the U.K., Australia and Canada to post urgent warnings Wednesday. Numerous governments took websites offline as a precaution.

While no major hacking damage was immediately apparent, the way the incident unfolded over 72 hours showed how easily cybersecurity processes can break down and the outsized consequences of cyber risks in the AI era.

The man who set off the chain reaction with the early release — Chainguard’s CEO Dan Lorenc — quickly apologized in a LinkedIn post. But on Thursday, in an interview with POLITICO, Lorenc said he’d shared the information ahead of time because the flaw was already being exploited. Though others disputed that, Lorenc said he believed he’d seen enough evidence to invalidate an embargo set up to allow time to find a fix for the flaws. 

While he disputed that his actions would have caused problems for other defenders, Lorenc conceded that the evidential threshold in these coordinated cyber defense systems is a “grey area.” 

The revelation of the PHP flaw brings out into the open what cyber officials have been bracing for since the arrival of the most powerful tools of artificial intelligence, which not only can be used to discover vulnerabilities but also to exploit them at scale. 

The cybersecurity world’s long-established protocols helped prevent disaster scenarios, in which hackers would have successfully exploited the vulnerabilities to take control of numerous websites and access their data. But now the scale and end-of-days potential of AI-driven cyber risks are visible for the world to see. 

This “is what happens when AI turns up a flaw that’s been hiding for years,” said Eylam Milner, co-founder and chief technology officer at cybersecurity start-up Echo. The vulnerabilities, he added, are “about as serious as it gets for the web.”

Origin story

Understanding how this week’s emergency unfolded offers a glimpse at how companies and authorities are working to stave off attacks — and how much risk they face going forward. 

The origins of the incident can be traced back as far as April when top frontier AI firm Anthropic unveiled Mythos, leading some in the cybersecurity world to worry that systems would quickly be overrun by advanced artificial intelligence, with potential for catastrophic events to ensue.

But while researchers did find more flaws in computer systems in the months after Anthropic and other AI firms like OpenAI released those models, they had little impact in the real world. Even the Hugging Face incident, a widely discussed hack that saw OpenAI’s autonomous AI agents go rogue during an internal security evaluation, related more to the level of control AI companies exert over their models than their power to break into systems worldwide. 

That changed this week after researchers unveiled the vulnerability in PHP, a coding language estimated to be integrated into some 70% of the web.

The process by which information about flaws is released among cybersecurity officials and affiliated companies is crucial. Through a longstanding practice known as coordinated disclosure, researchers and companies that identify flaws can find a fix and share it confidentially with agencies and others before releasing to the public, meaning they don’t hand malicious hackers the gift of a hole without a fix.

In the case of the PHP flaw, that process worked well, but not perfectly. Information about the bugs started to circulate ahead of the planned release time. Then, according to the PHP Foundation, Chainguard “unilaterally broke the embargo,” which “disregarded weeks of work by many parties toward a coordinated disclosure.” PHP Foundation executive director Elizabeth Barron told POLITICO by email that while it was “disappointed” with Chainguard, it hopes to “rebuild trust with them in the future to ensure we can continue to collaborate effectively.”

After the leak— which meant information about the bugs was in the open before the fix was ready — confusion quickly ensued, with government bodies and private companies choosing to temporarily shut down their websites rather than risk potentially damaging breaches to their data and the sites themselves.

Early Thursday, Matthew Prince, the CEO of Cloudflare, an internet services company that is widely used by websites to block cyberattacks, giving it a high level of visibility over what hackers are doing, said in a post on X that it had seen “millions” of attempts to exploit the flaw.

Cloudflare saw thousands in the 10 hours before the flaw was publicly announced, then tens of thousands in the 45 minutes after the announcement, hundreds of thousands within two hours, and now millions, Prince said.

Amazon’s cloud division also said the flaw is “now being broadly exploited in the wild.”

One senior U.S. government cyber official said that federal authorities have been overwhelmed — and not just by PHP. The same day the world was racing to address PHP, they were also dealing with bugs in node.js, a widely used JavaScript framework, Fortinet, GitHub and Oracle.

“The fire department is fighting multiple fires at once,” the official said, adding: “The good news is they’re all one-story structures on fire, which the fire department deals with all day, every day.”

More to come

Dauntingly, OpenAI said there’s more on the way. “These bugs are among several significant vulnerabilities we’ve already found and are working to fix, and we expect similar findings to increase sharply in the coming months,” the company said Wednesday in a statement.

Matthijs van Amelsfort, head of the Dutch cybersecurity agency, said in an interview that the job of keeping computer systems safe has been transformed by the advancement of AI. “As soon as the frontier models came out, that’s exactly what we said, this will be the trend,” he said. “And actually that’s happening now.”

Thomas Caspers, vice president of Germany’s cyber agency BSI, concurred: “We expect that [to be] happening more and more during the coming months.” 

AI also ramps up the risks once the flaws are out in the open. Cyber agencies’ recommendation that organizations take their websites offline was “really a drastic measure,” Caspers said. “We wouldn’t have done that a few years ago or so.” But because AI has made it quicker and easier to exploit flaws, “we had to do that,” he said. 

At the same time, the use of advanced AI to detect the flaws may create a new level of protection against malicious hackers looking to take advantage of them. Caspers said that though his German agency has also seen attacks, it has not seen any successful use of the flaw by hackers.

“It seems a little bit more complicated than expected to exploit,” he said. 

Despite the fact that AI offers a new way to discover flaws, the work involved in keeping systems protected is more quotidian, with cyber agencies urging organizations to install the fix shared by the PHP Foundation, in a process known as patching.

“There are three things that you have to do right now,” said van Amelsfort from the Dutch agency. “And that’s patch, patch, and patch.” 

John Sakellariadis contributed to this report.

This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.

Are we living through “Black October”? Maybe, according to cybersecurity experts who are raising the alarm about AI’s increasingly sophisticated and far-reaching hacking abilities. 

This week alone has seen a string of alarming incidents where AI uncovered previously unknown security flaws deep in the infrastructure of the internet. The most concerning involves something called PHP —  a programming language that, according to The Atlantic, is used by “as much as 70 percent of websites.” Cybersecurity researchers used AI to locate a major security breach in the technology.

It’s the kind of thing that, when it’s working, is practically invisible. When it stops, though, you really notice it: Government websites in the UK and Europe briefly went down earlier this week after the PHP vulnerability was discovered, as did some sites in the Wikipedia family, the Internet Archive, and many others.

The outages weren’t actually the result of a hack, but rather preventative action as web engineers took sites down to fix the vulnerability before it was exploited. But not every PHP-like issue will necessarily be uncovered before it can be exploited by someone using AI tools less ethically, and older websites relying on PHP might go unpatched. 

The problem doesn’t stop there, either: Concern is also rising around AI cybersecurity risks to ubiquitous conveniences like online banking. As Axios reported on Thursday, banks are detecting more and more “unauthorized third-party AI agents” operating inside of their systems. 

Those agents are mostly unauthorized by the banks, Axios explains — the holders of the bank account might have given them permission — but it still creates a security risk that executives described as “horrifying,” in part because banks can’t necessarily tell if an agent doesn’t have permission. 

It’s a lot to take in, all of it moving extremely quickly, and it’s hard to tell what any of us can do about it as AI labs continue to forge ahead with ever more competent AI models and agents. Luckily, my colleague Adam Clark Estes has some simple recommendations to shore up your own cybersecurity.

How do I respond right now?

One problem with hackers — even those that happen to be AI agents — is that they can be unpredictable. You won’t know to, say, lock down your Quest Diagnostics records before a breach happens. But whenever you find yourself wondering if your data is safe, that’s a good time to double check that you’ve at least covered your bases.

The National Cybersecurity Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to the safe use of technology, maintains a list of basic online safety practices that everyone should follow. In no particular order, here’s what to pay attention to now:

1. Keep your guard up. AI makes it difficult to know the difference between humans and robots. It’s a fact of life in the year 2026. So be extra careful to avoid engaging in potential phishing scams. Don’t reply to unknown texts, and do due diligence on texts or emails that look like they’re from people you know but just seem off. Don’t click weird links. Don’t give out personal info over the phone, even if it sounds like it’s someone you know. They might be scammers using AI to clone a loved one’s voice.
2. Update your software. Yes, it’s annoying to pause your phone or computer use for a few minutes to update your software, but this is one of the best ways to get rid of vulnerabilities. Companies like Apple and Google employ huge teams of security experts to spot these in their software and fix them with software updates. Do the updates.
3. Use a password manager or, even better, passkeys. Each of your online accounts should have a unique password that’s at least 16 characters. Yes, it’s impossible to remember that many passwords, so you should also use a password manager like 1Password or the app built into your iPhone or Android device.
4. Turn on multifactor authentication. Just in case you don’t already do it, make sure you use multifactor or two-step authentication for all your accounts, including email and social media. It can be annoying to type in a code or check your email while logging in, but hackers, including AI agents, will have a much harder time getting into your accounts if you take this step.

Taking all these measures is not a one-time affair. You have to be vigilant in keeping yourself safe online. Security experts have a term for this that’s almost too specific: cyber hygiene. Like brushing your teeth or taking a shower, take good care of your online life, and do it often.

One link for later

➨ Is it still possible to ban gerrymandering? The current US Supreme Court is very, very hostile to getting politics out of congressional map-making. But if Democrats win back power, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try. My colleague Ian Millhiser gamed out how they could do it in a way that survives the Court — as well as some approaches that almost certainly wouldn’t fly. But, he writes, the real trick will be finding a solution that functions the way Congress wants it to and can’t be exploited by mapmakers.

Before you go…

• Did you know…that the disease multiple sclerosis is misdiagnosed with surprising frequency? As many as 15 percent of diagnoses could be false positives — including that of Christina Applegate, who found out this week that she does not have MS despite a 2021 diagnosis.
• Today’s trivia: Which noble gas is radioactive and has the chemical symbol Rn? (You can find this and other brain puzzles in Vox’s daily crossword. Look for the answer in Monday’s edition.)
• Yesterday’s trivia: We asked what the plural was for multiple Toyota hybrids. That would be Prii, which Toyota officially confirmed in 2011 after holding a vote.

Let’s be honest. Nobody spends $2,000 on a phone and expects it to break a few hours later. Especially if all you’re doing is opening and closing the device.

Well, Apple’s first foldable iPhone, the iPhone Duo, launched today. Of course, it didn’t take long before reports of cracked screens hit the internet, giving many people who can’t wait to dunk on Apple all the ammunition they need to make jokes online.

Photos of damaged inner displays, with cracks around the hinge, are already showing up on Reddit and the MacRumors forums. Some photos also show phones with bright lines stretching across one side of the screen. One iPhone Duo owner claims their phone lasted only 6 hours and fewer than 20 openings before it began showing signs of damage. Not ideal, assuming all of these photos/claims are real.

Everything We Know About the iPhone Duo’s Screens Already Cracking

So, are people really having issues with these new iPhones already? According to PhoneArena, Reddit moderators verified the Australian owner’s damaged phone and replacement after reviewing additional photos and Apple repair paperwork. They couldn’t confirm the cause. The cause of the failure remains unsolved.

Apple hadn’t responded to The Verge’s request for comment at the time of publication, though PhoneArena reported that the owner said an Apple Store technician called it a “day one manufacturing error.” Of course, that isn’t an official statement from Apple.

As for how many iPhone Duos are out in the wild and already damaged, that number also remains a mystery. Odds are this won’t end up resembling the Red Ring of Death fiasco Microsoft dealt with all those years ago, though.

The post The $2,000 iPhone Duo Just Launched, and Owners Are Already Reporting Broken Screens appeared first on VICE.

💾

A complaint I hear a lot from my millennial peers is that our parents didn’t teach us enough about money. I can say that personal finance wasn’t dinner table conversation in my house, and even as I went off to college and started fending for myself, it was almost a taboo subject. When it came to money, people either had it or they didn’t, and you definitely didn’t talk about it. 

Maybe this is why the average American isn’t exactly fluent in personal finance, and the situation is getting worse. Americans can only answer about 50 percent of basic questions about borrowing, savings, and risk on a financial literacy survey, according to a 2026 study by TIAA, a retirement services company. About a third of those surveyed said they have a hard time making ends meet and are debt-constrained. These figures have remained relatively unchanged for nearly a decade, but dropped to their lowest level in this year’s study. 

It makes sense: It’s hard to learn about money when it’s not taught in schools, and it’s such an intensely private topic. It’s also hard to make good financial decisions when you’re one of the growing number of American households struggling to pay bills, repay debts, and save for the future — and feeling very stressed about it.

In a perfect world, each of us could sit down with a financial adviser to get help — but most of us can’t afford that. Instead, average Americans tend to find personal finance tips on TikTok, in Reddit threads, by watching Suze Orman on YouTube or How to Get Rich on Netflix, or by Googling their questions. 

Now we have AI tools, too. 

With access to an internet’s worth of information and financial advice, ChatGPT, Claude, and other AI chatbots can answer any question you ask. They can help you put together a basic budget or, armed with your bank statements and the details of your student loans and your retirement accounts, tailor solutions to your specific situation. Or, at least, that’s the promise.

AI could create a more utopian, more equitable future, where reliable, hyper-personalized advice is just a prompt or two away for people who can’t afford to meet with an expert in real life. But machines are built by people, and there’s good reason to be concerned that these machines will simply replicate the biases and disparities built into our current system.

Here’s what experts say about how to make the most of these tools — and how to think about all of the inherent risks of uploading a lot of personal financial information to a chatbot or, worse, giving an AI agent the keys to your bank account.

The steep rise, risks, and rewards of AI financial advisers

Nearly 20 percent of Americans have used AI tools like ChatGPT for financial advice, and close to 25 percent for Gen Z adults and millennials have tried it, according to an August Gallup poll. These numbers could tick up too: In October, OpenAI started rolling out a dedicated personal finance tool to its ChatGPT Free and Go users in the United States, which effectively means anyone can try it. ChatGPT Finances lets you securely connect your bank account to the tool using a platform called Plaid, and then you can basically have a conversation with the chatbot about your real-time finances down to the penny. It’s like an AI-powered Mint (RIP) that you can talk to directly.

Regardless of where you encounter a chatbot or how much data you give it, experts say these tools could genuinely help improve financial literacy. You can talk to them about money problems you’re too embarrassed to discuss with friends and family, or ask questions and receive actionable, personalized information. There are real upsides to using AI this way.

Taha Choukhmane, an associate professor of finance at the MIT Sloan School of Management, has been studying outcomes when people turn to chatbots for financial advice. In general, these AI tools give pretty good advice, and that advice gets better as people become more practiced in asking the right question, according to research he published earlier this year. 

“We were actually quite surprised that relative to the status quo, the average American would be better off if they were to follow the advice,” Choukhmane told me. But he added a caveat: “Just following the advice without understanding the advice puts you at risk of not fully understanding the risk.”

But you shouldn’t trust everything a chatbot tells you and should verify everything before making any decisions. 

Chatbot advice has some significant limitations. First, it’s not impartial. The finance industry has a vested interest in steering you toward certain ways of managing your money, and that typically means selling you products, like loans. If you’ve ever searched for personal finance tips on Google, you’ve probably noticed that a lot of the top results come from banks and other financial institutions. This is by design, according to John Campbell, an economics professor at Harvard. But because AI is aggregating all of that advice, the specific influences and possible bias is less obvious. 

“AI is very promising for providing low-cost financial advice in plain English that will arguably be better than what many people would be able to do on their own,” said Campbell, who’s also the co-author of Fixed: Why Personal Finance Is Broken and How to Make It Work for Everyone. “One caveat is that chatbot advice is quite likely — unless a model has been carefully trained — to reflect the average of whatever’s being posted on the internet, and that may or may not be first-rate advice.”

An example Campbell gives is the question of when to start taking Social Security benefits. While you’re eligible at age 62, many economists agree that you should delay your benefits, which, based on the way the government calculates your monthly payouts, will allow you to enjoy much higher benefits later in life. But paid financial advisers can recommend starting as early as possible, since waiting longer reduces the amount of money that needs to be managed, which reduces the adviser’s fees. That means there’s a lot of conflicting advice online, much of it supplied by the finance industry. And that’s the information used to train AI models.

“The advice is much more mixed,” Campbell said. “And so if a chatbot is learning from that, it may not actually give the best advice.”

It can be hard to recognize bad advice anywhere in life, but especially when you’re talking to a machine that’s programmed to please you. A chatbot could encourage you to consider a balance transfer, to lean in on credit card rewards, or to refinance your mortgage — all decisions with upsides and downsides for you, but definite upsides for banks — without you realizing how much of its training data comes from the finance industry selling these products. What’s worse is that if you do end up taking bad advice, it might be years before you realize it. You won’t know that you refinanced a mortgage at a bad time until a better time comes along.

That leads me to the other major issue with using chatbots for money advice: People who lack financial literacy are the most likely to fall for bad advice, because they simply don’t recognize it as such. They also tend to be less wealthy, which means they can’t afford big mistakes. 

One way to mitigate risk, oddly enough, is to give the AI chatbot more personal information. The more details about your situation it has to consider, the more it can offer personalized advice. More context also means better advice, according to Choukhmane. 

“There’s a trade-off there,” Choukhmane said. “There’s real risk around privacy, and so I think everyone needs to find their level of control.”

Don’t assume your data is safe

Any time you’re talking to a chatbot, you’re putting a lot of trust in tech companies to take care of the personal details you’re sharing. Sending sensitive financial data is an especially risky proposition. While tech companies, including OpenAI, promise to keep your data secure, there’s already a long list of breaches, leaks, and privacy violations that serve as cautionary tales.  

It’s also impossible to know what tech companies might do with your data in the future. Most of them will use it to train their models, unless you tell them not to. Some of them will use the data to serve you personalized ads. 

Then there’s the risk of bad actors getting into your ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini account. If you’ve been using a chatbot for financial advice and uploading your bank statements, a hacker could gain access to a stunning amount of information that could enable them to do all kinds of terrible things to your life. 

“They could steal your identity and open accounts and then quickly bankrupt a person,” said Delicia Reynolds Hand, a senior director at Consumer Reports. “It’s not even so much the primary underlying accounts that could be at risk, it’s more just access to this information.”

The steady march of AI progress is making this situation even more complicated. The previous era of chatbots offering financial advice is quickly bleeding into a new phase of AI agents logging into bank accounts on users’ behalf. If you’re using a tool like Claude Cowork or even an AI assistant like Muse, you can give an agent the login credentials to your bank account, and because the agent is operating its own computer, it can actually make transfers, apply for loans, or really do anything in your account. This is reportedly driving major banks wild, since they don’t know which logins are coming from humans and which are agents. And because we know that AI agents are unpredictable, it’s hard to know how that access might go wrong.

Beyond data security and privacy, you should also be aware of the simple fact that nobody’s really at fault if you end up losing money using these tools. Chatbots are not regulated in the way that human financial advisers, who have a fiduciary duty to act in your best interest, are. 

“If I get bad tax advice from H&R Block or a tax adviser, there are a clear set of rules and guardrails in place to manage what I can expect in that relationship and where the service they use has liability and where that liability ends,” Hand said. “Currently, that’s not the case for these tools.”

Trust but verify — and then delete your data

In the final years of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan popularized an old Russian proverb: Trust, but verify. The phrase is somewhat nonsensical, since trusting someone implies that you don’t need to verify what they’re saying, and verifying what’s said implies you didn’t trust them in the first place. But if you are willing to shoulder a bit of risk, consider approaching AI this way, especially when your life savings are on the line. I’d also suggest adding a coda to the phrase: And then delete your data.

Chatbots are not stand-ins for licensed financial advisers, he said, and you shouldn’t let them make decisions for you.

The great paradox with tools like ChatGPT and Claude is that they’re very good at generating truthy text. It sounds authoritative and looks correct — and usually is. Except when it isn’t. AI is famously unpredictable and prone to hallucinations. You can ask the same question twice and get two different answers. That doesn’t mean these tools are useless. It just means you have to approach them with caution. You have to interrogate these chatbots, challenge whatever advice they give you, and then crosscheck that with other, more reputable, sources. 

“If you’ve never used these tools, I would not encourage you to just change all your financial plans based on your first conversation,” Choukhmane said. “You want to be quite careful. Start using these tools, start understanding, ask a lot of follow-up questions.”

When it comes to mitigating risk, consider giving ballpark figures for your income or spending when you’re talking to a chatbot about your finances. Uploading financial documents, even if they’re redacted, is inevitably filling a tech company’s vault with your sensitive information without necessarily knowing what will happen to it next. You should also dig into your privacy and security settings to make sure you’ve turned on multi-factor authentication and that your personal data is not being used to train AI models and gets deleted after 30 days. 

Ethan Bloch, the product lead for ChatGPT for Financial Services, made a similar set of recommendations when I talked to him recently. Chatbots are not stand-ins for licensed financial advisers, he said, and you shouldn’t let them make decisions for you. They’re designed to inform and help you think through complex topics.

“You should liken it to just talking to a friend who has some very informed opinions about finance,” Bloch told me. “But if you’re actually making some large financial decision — your portfolio or retirement — you still need to seek out the help.”

Regardless of how experienced you are with chatbots or how much data you’re prepared to hand over, remember what Campbell, the Harvard professor, said. If your financial literacy isn’t great, AI chatbots can be trouble. And if you’re like most Americans, you could probably stand to learn a little bit more about things like mortgages and interest rates. 

Yes, Chatbots can be a good way to brush up on financial literacy. You can ask them the money questions you’re too embarrassed to discuss with friends and family. But you can also learn about money the old-fashioned way: Reading books and websites written by reputable, independent sources. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. has a portal of financial education resources, including games and quizzes. Khan Academy has a course that covers everything from credit scores to college savings. There’s a personal finance subreddit that I joined years ago and read almost daily. There are budgeting apps, like YNAB which has its own huge Reddit presence. 

Whatever you do to learn more about personal finance, simply doing something is progress. Talking about personal finance isn’t the taboo it once was in the US, and it’s even a required course in the vast majority of American high schools now. And while AI won’t magically solve your money problems, it can help get you started. Just be careful. Your livelihood could be on the line.

THE HAGUE — The European Commission should act “as soon as possible” to give clear guidance on U.S. sanctions against the International Criminal Court, its top administrative official told POLITICO in an interview.

Osvaldo Zavala Giler, who oversees the day-to-day functioning of the Hague-based court as the institution’s registrar, said his job became “preparing for sanctions” as the White House imposed an escalating regime of restrictions against it.

The Trump administration targeted prosecutors and judges from the court first in February 2025 before announcing blanket sanctions on Oct. 9 this year. The EU has repeatedly backed the Court against Washington, but it has resisted calls to activate a mechanism that would forbid firms from complying with U.S. laws.

That has agonized senior figures in The Hague. Zavala Giler said the Commission’s “lack of clarity” left private companies and NGOs in the dark over whether they should comply with sanctions decided by Washington — and what risks they face if they don’t.

Zavala Giler’s call to the Commission adds to pressure from EU lawmakers for a swift response after the Oct. 9 announcement. Kallas told the European Parliament on Tuesday that Brussels would use the next few months “to open dialogue” on the issue. The new sanctions are set to take effect in April next year.

“What I would hope is that the space for dialogue is not interpreted as a space for waiting to protect the court,” Zavala Giler said, who spoke from his glass office on the eve of a visit to the Court’s headquarters by the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.

Damocles sword

Anticipating sweeping sanctions, the Court spent six months abandoning U.S. tech providers and moving to an open-source software environment, and 20 months to make its financial transactions dollar-proof. That move has been a huge undertaking for Zavala Giler’s team, he said.

The Court initially deepened its reliance on U.S. technology after it was hit by a massive cyber attack in 2023, but what seemed a solution at that time became a problem in the face of sanctions. Even though the current regime includes a carveout for telecommunications, there is no guarantee it will remain the case.

“It becomes a sort of Damocles sword on top of our head that could be revoked at any time,” Zavala Giler said. “I cannot count on U.S. tech companies anymore.”

U.S. platforms operate as entire ecosystems, offering all-encompassing solutions under a single contract. To do without them, “you need to start creating your own architecture and systems that need to speak to each other,” the registrar said.

Financial autonomy was equally hard to achieve. The Court mapped all its suppliers’ transactions to ensure there was no U.S. nexus, meaning that no U.S. person, bank or currency is involved in a payment. “We made all of our staff members have European bank accounts. It was a very detailed process that we had to do, person by person, company by company, making sure that the contracts were in euros,” the registrar said.

The Court also went from working with tens of banks to only “a few,” since only a handful of institutions are comfortable with dollar-proof payments.

Chilling effect

That situation is likely to worsen without clear guidance from EU countries and the Commission. As Zavala Giler put it, “if the International Criminal Court cannot transact in Europe, in euros within the SEPA zone with no U.S. nexus, then there is a bigger question about European financial sovereignty.”

The Court has long called the EU to use a legislative shield — known as blocking statute — that would forbid EU firms from complying with U.S. sanctions. The request was backed by dozens of lawmakers at the European Parliament, which incidentally awarded the court its human rights Sakharov Prize on Thursday.

The blocking statute “becomes an instrument to reassert the minimum space that should not be affected by unilateral extraterritorial sanctions … that minimum space should be, at the very least, the eurozone,” Zavala Giler said. Even without it, the court needs “the reassurances that, at least within the eurozone, [it] can continue to operate,” he added.

So far, however, the Commission has taken a cautious approach, choosing dialogue with the U.S. as a way of “buying time,” as a EU diplomat put it to POLITICO.

In a balancing act, EU heads of state and government backed Brussels’ diplomatic effort at their summit last week, while also committing to do whatever is needed to support the Court.

“I hope that now that the European Council has opened this door, the Commission will feel more comfortable in taking an extra step. And at the very least, providing some kind of clear guidance,” Zavala Giler said.

As an intermediate step, the registrar suggested the use of “comfort letters” reassuring firms that they should not comply with the U.S. measures.

Zavala Giler stressed that sanctions were not only a matter to address for banks and tech operators, as the current uncertainty has already affected NGOs working with the Court. NGOs play a critical role in supporting the work of the Court, for instance “to provide reparations for victims in Uganda” or “to assist the work of the court in providing assistance to victims in Ukraine.”

“This has created an enormous chilling effect,” he said. “They don’t know if they have the legal protections or not, to continue supporting the work of the court.”

The registrar’s office overlooks the moat circling the court’s six towers across the compound’s 46,000 square meters. In one of these buildings, the trial of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte over alleged crimes against humanity is due to begin next month. Reporters who will cover the proceeds won’t be allowed to use their phones — only paper and pen.

It is Zavala Giler’s job to oversee this huge institution, which relies on secure communications, cross-border funding for investigations and the contribution of many NGOs.

“This court has for victims the promise of the never again,” Zavala Giler said.

KYIV — Ukrainian interceptors still cannot use the internet at high speed to shoot down Russian attack drones or conduct mid-strike operations as of Friday morning, Ukrainian officials and a drone operator said, despite U.S. President Donald Trump saying SpaceX founder Elon Musk had lifted speed restrictions on his Starshield service.

“Morning tests show the speed limits of 140–160 km/h are still there, and the navigation isn’t working properly,” a Ukrainian government official told POLITICO on condition of anonymity.

“As of this morning, instances of connectivity loss at speeds of 161 km/h are still being observed. There is currently no confirmation that the restrictions have been lifted,” a defense ministry official told reporters on Friday.

Ukrainian drone units started testing speed limits from Thursday evening, shortly after Trump told reporters that Musk had restored Starlink. While some tests recorded speeds of up to 200 km/h over the Black Sea and noted an improvement, the drones still rapidly lost signal once flying above the 160 km/h speed limit.

“So, the key point is: We accelerate above 180 km/h, fly for a couple of minutes, the connection drops. It falls to 140–150 km/h and then is re-established — but the situation is better,” a drone pilot from Ukraine’s top drone unit known as Magyar’s Birds told POLITICO. “So it works better, but with constant connection interruptions,” the pilot, whose call sign is Leon, said.

The speed limit on Starshield, Starlink’s service designed for military purposes, stalled key operations and partially disabled crucial drone interceptors against Russian Shaheds attack drones.

Musk said that the U.S. government controlled Starshield, while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the administration could not direct SpaceX or Musk regarding restrictions or slowdowns of Starlink services in Ukraine as it is a private company.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy argued the Starlink restriction was a planned operation to specifically restrict Starshield’s operating speed over Ukraine. The Ukrainian government said that it was not told why that had happened for days. However, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Trump had called Musk and asked him to lift restrictions.

“I don’t want to say. That’s a very interesting situation. My relationship with Elon is very good. I don’t want to comment on it, whether I called, or someone else called … The bottom line: he put it back,” Trump told reporters on Thursday evening.

U.S. President Donald Trump has the world’s war crimes court in his crosshairs.

By sanctioning the entire International Criminal Court, his administration is threatening its ability to function. Europe has rushed to the court’s defense — but can it actually protect it from American financial power? And how far is the European Union willing to go to confront Washington when it still relies so heavily on the U.S. for its own security?

Host Sarah Wheaton is joined by European Parliament lawmaker Dirk Gotink and Atlantic Council sanctions expert Lize de Kruijf to discuss Europe’s options, its dependence on the U.S. dollar and American technology and whether the EU can stand up for international justice.

If you have any questions or comments, send us a message on our WhatsApp here or at +32 491 05 06 29.

BRUSSELS — Centrist parties backing European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen clashed at Thursday’s European Parliament plenary over whether to hold artificial intelligence firms accountable for harm.

The EU executive had considered specific liability rules for AI in 2022, but withdrew these last year as part of the EU’s major simplification effort to make the bloc more competitive.

“To withdraw the AI liability directive was a big mistake,” said Alex Agius Saliba, a Maltese vice-president of the Socialists and Democrats, part of the majority coalition. “We strongly urge the Commission to bring forward this important piece of legislation.”

Thursday’s plenary debate, in which discussions centered on a global framework to regulate AI, showed strong tensions inside Europe between the centrist coalition backing von der Leyen. While the center-left pushed for new rules to address a series of AI-fueled hacking incidents, the center-right doubled down on simplification to ensure European companies can compete in the global AI race.

Socialist and Green lawmakers called for a new AI Liability Act in a bid to hold AI companies liable for harm done by their models, as with more traditional manufacturers’ products.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman floated a similar idea for a new liability framework for companies whose models are capable of autonomous cyberattacks in the wake of this summer’s hack by autonomous OpenAI agents into another AI platform, Hugging Face.

“If a phone charger explodes in your house, we never call it innovative. We call it cheap, dangerous junk, and we hold the manufacturer liable for damages,” said Dutch Green European Parliament lawmaker Kim van Sparrentak.

She urged the Commission to “stop scrapping rules to please [U.S. President Donald] Trump” and come up with a “strong new liability act that covers the testing and the development of AI.”

The debate quickly descended into a fierce back-and-forth between key AI-focused lawmakers from von der Leyen’s centrist coalition.

“It feels [to] me like the Greens and the Socialists are living [on] a completely different planet than the rest of us when they are screaming for more regulation,” said Swedish center-right lawmaker Arba Kokalari, who led the work on the AI omnibus, which delayed a core section of the EU’s flagship AI law.

She said the EU already had a comprehensive regulatory framework — the AI Act — of which some parts are not even into force, and said the EU should focus on avoiding falling behind in the global AI race instead. She called for “less bureaucracy, more private investments, better access to data and computing infrastructure.”

Italian Social Democrat Brando Benifei, who led work on the AI Act in the previous mandate, snapped back that Europe should lead with new liability rules, “or we will need to wait for the next blogpost of a CEO to know what is happening.”

German Green lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky also fired back at Kokalari: “What planet do you live on? Not on the planet where [AI] agents break out.”

International Partnerships Commissioner Jozef Síkela pointed out at the end of the debate that the rules were withdrawn because EU countries and European Parliament lawmakers couldn’t reach an agreement on them.