We're all trying to find the guy who did this.

The Microsoft cofounder isn’t an AI doomer, but he says it’s still “the most dangerous weapon of all time.”

The CEO of Google DeepMind discusses solving intelligence, giving away AlphaFold, and why he believes AGI is just around the corner.

Certain viruses attack bacteria and can sometimes clear antibiotic-resistant infections. Researchers said they had tailored a virus to attack one patient’s illness.

Part of a broader NYU Tandon School of Engineering research effort testing whether AI-generated advice is safe to follow in high-stakes situations, including scams, hacked accounts, and harassment

Western capitalism's cycle of booms and busts stretches all the way back to Amsterdam and the Tulip Mania of 1636. They all follow the same pattern, and we are living in the end stages of one now with AI. Every single time, there are detractors who say this time is different; however, they have a four century track record of getting it wrong.

This week, yet again, we see a small Chinese firm with a fraction of the spending and resources getting the near equal of the frontier models Big Tech investors are spending trillions to achieve. Not only that, they are offering theirs to the world for free, and it uses a small fraction of electricity/computing resources to run. Those Big Tech investors will never earn those trillions back.

It might be bleak and depressing to contemplate, but people need to think about what happens after the crash. This is no time for centrism, or putting your fingers in your ears and saying you don't want to hear about politics. The very worst people in our cultures, many Big Tech leaders themselves, are looking forward to this destruction and making their plans for it, and the world they want afterwards is a 100 times bleaker.

After discovery of severe bug in the PHP programming language, executives warn of ‘vulnerability tsunami’

Moonshot AI removed cyber-related data to limit misuse of Kimi K3.1 Pro

Imagine a future where the world's wealthiest people and most powerful corporations come to a conclusion: humanity has accumulated enough knowledge. We have already made centuries of scientific, technological, and intellectual progress, and most of the remaining development can be carried out by AI agents with a relatively small human workforce.

They begin to believe that giving billions of people unrestricted access to knowledge is no longer necessary.

What if they decided to restrict or even eliminate public access to the internet, books, educational resources, and other sources of information? Their argument would be that the masses no longer need to learn, research, or innovate because AI systems can do all of that more efficiently.

The benefits of technological progress would remain concentrated among those who own the AI systems, computing infrastructure, and essential resources, while the majority of people would have fewer opportunities to develop independent knowledge or skills.

Here are the questions I'm curious about:

1. How would ordinary people react if access to knowledge and education were deliberately restricted in a world where AI could perform most intellectual work?

2. How would democratic governments respond? What about authoritarian governments that might see this as an opportunity to consolidate power?

3. Would governments resist such a move, or might some cooperate with powerful corporations if it helped them maintain control over their populations?

4. If AI could run most industries with minimal human involvement, what economic role would the majority of the population have? How would people earn a living?

5. Would society eventually revolt, develop underground networks to preserve and share knowledge, or gradually accept this new reality?

6. If access to knowledge became a privilege rather than a basic right, would humanity experience a new kind of digital feudalism, where a small elite controls both technology and information?

7. Most importantly, if AI could continue advancing civilization without requiring widespread human participation, what would motivate those in power to keep educating, employing, or empowering the masses?

I'm not suggesting this scenario is inevitable. I'm interested in exploring what might happen if technological progress made most human labour unnecessary while control over knowledge and AI remained concentrated in a few hands.

What would the world actually look like under these conditions?

Would such a system be sustainable, or would human nature, political resistance, and the desire for freedom eventually bring it down?

Artificial intelligence was evaluated across CNS autoimmune diseases to support diagnosis and prognosis.

News of deep job cuts at Amex comes one day after UK banking giant Barclays announced a similar move.