What looks like a 21st-century problem has deep, dark roots.

Ze speelde klavier met Mozart, had beroemde kunstzinnige vrienden en componeerde zelf ook: dus waarom kennen we Marianna Martines niet? Sopraan Hetherington en het Orkest van de Achttiende Eeuw laten horen dat haar muziek het luisteren waard is.

Voor haar derde album heeft Merol de damp van het maatschappelijk en persoonlijk slagveld geïnhaleerd, en teruggespuugd in twaalf lenige liedjes. Bij Seefeel glippen de klanken uit je oren zodra je ze probeert vast te houden en de mannen van ORBI zijn klassieke topmusici die écht geloofwaardig kunnen rocken.

Deze zaterdag wordt Péter Magyar geïnaugureerd als premier. Aan hem de taak de Hongaarse democratie te herstellen nadat Orbán er zestien jaar heeft huisgehouden. De les uit Polen, waar iets soortgelijks speelde, is dat heropbouw tijd kost, terwijl kiezers juist snel resultaat willen zien.

Makkers wild geraas staken, het is vrijdag, de boel de boel, de baas naar huis, vandaag een keertje niet Samantha de draden laten zien in het serverhok wegens Eurosport achter de command-tab en dan mag er subito een glas Italiaans kantoorbier in. De Giro d'Italia, de meest romantische wielerkoers van allemaal, met die majestueuze roze trui en die prachtige vrouwen en het stof en het zweet en de kleine iele schrale mannetjes die heel veel of heel weinig doping gebruiken. En dat dan allemaal met de eerste etappes in Bulgarije, met voorsprong het goorste land van de EU, alleen getopt door Noord-Macedonië en dat is geeneens EU. Als u in Sofia op de Vitosha Boulevard staat en naar de Cherni Vrah kijkt lijkt het misschien nog wat, maar aan het einde van de avond staat u weer met de poten in de klei van de Fetish Striptease Club en daar lichten ze u op, pakken ze uw geld af, jagen ze op uw creditcard en krijgt u ruzie met de knuisten van de uitsmijters. Ga daar NOOIT heen, het is een rotclub vol dieven, moordenaars, oplichters en schooiers, nog corrupter dan Yordan Letchkov, en de danseressen zijn opdringerig en vervelend bovendien. Dat allemaal van horen zeggen uiteraard! Nu de eerste etappe van de Giro d'Italia, in Bulgarije dus, met finish in Burgas. Twee Nederlandse kanshebbers: Dylan Groenewegen en Casper van Uden, al zal Johnny Milan wel winnen. Proost.

Reform leader irritated when asked about money from Christopher Harborne on day of party’s election gains

• Election 2026 live: latest news updates

Nigel Farage has repeatedly refused to answer questions about a personal gift of £5m he received from the billionaire Christopher Harborne, as the Reform UK leader sought on Friday to focus attention on the party’s election gains.

Farage was clearly irritated when asked on a number of occasions on Friday about the money, which the Guardian revealed he had received shortly before announcing he would stand in the 2024 general election and which was not declared.

Continue reading...

OPINION When President Donald Trump returned to power, he cast himself as the anti‑Biden on AI. First, he tore up Biden's Executive Order 14110, which had demanded "safe, secure, and trustworthy" AI. He then replaced it with his own "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence" directive, ordering agencies to rescind or dilute rules seen as obstacles to innovation. In short, American AI vendors could do anything they wanted. That was then. This is now. While Trump has yet to issue a new AI Executive Order, we know his crew is forming an AI working group of tech execs and government officials to bring oversight to AI. Specifically, they're considering requiring all new "high‑risk" AI frontier models to undergo a formal government review before they can be used. That's going to go over well. What we do know is that National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has said: "We're studying possibly an executive order to give a clear roadmap to everybody about how this is gonna go, and how future AIs that also potentially create vulnerabilities should go through a process so that they’re released into the wild after they've been proven safe – just like an FDA drug." Considering that people who ignore evidence now regulate healthcare in the United States, that doesn’t fill me with much confidence. Indeed, we now know the FDA blocked the publication of studies showing that COVID-19 and shingles vaccines were safe. Are these the kinds of people we want calling the shots on AI? Be that as it may, the Trump yes-men are framing this shift as a response to escalating cybersecurity and national‑security risks rather than as a broader embrace of EU‑style AI regulation. Yes, they're looking at Anthropic's Mythos and its potential use by hackers. At the same time, they emphasize that they want to avoid "onerous" controls on everyday AI applications. Frontier models that could supercharge cyberwarfare, bio‑threats, or other strategic dangers are another matter. That's quite a change from last summer when Trump babbled: "We have to grow that [AI] baby and let that baby thrive. We can't stop it. We can't stop it with politics. We can't stop it with foolish rules and even stupid rules." Now he seems to think rules would be a good thing. Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution, has suggested that Trump is returning to Biden's policy. Just don't tell him that; he'll have a fit. While Trump and company are still contemplating exactly how they want to rule – sorry, regulate – AI, the Department of Commerce's Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) announced new agreements with Google DeepMind, Microsoft, and xAI. According to these new policy statements, CAISI will conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security. CAISI director Chris Fall said: "Independent, rigorous measurement science is essential to understanding frontier AI and its national security implications." How to do this? Who will do this? What will it look like? Good question! Too bad we don’t have any answers yet. You may have noticed that Anthropic was not invited to this cozy policy get-together. Funny, that, since most observers think that Mythos was the model that broke the "do anything you want" AI camel's back in Trump's White House. That's because the months‑long feud between the administration and Anthropic is still simmering. Trump's team moved to block federal agencies from using the company's tools, and Anthropic is now challenging that policy in court. Recently, however, Trump's tone has softened. Trump told CNBC that Anthropic was "shaping up." If he can't get peace with Iran, maybe peace with Anthropic will please him. On the other hand, we also know that the Trumpies are considering forbidding companies from "interfering" with the government's use of AI models. You hear that, Anthropic? You will toe the line! Meanwhile, Gregory Falco, a Cornell assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, pointed out the obvious: "The federal government does not currently have the in-house technical expertise, infrastructure, or day-to-day insight needed to directly evaluate these systems on its own." Expertise is something Trump's cast of characters sorely lacks across any and all subjects. "At the same time," Falco continued, "a purely voluntary model of self-governance is not enough." After all, foxes are notorious guardians of chicken houses. What I think is going to happen is that AI vendors who play ball with Trump will end up "governing" AI alongside some Trump loyalists. It's going to be ugly. Some regulation is needed, but these are not the people who will do a good job of it. I won't be surprised if one of Trump's goals isn't so much to make AI safer as it is to ensure that the answers AI gives are the ones he and his regime want people to see. Today, for example, when I asked a variety of chatbots who lost the 2020 election, they all agreed Trump had lost. Funnily enough, when the Senate Judiciary Committee asked numerous Trump nominees for federal judgeships the same question, they universally refused to say he lost. For better or worse, most Americans don't pay attention to legal news. What they do, however, is ask AI chatbots for answers. Foolish of them, considering how inaccurate they can be, but there it is. If Trump's allowed to call the shots, I've little doubt that the approved bots will follow in the footsteps of his obedient judges and give the answers he wants and not the truth. ®

OPINION When President Donald Trump returned to power, he cast himself as the anti‑Biden on AI. First, he tore up Biden's Executive Order 14110, which had demanded "safe, secure, and trustworthy" AI. He then replaced it with his own "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence" directive, ordering agencies to rescind or dilute rules seen as obstacles to innovation. In short, American AI vendors could do anything they wanted. That was then. This is now. While Trump has yet to issue a new AI Executive Order, we know his crew is forming an AI working group of tech execs and government officials to bring oversight to AI. Specifically, they're considering requiring all new "high‑risk" AI frontier models to undergo a formal government review before they can be used. That's going to go over well. What we do know is that National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has said: "We're studying possibly an executive order to give a clear roadmap to everybody about how this is gonna go, and how future AIs that also potentially create vulnerabilities should go through a process so that they’re released into the wild after they've been proven safe – just like an FDA drug." Considering that people who ignore evidence now regulate healthcare in the United States, that doesn’t fill me with much confidence. Indeed, we now know the FDA blocked the publication of studies showing that COVID-19 and shingles vaccines were safe. Are these the kinds of people we want calling the shots on AI? Be that as it may, the Trump yes-men are framing this shift as a response to escalating cybersecurity and national‑security risks rather than as a broader embrace of EU‑style AI regulation. Yes, they're looking at Anthropic's Mythos and its potential use by hackers. At the same time, they emphasize that they want to avoid "onerous" controls on everyday AI applications. Frontier models that could supercharge cyberwarfare, bio‑threats, or other strategic dangers are another matter. That's quite a change from last summer when Trump babbled: "We have to grow that [AI] baby and let that baby thrive. We can't stop it. We can't stop it with politics. We can't stop it with foolish rules and even stupid rules." Now he seems to think rules would be a good thing. Darrell West, a senior fellow at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institution, has suggested that Trump is returning to Biden's policy. Just don't tell him that; he'll have a fit. While Trump and company are still contemplating exactly how they want to rule – sorry, regulate – AI, the Department of Commerce's Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) announced new agreements with Google DeepMind, Microsoft, and xAI. According to these new policy statements, CAISI will conduct pre-deployment evaluations and targeted research to better assess frontier AI capabilities and advance the state of AI security. CAISI director Chris Fall said: "Independent, rigorous measurement science is essential to understanding frontier AI and its national security implications." How to do this? Who will do this? What will it look like? Good question! Too bad we don’t have any answers yet. You may have noticed that Anthropic was not invited to this cozy policy get-together. Funny, that, since most observers think that Mythos was the model that broke the "do anything you want" AI camel's back in Trump's White House. That's because the months‑long feud between the administration and Anthropic is still simmering. Trump's team moved to block federal agencies from using the company's tools, and Anthropic is now challenging that policy in court. Recently, however, Trump's tone has softened. Trump told CNBC that Anthropic was "shaping up." If he can't get peace with Iran, maybe peace with Anthropic will please him. On the other hand, we also know that the Trumpies are considering forbidding companies from "interfering" with the government's use of AI models. You hear that, Anthropic? You will toe the line! Meanwhile, Gregory Falco, a Cornell assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, pointed out the obvious: "The federal government does not currently have the in-house technical expertise, infrastructure, or day-to-day insight needed to directly evaluate these systems on its own." Expertise is something Trump's cast of characters sorely lacks across any and all subjects. "At the same time," Falco continued, "a purely voluntary model of self-governance is not enough." After all, foxes are notorious guardians of chicken houses. What I think is going to happen is that AI vendors who play ball with Trump will end up "governing" AI alongside some Trump loyalists. It's going to be ugly. Some regulation is needed, but these are not the people who will do a good job of it. I won't be surprised if one of Trump's goals isn't so much to make AI safer as it is to ensure that the answers AI gives are the ones he and his regime want people to see. Today, for example, when I asked a variety of chatbots who lost the 2020 election, they all agreed Trump had lost. Funnily enough, when the Senate Judiciary Committee asked numerous Trump nominees for federal judgeships the same question, they universally refused to say he lost. For better or worse, most Americans don't pay attention to legal news. What they do, however, is ask AI chatbots for answers. Foolish of them, considering how inaccurate they can be, but there it is. If Trump's allowed to call the shots, I've little doubt that the approved bots will follow in the footsteps of his obedient judges and give the answers he wants and not the truth. ®

Thomas Hawk posted a photo:

date stamped on slide, December 1975

Thomas Hawk posted a photo: